I"1

IL !nv. Nr. 12 2 V.sr

Edited by John Deely,

Brooke Williams, and Felicia E. Kruse

FRONTIERS
in
SEMIOTICS

INDIANA UNIVERSITY PRESS

Bloomington
 Copyright ® 1986 by John N. Dccly

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, cleitrnnit or mcihnnual. in­
cluding photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses' Resolution on Permissions (onstiiutes
the only exception to this prohibition.

Manufactured in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Main entry under title:

FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
I. Semiotics—Addresses, essays, lectures.
I. Deely, John N. II. Williams, Brooke. III. Kruse, Felicia E.
P99.F76 1986 001.51 85-45982
ISBN 0-253-34605-3
i
ISBN 0-253-20371-6 (pbk.)

1 2 3 4 5 90 89 88 87 86
 This collection is dedicated to
the editors of
Speech Surrogates: Drum and Whistle Systems
( = Approaches to Semiotics 23; Den Haag: Mouton 1976)

William Blake marvelled

at those able to see the world in a grain of sand;
we marvel as well
at those able to see a grain of sand in the world.

The philosophers speak of universal reason;

the linguists, anthropologists, folklorists, and their kin
speak rather of infinite detail,
while the physicists confirm both.

In medias stat virtus:

ab ambos et ad invicem dedicatur sequelus scriptus.
 CONTENTS:

EDITORS’ PREFACE Vll ‘‘Pars Pro Toto”

vii A. Fad versus Revolution
xi B. Attaining the Being
Proper to Experience
xiv C. Structure of the Volume

XVlll Description of Contributions

and List of Permissions

I. The Name and Its Context

JOHN LOCKE 3 Coining the Name

JOHN DEELY 5 The Coalescence of
Semiotic Consciousness
THOMAS A. SEBEOK 35 The Doctrine of Signs

II. Semiotic Systems:

Anthroposemiotics, Zoosemiotics, Phytosemiotics

DONALD PREZIOSI 44 The Multimodality

of Communicative Events
JACQUES MARITAIN 51 Language
and the Theory of Sign
UMBERTO ECO, 63 “Latratus Canis”
ROBERTO LAMBERTINI, or: The Dog’s Barking
COSTANTINO MARMO,
ANDREA TABARRONI
THOMAS A. SEBEOK 74 The Notion of Zoosemiotics
THOMAS A. SEBEOK 76 “Talking” with Animals:
Zoosemiotics Explained
MARTIN KRAMPEN 83 Phytosemiotics
JOHN DEELY 96 On the Notion of
Phytosemiotics

vi
 III. Developing Themes

T. L. SHORT 105 Life among the Legisigns

FLOYD MERRELL 120 Structuralism and Beyond:
A Critique of Presuppositions

IV. Reshaping Traditional Spheres:

Some Regional Applications

EUGEN BAER 140 The Medical Symptom

UMBERTO ECO 153 On Symbols
IRENE PORTIS WINNER 181 Semiotics of Culture
MICHAEL HERZFELD 185 Disemia
ROBERTA KEVELSON 191 Prolegomena to a Comparative
Legal Semiotic
RICHARD LANIGAN 199 Semiotics, Communicology,
and Plato’s Sophist
BROOKE WILLIAMS 217 History in Relation to Semiotic
LUIGI ROMEO 224 Heraclitus and the
Foundations of Semiotics

V. The Name and Its Direction

JOSEPH RANSDELL 236 Semiotic Objectivity

THOMAS A. SEBEOK 255 < < Semiotics” and Its Congeners

JOHN DEELY 264 Semiotic

as Framework and Direction

272 Notes
289 References
290 Explanation of Reference Style
(Historical Layering)
323 Index

vii
 EDITORS’ PREFACE

cc
Pars pro Toto

C < Pars pro toto”—a part taken to represent a whole—is familiar as an ex­

pression used to name the literary device of synecdoche, as when the proud youth
pulls up to a friend’s house in a new car, and asks the friend what he thinks of
her “wheels”.
Here, however, we are using this ancient expression to name rather a fallacy,
one that is in many respects distinctively modern (a byproduct, as it were, of
overspecialization), namely, the fallacy of mistaking the part for the whole, or
of treating some part as if (“practically speaking”) it were the whole.

A. Fad versus Revolution

Wray Herbert, writing in a recent issue of Humanities Report III. 1 (January 1981),
4-9, rightly pondered whether semiotics is a fad or a revolution. Our answer is
that it is indeed both, but the fad should not be taken for the revolution.
The “fad” aspect of semiotics is well-represented in the recent collection of
essays edited by Marshall Blonsky, On Signs (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1985). In his “Preface”, Blonsky, with wistful nostalgia, refers
two of the three parts of his collection to “the heady days” of “the seventies”
(VII), days of which “probably it will be difficult for the reader to form a con­
cept” (VIII). Even the third—and final—part (VIII-IX) looks forward only to
carrying the “clean theory” of the “heady days” into “turbulent application”,
to realizing “a desire for a new life for semiotics” in the wake of the deaths of
Foucault, Lacan, and Jakobson. In short, Blonsky sees semiotics as a retrospec­
tive development (“Introduction”, L), applying to it Hegel’s metaphor of the
Owl of Wisdom who only flies toward evening.
The perspective of the present collection of essays is just the opposite. We see
semiotics as a radically prospective development. It is a phenomenon of dawn
rather than twilight. We agree with Blonsky that we have reached the point “when
a period is ending”. We agree that the fad for semiotics is part of that ending.
;i Where we disagree is in our assessment of the fad’s fading. The problem is not
11
to revive it somehow. The fad is passing. It is time to get on with the revolution.
I Semiotics in popular consciousness is misleadingly identified with structuralism
and literary criticism, with exclusively cultural concerns. Such a view both distorts
the actual state of semiotics today* and conceals the breadth of possibilities that
the development of a doctrine of signs provides. Arthur Berger, for example (1982:

* Sebeok describes it as follows (1977: 182): “The chronology of semiotic inquiry so far,
viewed panoramically, exhibits an oscillation between two seemingly antithetical tenden-

viii
 EDITORS' PREFACE LX

14, 17), writes that “semiology” is “also sometimes called semiotics”, and that
“the essential breakthrough of semiology is to take linguistics as a model and apply
linguistic concepts to other phenomena—texts—and not just to language itself.”
In representations such as this, the part is not only mistaken for the whole, but
actually conceals it. Thomas Sebeok, writing for the International Semiotic Spectrum
(No. 2, June 1984), puts the matter bluntly:
Terence Hawkes recently informed his readers [1977: 124] that the bounda­
ries of semiotics “are coterminous with those of structuralism” and that “the
interests of the two spheres are not fundamentally separate . . Nothing
could be a more deluded misconstrual of the facts of the matter, but the spe­
ciousness of this and associated historical deformations are due to our own
inertia in having hitherto neglected the serious exploration of our true lineage.
This assessment is harsh as well as blunt, but, in this regard, the actual develop­
ment of semiotics in our time provides a number of clues which should not be
neglected in our attempts to interpret what sort of phenomenon we are dealing
with.1 “While every contributor” to semiotic matters, Sebeok remarks below (p.
256), “may indulge his personal taste when attaching a label to the theory of
signs”, the terminology within the same piece of discourse will not oscillate ad
libitum, for the “initial selection will have signaled” to the sophisticated readership
with what tradition the author in question has chosen to align himself or herself.
It is well known that semiotics as we find it around us today is a highly diver­
sified and vigorous intellectual phenomenon whose dynamics and nature are far
from well understood, but which traces itself back to two contemporaneous
pioneers, one in the field of linguistics, and one in the field of philosophy. The
first of these, Ferdinand de Saussure, envisioned the possible developments under
the label of semiology, a term he adapted from existing usage, fashioned of course
from the Greek semeion. The second, C. S. Peirce, chose rather the name semiotic,
also fashioned from the Greek, but not of Peirce’s own coining. Peirce derived
his vision of the possible development we now see being actualized, as he himself
tells us, from the text with which Locke concludes his Essay Concerning Human
Understanding. Though often regarded and treated (e.g., Parret 1984) as opposed
and competing factions, these two sociologically distinct traditions are better
understood under a “part-whole” analogy, inasmuch as the Poinsot-Locke-
Peirce2 tradition is inclusive of, rather than in opposition to, the more limited
glottocentric perspective developed out of Saussure.
For Saussure, the “science” of signs was to be a branch of social psychology,
and linguistics a subspecies within that branch, albeit the most important one.
Of this “possible science”, of course, Saussure himself did not say a great deal.

cies: in the major tradition (which I am tempted to christen a Catholic heritage), semiosis
takes its place as a normal occurrence of nature, of which, to be sure, language—that para­
mount known mode of terrestrial communication which is Lamarckian in style (that is,
embodies a learning process that becomes part of the evolutionary legacy of the ensuing
generations)—forms an important if relatively recent component. . . .
“The minor trend, which is parochially glottocentric, asserts, sometimes with sophistica­
tion but at other times with embarrassing naivete, that linguistics serves as the model for
the rest of semiotics—Saussure’s le patron general—because of the allegedly arbitrary and
conventional character of the verbal sign.”
 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

But he did wisely caution that, “since it does not yet exist, one cannot say what
form it will take” (i. 1906-1911: 33)—a wise caution largely ignored, it must be
said, by even the most brilliant of those in our own day who took their inspira­
tion from Saussure and proceeded to develop a “science” of signs centered ex­
clusively on literary texts and the other artifacts of culture which were always
treated on the patterns of language and almost as of a piece with it. Within this
tradition, it must be said, the possibilities of semiotic understanding, though very
rich and diversified, have always been restricted in highly artificial ways in terms
of what has been called—for present purposes indifferently—by some glottocen-
trism and by others logocentrism.
To this extent, semiotic development has undoubtedly been unable to free
itself from the coils of modern philosophy, and the work of the Kantian critiques
in particular, according to which precisely there is no world known or knowable
beyond the phenomena constructed by the understanding itself according to its
own hidden mechanisms and ineluctable laws. Writing within this tradition,
Terence Hawkes reminds us (1977: 18) that:
It follows that the ultimate quarry of structuralist thinking will be the per­
manent structures into which individual human acts, perceptions, stances
fit, and from which they derive their final nature. This will finally involve
what Fredric Jameson has described as [1972: 209] “an explicit search for
the permanent structures of the mind itself, the organizational categories
and forms through which the mind is able to experience the world, or to
organize a meaning in what is essentially in itself meaningless”.
This tradition, as noted above, originally flourished under the banner of
semiology, a term which today remains far from desuetude. It has, however, been
greatly and increasingly influenced in recent years by the other semiotic tradi­
tion, which develops not from Saussure but from Peirce and Morris and a number
of scientific workers. It does not seem too much to say that it has been under
the pressures of this influence that we have witnessed the coming into being,
alongside the term “semiologie”, the newer term “semiotique”, a term which,
without displacing “semiologie” entirely, has come to dominate over it and, to
a certain extent, replace it, without, however, so far removing the intractable bias
toward glottocentrism and philosophical idealism that has so far characterized
semiotic development, particularly in the Romance areas. We are dealing here
with something more than “the simultaneous multilingual interplay of polysemy”
described below by Sebeok (p. 254). We are dealing with that, but as indexical
in the circumstances of something more fundamental.
Martin Heidegger, for example, himself a German, is among modern
philosophers the one who struggled most against the coils of modern idealism,
and in the direction of a semiotic. His failure to free himself from the modem
logocentrism is a testimony to its pervasiveness in modem culture, to be sure,
and to the scale of the task semiotic in its fullest possibilities has to face (see Reading
23 below); yet in the debate between realism and idealism, he is the one (1927:
207) who perhaps most clearly brought to the fore the fact (highlighted in Section
II of Reading 3 below) that, whatever its drawbacks and “no matter how con­
trary and untenable it may be in its results,” idealism “has an advantage in prin­
ciple” over realism, by the simple fact that whenever we observe anything, that
 EDITORS’ PREFACE xi

observation already presupposes a semiosis whereby the object observed came

to exist as object—that is to say, as perceived or known—in the first place.
No one, including Heidegger, realizes this fact better than the semiotician.
Indeed, it is the realization that the whole of human experience, without excep­
tion, is an interpretive structure mediated and sustained by signs, that is at the
heart of semiotics. So it is perhaps not surprising that much of the original semiotic
development in our times took place along the tracks and lines of a classical idealism
in the modem sense.
The structuralist analysis of texts and narratives is particularly comfortable
within such an environment and climate of thought. Yet we are entitled to wonder
if such a perspective is enough to allow for the full development of the possibilities
inherent in the notion of a doctrine of signs—to wonder if the “way of signs”
Locke concludes his Essay by suggesting does not lead outside of and well beyond
the classical “way of ideas” with which rather he began the Essay and which almost
exclusively influenced the classical formation of modern thought.
Such a development seems to be what is taking place in the larger tradition
of semiotics today, if we keep in mind that what we are faced with under this
label is not a purely contemporary development but, as Sebeok remarks (1976a:
272), “an ancient discipline” or stream of thought that winds backward from
Peirce to the remotest times, as recent work has begun to exhibit.
This development does not take its principal or almost exclusive inspiration
from human language and speech. It sees in semiosis a much more fundamental
and broader process, involving the physical universe itself in the process of human
semiosis, and making of semiosis among humans a part of semiosis in nature.
Abduction, the process whereby alone new ideas are seized upon, later to be
developed deductively and tested inductively, beginning again the cycle—or,
rather, spiral (see p. 29 below)—is first of all, as Peirce remarked (1898b: 30-31),
a phenomenon of nature. It works with constructed signs, but not only with con­
structed signs, and not with constructed signs first of all.
Consider the “two fundamental insights” on which the semiological side of
semiotics today rests (Culler 1976: 4): social and cultural phenomena “are ob­
jects or events with meaning, and hence signs”, and they “do not have essences
but are defined by a network of relations”. If it is a question of phenomena which
have a meaning, the discovery of evolution at every level of nature has long since
shown that nothing in the universe can rightly be excluded, if we but look long
enough and wait to see where things lead; and as to the matter of “essences”,
Culler’s negative assessment can just as well (if not better) be put positively: the
essence of a semiotic phenomenon as such consists in the network of relations
whereby one thing stands for and leads to another.
No matter how we approach the matter, in short, the study of signs cannot
be confined to the boundaries of the artifactual nor measured by the paradigm
of linguistic exchanges. To study the sign is to uncover a web as vast as nature
itself, a whole of which, to borrow Sebeok’s recent formulary (1984b: 2), “that
miniscule segment of nature some anthropologists grandly compartmentalize as
culture” remains but a part, even if, from our point of view, the most privileged
part—the part from which our interpretations always arise and to which, in­
evitably, they recur, in our asymptotic efforts to encompass by understanding
the web of nature in its totality and in all its implications for anthroposemiosis.
 I

xii FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Even as a provisional sketch, many of whose terms are far from fixed, the follow­
ing diagram, deploying from Sebeok’s metaphor of the web, is useful as a measure
of the actual scope and potential development of the current semiotics movement:
THE "SEMIOTIC WEB”
(The Study of Signs)
I
I
the Field of toward a Foundational
Signifying Phenomena: Doctrine of Signs:
SEMIOTICS SEMIOTIC
1
r r i
Non-Living Systems Living Systems Saussurean \ Peircean Neglected
(which signify to (organisms): Tradition: \Tradition Figures:
cognizing organisms): BIOSEMIOTICS become largely \ Buhltr
PROTERO- _____________ |_ STRUCTURALISM \ (Innis 1982).
SEMIOTICS I ("Semiology"), \ CothngwooJ
in General: in Their i.e., theories \ (Russell 1981),
1 Cognitive Life extrapolated from \ Luba
r 1 I linguistic models \
i (Kcvelson 1981c),
Internally in Their I'oimot
Considered: External Animal Organisms Human Organisms:
\ (Deely 1985),
ENDO- Relations ZOOSEMIOTICS ANTH ROPOSEMIOTICS
\ Smart
SEMIOTICS PHYTO­ 1 \
(Eschhach 1978).
1 \
SEMIOTICS r
Systems Pre-Linguistic / language Post-Linguistic
\
ion Utxkull
\ (Scbeok 1979).
Proper to Structures \1 (dependent upon Stuctures: \ m
Non-Human (overlapping \ understanding) Cultural Processes \
Species human and animal '
experience: see csp. \\
and Artifacts \
of Animal
T T
\
Scbeok 1972, 1975a) '
\ \ Art I Folklore \
Ritual I Film
F-tc. |
\
Architecture Literature Music
L
T
Cultural Phenomena considered as “Texts"
(by analogy to language),
i.e., partially considered
(in a pure semiotic dimension
projectivcly fixed):
STRUCTURALIST ANAL YSES
("SEMIOLOGY”)
Attaining the Being Proper to Experience
The semiotic revolution concerns, first of all, our understanding of human ex­
perience itself, and therewith all of human knowledge and belief. What semiotics
at this point has shown is that the whole of human experience—the whole of it—
is mediated by signs. Root and branches, to borrow Descartes’ metaphor (1648:
14), knowledge and experience in their development and structure throughout
are a local product of semiosis.
For Locke, the first task of semiotic was to bring ideas along with words into
the perspective of the sign. In fact, unbeknownst to Locke, this task had already
been completed in a work published in the year of his birth by his older Iberian
contemporary, John Poinsot. Manifestly, with the idea or concept (the in-
traorganismic means of cognizing, let us say) established as a sign in its proper
being, interpretation generally, the whole of understanding and perception, in­
: cluding its “transmission” in communication, had been identified as a semiotic
phenomenon. Sensation itself* might still arguably lie outside the prospectus of
;
* particularly the “simple sensations” of the Empiricists or “proper sensibles” of the
Aristotelians—the bedrock of experience and ultimate referent of understanding for all but
the partisans of innate ideas (but innate ideas, being ideas, are already within the orbit
of semiotic).
 EDITORS’ PREFACE xiii

the new Division of the Sciences as concerns the means of achieving speculative
and practical grasps of things: but this redoubt too had already fallen to Latin
and Iberian analyses summarized and extended by Poinsot, in his demonstration
that even the most irreducible and proper of the “sensibles”, the most limited
and subjective of the purviews whereby an organism takes account of its surround­
ings, let us say, are irretrievably semiotic in their deliverances to the deliberating
organism seeking its needs beyond itself.
With this comes the realization that nothing of the conscious mind extends
beyond the nourishing surround of the signifying, neither the sensory roots of
thought nor its perceptual and intellectual branches: whatever leaves and variety
of fruit this mind might later achieve, it achieves on the basis of its semiosis, be
the achievement gnoseological or ideological. Nil est in intellectum nec in sensum quod
non prius habeatur in signo—“There is nothing in the understanding nor in sense
which was not first contained in a sign”.
Implied is an integral model of human experience in which language has its place
and decisive place within anthroposemiosis, but without being absorbtive of all
that precedes and follows upon it in experience—a model, as it were, responsive,
in the larger perspective of semiosis as a phenomenon of nature, to Benveniste’s
penetrating question (1969: 1): “What is the place of language among the systems
of signs?” A first answer to the query might be represented in the following schema
(which we abstract from the fuller narrative context accompanying the presenta­
tion of the model in Part II of Introducing Semiotic):

Ingroup

}
Experience of
Poet-Linguistic
Structures

Military Establishment
Civil Government

Out-group
Religious Traditions Experience of
Post-Linguistic
Structures

Human
LANGUAGE Experience

Expressing 'Anthroposemiotia
Evaluating

Remembering Imagining
Animal
Synthesis Experience
Plurality
^ Zoosemiotics
Positions
Tastes
Shapes ) "twors
V Movements Sues
Colors
Sounds
Textures

Undercurrents Independent of Biosemiotic Activity

 xiv FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Based on such a model, if we adopt in imagination the point of view of an

alien—either a cultural outsider or a visitor from another planetary system—
observing afresh life in a given region of anthroposemiosis, what would appear
at the outset would be a series of regularities or “natural systems”. These, upon
examination, would reveal themselves as objects or patterns at once of percep­
tion and of understanding—that is, as perceivable patterns (such as the bowing
toward Mecca at specific times among devout Moslems) ultimately dependent
upon shared customs sustained by linguistic contents directly inaccessible to pre-
linguistic and nonlinguistic channels of interpretation. Sustaining these patterns,
in the sense of being presupposed to their possibility in the first place, would be
a further set of regularities or “natural systems” comprised of cognition-
independent relations of the human organisms to one another and to their sur­
roundings.
The dependent and derivative patterns, in short—those whose proper con­
tent requires language to access directly, for all that they have of outward
perceptibility—reveal themselves eventually as carried by and conflated with the
independent networks. (Whether these networks are antecedently or subsequent­
ly independent would have to be further determined, but, at a given moment,
they are independent nonetheless.) The whole network, at first apparent sim­
ply as a web of perceptible patterns, finally appears as dependent for its inter­
pretation on an imperceptible content lending structure to the perceptible insofar
as it signifies and conveys precisely the historical experience of the individual and
group.
It is this content that properly constitutes anthroposemiosis in its distinction
from zoosemiosis and the further forms of physiosemiosis. This content transpires
through the “feeding into” the diaphanous interface of language of so-called
primary networks—i.e., those comprised of perceptually accessible elements as
such—carried by social interaction. What emerges “across the interface” and “on
its other side”, so to speak, is not language, but enculturated social interactions—
an animal society no longer just zoosemiotic but now a potentialy cultural system
as well, which will become actualized in this new and further dimension without
losing something of its foundational character as zoosemiotic, with all the
physiosemiological elements that zoosemiosis further involves.
It is a question of transformation, but transformation from within, and using
all the former means according to a new formality and content no longer irrecusably
tied to the physical organism as such in its here and now interaction with other
organisms or other physical elements as such of the environment. It is a question
now of a content cognitively separable and linguistically conveyed in vehicles which de­
pend upon perception (and therefore zoosemiosis) at every point but are not reducible
to what perception as such attains. Now the cumulative transmission of learning—
'< cultural tradition as distinct from social tradition and life, and separable from it*
: —for the first time becomes possible, at the anthroposemiotic summit of
biosemiosis. This cumulative transmission presupposes all that goes before it in
semiosis, but constitutes a new and distinct dimension or level, different in kind,
. and not reducible, as appears in the following table:
;
*not as here and now realized, but as transmissible, or, rather, recoverable even by outsiders later
in time, as the Middle Ages “recovered” Aristotle, or the Renaissance, Plato.
 EDITORS’ PREFACE XV

Tb« "UNREALITIES''

nxnatory
(Out-Group)
Experiential Starting Point
tor Any Arum*/ secc^dary;;;'-''^^^-

Encounter abie
NATURAL SYSTEMS
INTERFACE

“REALITIES" ot Experience

But the clarification along such lines is predicated on an accurate understan­

ding of the structure of human experience—that is to say, an integrally semiotic
one—and of the central, but not all-consuming, role of language therein.
Much, of course, remains to be clarified. It is a work of many hands and many
generations; but to begin it well is for that reason all the more important, accord­
ing to the saying of Aristotle (c.335-334BC: 1098a20-25) that time is a good part­
ner in the work of advancing what has once been well outlined.

C. The Structure of the Volume

The individual readings are treated in the descriptive list following. Here we need
explain only the structure of the volume as a whole, and in its specific articula­
tion. We have already indicated the general perspective which animates the book.
In terms of this perspective, which thinks in terms of the whole of semiosis and
not just that part of the whole, as Paul Perron put it (1983: 1), where the sign
is “first of all a construct”, a number of clarifications become possible which are
of the first importance for semiotics itself as a movement defining its own future
and seizing upon the unique opportunities opened up by the developing doctrine
of signs in our day. For the first time in perhaps three hundred years, we have
a perspective which is inherendy transdisciplinary. As a consequence, this perspec­
tive makes it possible to lay new foundations for the human sciences, foundations
projecting in turn the possibility of a new superstructure for the humanities and
the so-called hard or natural sciences alike. Such a framework has been often
dreamed of, but semiotics for the first time puts it within our reach, provided
only that, escaping the pars pro toto fallacy, we entertain an understanding of the
sign and its essential functionings sufficiently rich to preclude the closing off of
semiotic research within the sphere of language and the constructed signs of which
Perron speaks.
It is its interdisciplinary, or, rather, tomjdisciplinary, character, in fact, which
is the key to semiotics’ appeal and its future success; and it is this character of
the current movement that we have tried to emphasize in our collection. Inasmuch
as every activity of the interpreting animal moves in the environment of the signi­
fying, it is reflection on this dimension as pervading all experience that constitutes
xvi FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

semiotics in the broadest sense. The semiotic dimension of specific kinds of inter­
pretive activity (concerned, for example, with film arts rather than with cyclotrons
or neurosurgery, or, conversely, with chemistry rather than with architecture and
linguistics) gives rise similarly to specific semiotic reflections; yet these varieties
of interpretive activity, for all their specificity, depend on semiosis as their ground
of prior possibility and share its properties in both overlapping and sometimes
fully common ways.
This breadth of the semiotic perspective—all-encompassing, as we have said,
and enhancive of rather than competitive with or alternative to the traditional
concerns of academic lines of specialization—has best been shown, perhaps, in
the writing of the group of researchers, too loose to be called a school, too diver­
sified to be called American, associated with the Research Center for Language
and Semiotic Studies at Indiana University in Bloomington under the Chairman­
ship of Thomas A. Sebeok.
In fact, all of the authors brought together in this volume, excepting of course
John Locke, have been associated directly with Professor Sebeok in his work. The
concern of this collection is to show that the perspective in semiotics which Sebeok
has long promoted through his own work and that of others is in fact the purview
which derives most directly from and expresses the integrity of the original no­
tion of semiotic limned by Locke, in naming it, in 1690.
The readings, therefore, again with the exception of Locke, are all of them
contemporary readings: they reflect in this sense less where semiotics comes from
than where it is right now; and, in their collectivity, they suggest where we think
it is going—where the frontiers are. Being entirely contemporary (all the authors
save Locke and Maritain are still living), the collection provides both a corrective
and an enhancement of popular conceptions of “semiotics” today, in a format
designed to encourage curiosity from an illustratively broad range of “special­
ties”. We hope the book will be useful in the classroom, both for those already
convinced of the possibilities of semiotics as an interdisciplinary forum, and for
those in search of some such forum.
To enhance its utility in the undergraduate classroom particularly, we have
provided, in square brackets, often supplemented by italics, an English transla­
tion for most “foreign” language phrases, sentences, or passages that occur in
any of the readings. The frequency with which such “foreign” passages occur
should be regarded as indexical of the the transnational, as well as transdisciplinary,
character of the perspective that the “doctrine of signs” realizes.
The collection is complementary to the sister collection of Robert Innis,
Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985),
which is a superb assemblage of neoclassic authors, contemporary more or less,
but most now dead, and mirroring the embryonic stage through which semiotics
first established itself on the contemporary scene. The two collections represent,
respectively, points of departure, on the one hand, and trajectories of travel since.
There remains to explain the articulation of the parts of the present collection
in their specific character.
Part I explains the origin of the term “semiotic” as it comes to us from Locke,
and conveys specifically a perspective, as Winance put it (1983: 515), “able to
assimilate the whole of epistemology and natural philosophy as well”, where
“nature” is understood, as Aquinas explained in such a context (c.1269: 1.1.2),
 EDITORS’ PREFACE xvii

“ita quod sub naturali philosophia comprehendamus et metaphysicam”—“in such

a way as to include whatever there is of being”.
Part II does not treat of all the main semiotic systems known to exist, but
only of those three concerning which programmatic research statements are as
such extant. This part treats therefore of the three main semiotic systems so far
explored as such by teams of researchers cognizant of their orientation and con­
cerned to establish it as such. Further frontiers remain, and some of them (by
no means all, or even always accurately) have already been indicated in the posi­
tion paper of Anderson et al. (1984), “A Semiotic Perspective on the Sciences:
Steps Toward a New Paradigm”.
Part III concerns themes common to the breaking down and breaking through
of the confines imposed by the various linguistic paradigms, as semiotics has moved
into its broader perspective of development.
Part IV illustrates the penetration of semiotics into some areas already well
established in traditional terms. This section is the most incomplete, inasmuch
as the influence of semiotics extends to many “traditional spheres” besides those
specified here; but we have chosen the readings for this section with an eye to
their exploratory merit. The point of the section is to illustrate lines of possible
over already achieved development.
Part V, finally, returns to the name, for the purpose of exploring now not
its origins, but its future. It might equally well have been titled “Prospective
Semiotics”.
In short, the volume begins with the text of Locke’s original proposal, follow­
ed by a philosophical-historical exegesis of that proposal, and develops through
a series of essays establishing the connection of the original semiotic perspective
to traditional lines of specialized thought (including philosophy itself) and exhibiting
the possibilities of that original perspective in more or less detailed applications
to major problem areas. The readings globally taken provide, as we have said,
a corrective and an enhancement of popular conceptions of semiotic today.
We aim at nothing less than a full-scale “paradigm shift”, in the popular con­
sciousness, from the exclusively literary, structuralist, and Saussurean pars to the
inclusive biological, philosophical, and Peircean totum.
 DESCRIPTION OF CONTRIBUTIONS
AND LIST OF PERMISSIONS

(Complete identification of the original sources of the readings assembled in this volume
follows, with glosses as seems useful to the particular case. The readings are identified by
number according to the sequence of their appearance in the volume, as specified in the
Contents. A full statement of permissions for reprinting, along with the requisite disclaimers
and acknowledgments, is provided at the end of the descriptions.
Reading 1: John Locke, “Coining the Name”. This selection, the title of which has
been added editorially, is the concluding chapter ofJohn Locke’s 1690 Essay concerning Human
Understanding, “On the Division of the Sciences”. It is from this source that the name
“semiotic”, with its long train of congeners (see Reading 22 below), first enters the English
language and the mainstream of philosophical tradition.
Reading 2: John Deely, “The Coalescence of Semiotic Consciousness”, is a revision
of Deely 1982: 47-62 (Part I, Sections 5 and 6), rewritten to stand as an independent whole
and especially to incorporate the several historical discoveries of theoretical import (notably
in the work of Kaczmarek and Doyle) that have come to light since that earlier attempt
to map the semiotic matrix of, on the one hand, early modern thought in the Latin tongue
(against the background of which Locke’s seminal naming occurred) and, on the other
hand, the development between Locke’s day and our own in what concerns the proper
florescence of semiotic consciousness, which, in the argument of the last of our readings,
is a strictly contemporary (or ‘post-modern’) as distinct from a modern development.
Reading 3: Thomas A. Sebeok, “The Doctrine of Signs”, is an essay written by Sebcok
for the Journal of Social and Biological Structures 10.1, where it is scheduled to appear in January
of 1987 along with some commentaries. This essay has a twofold merit: in its first part
(35-39), it provides one of the best descriptive statements available to students who wish
to gain access in a single sweep to the kinds of considerations which give rise to the perspective
of semiotic as encompassing both the foundations of experience and the very idea of nature
which arises therein; in its second part (39-42), it provides just as splendid an example
of the difficulty of conceptualizing this new paradigm in formularies which transcend the
snares of the modem epoch (“realism vs. idealism”) and achieve semiotic’s proper footing
“prout includit tarn signum naturale quam ad placitum”, as Poinsot early put it (1632a:
118/3-4), or, in Sebeok’s pungent phrase (1975a: 85), “at the intersection of nature and
culture”.
Reading 4: Donald Preziosi, “The Multimodality of Communicative Events”, originally
appeared as Appendix A of a pioneering book, The Semiotics of the Built Environment (Bloom­
ington: Indiana University Press, 1979), 96-102. The essay introduces the complexity of
anthroposemiosis under the central theme of this anthology, namely, the irreducibility of
semiosis to a glottocentric model.
Reading 5: Jacques Maritain, “Language and the Theory of Sign”, originally appeared
in English as Ch. V of Language: An Enquiry into Its Meaning and Function, ed. Ruth Nanda
Anshen (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), 86-101. In his earlier semiotic sketches
of 1937-1938, Maritain was the first thinker to introduce leading ideas from the 1632 semiotic
ofJohn Poinsot into the national language traditions. This essay, which extends and specifies
that earlier work, develops a properly semiotic way of grounding the distinction between
understanding and perception, between language as a phenomenon of anthroposemiosis
and the zoosemiotic components of anthroposemiosis.

xviii
 CONTRIBUTIONS AND PERMISSIONS xix

Reading 6: Umberto Eco, Roberto Lambertini, Costantino Marmo, and Andrea Tabar-
roni, “Latratus Canis or: The Dog’s Barking”, sketches, in effect, the “interface in
retrospect” between anthropo- and zoosemiosis. The essay has the following background.
The original version of the paper was presented to the Convention on Animals in the Mid­
dle Ages held at Spoleto by the Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo (1983); an
Italian text is being published in the Proceedings of that convention. A further-developed
English version of the paper has been published in Versus 38/39, 1-38, under the title “On
Animal Language in the Medieval Classification of Signs”. A third version was presented
as a conference of Umberto Eco at the University of Leuven, May 1984, and is now publish­
ed as “Latratus Canis” in Tijdschrijt voor Filosofie 47.1 (March, 1985), 3-14. The English
text presented in this anthology is a synthesis of these previous papers made by the editors
in consultation with U. Eco, and adding notably the historical layering of the references
as explained on page 290 below.
Reading 7: Thomas A. Sebcok, “The Notion of Zoosemiotics”, reprints from Language
39.3 (1963), 448-466, under an editorially assigned title, the paragraph opening on p. 465
with “The term zoosemiotics. . .” and continuing to the end of the “Review of Communica­
tion among Social Bees; Porpoises and Sonar; Man and Dolphin”. Like Locke’s chapter
with which our volume opens and which named the entire field, this brief text of Sebeok
(brief in itself, but effective only by the support of the preceding review which it concludes,
and to which we refer our readers) succeeded in naming the broad area within semiotics
concerned with specifically animal communication modalities beyond, as well as within,
the human species. Something of the subsequent history of this neologism is traced by Sebeok
himself (1968, substanially reprinted in Sebeok 1970).
Reading 8: Thomas A. Sebeok, “Talking with Animals: Zoosemiotics Explained”,
originally appeared in the journal Animals, 111.6 (December), 20ff. It explains in layman’s
terms the scope and interest of one of the most important research areas in semiotics for
the forseeable future. The literature of this area has become so vast as to require the develop­
ment of a bibliography in its own right (not that earlier bibliographies have not been at­
tempted, just that they are, as such, already obsolete); suffice to mention here that Sebeok
has done pioneering work within zoosemiotics proper himself (e.g., 1979a), and, with Donna
Jean-Umiker Sebeok, particularly decisive work in clarifying the relation between zoo­
semiosis and anthroposemiosis (notably Sebeok and Umiker-Sebeok 1981, 1982, and the
landmark 1980 collection edited by the two, q.v.; and their current Animal Communica­
tion Series with Indiana University Press).
Reading 9: Martin Krampen, “Phytosemiotics”, is reprinted from Semiolica 36.3/4
(1981), 187-209, but omitting the quantitative discussion between pp. 197-203, as explained
in the note on p. 277 below. We have not been able to determine with certainty the origin
of the term “phytosemiotics”. It occurs already in Golopentia-Eretescu 1977 (a signifi­
cant review of Sebeok 1976); but Krampen’s is the first programmatic statement of research
within this further semiotic domain explicidy identified as such, and was a decisive stimulus
to the general paradigm considerations later proposed in Anderson et al. 1984.
Reading 10: John Deely, “On the Notion of Phytosemiotics”, defends and clarifies
grounds within philosophical tradition for a statement of the type proposed by Krampen.
It was originally presented at a session of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Semiotic
Society of America held in Buffalo, New York, in October of 1982.
Reading 11: Thomas L. Short, “Life among the Legisigns”, is reprinted from Trans­
actions of the Charles S. Peirce Society XVIII. 4 (Fall 1982), 285-310. This essay develops Peirce’s
trichotomic sign classification, and in particular establishes philosophically how the pro­
duction and interpretation of legisigns (i.e., whatever law insofar as interpreted) takes place
across the biosemiotic spectrum. It is a companion piece to Short 1981, which we recom­
mend to the reader for its distinctive clarification of the fundamental Peircean and semiotic
notion of the Interpretant.
 xx FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Reading 12: Floyd Merrell, “Structuralism and Beyond: A Critique of Presupposi­

tions”, is reprinted from Diogenes 92 (1975), 67-103. This essay clarifies the relation of
‘structuralism’ to the larger possibilities of semiotics, anticipating views developed in the
author’s subsequent books of 1982, 1985, and 1985a.
Reading 13: Eugen Baer, “The Medical Symptom”, is reprinted from The American
Journal of Semiotics 1.3 (1982), 17-34. This reading clarifies in contemporary terms what
Sebeok (1975: 181) described as “the third, admittedly uneven leg upon which semiotics
rests, very likely the most deeply rooted”, namely, medicine, “the revered ancestral figure
surely being Hippocrates (c.460-377BC)”. See the gloss on Baer’s ‘curious and all-
encompassing’ work listed in this volume as Baer 1983.
Reading 14: Umberto Eco, “On Symbols”, originally appeared in Recherches Semioti-
ques/Semiotic Inquiry 2.1 (March 1982), 15-44, and subsequently as Ch. 4 of Eco 1984. The
topic forms one of the three main categories (alongside icons and indices) identified by
Peirce for semiotic analysis. In preparing the text for this volume on the plan of the SSA
Proceedings Style Sheet (see p. 290 below), we found that both the 1982 and 1984 texts
had proofreading and referential deficiencies, although in general the 1984 text was to be
preferred. The English text presented here, while doubtless not without flaws, has the merit
(e.g., p. 169 below) of no textual passages left untranslated for the beginning student, in
addition to the clarification of sources (notably, e.g., as regards the identity of “Gilbert
of Stanford”) resulting from historical layering.
Reading 15: Irene Portis Winner, “Semiotics of Culture”, appeared originally as the
“Concluding Remarks” to Semiotics of Culture: The State of the Art (Victoria University: Toron­
to Semiotic Circle Publication Series, 1982 No. 1), 60-64, and is reprinted here as modest­
ly revised by the author for independent presentation. It limns an overview of the topic
of culture conceived semiotically, one which includes the East European traditions of semiotic
development, which deserve a reader in their own right.
Reading 16: Michael Herzfeld, “Disemia”, is reprinted from Semiotics 1980, the Pro­
ceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America, held October
16-19, 1980, in Lubbock, Texas, compiled by Michael Herzfeld and Margot D. Lenhart
(New York: Plenum Press, 1982), 205-215. In this essay, Herzfeld provides, as it were,
“from within” an anthropological perspective, a vignette illustrative of this anthology’s
centra] theme, to wit, the inadequacy of linguistic paradigms to provide a basis for the
whole of semiotics, even within the realm of culture.
Reading 17: Roberta Kevelson, “Prolegomena to a Comparative Legal Semiotic”,
is a revision prepared with the author specifically for this volume on the basis of “Com­
parative Legal Cultures and Semiotics: An Introduction”, The American Journal of Semiotics
! 1.4 (1982), 17-34. This reading points to a specific universal dimension of cultural organiza­
tion exceptionally important in practical affairs, but heretofore little understood in its in­
trinsically semiotic character.
Reading 18: Richard Lanigan, “Semiotics, Communicology, and Plato’s Sophist”,
originally appeared under the tide “Semiotic Phenomenology in Plato’s Sophist”, in Semiotica
41.1/4, 221-245. The essay, in consultation with the author, was retitled for publication
here, better to reflect its contemporary bearing and interest. This reading provides a sus­
tained comparison of information theory and communication theory, taking for its vehicle
models of discourse analysis initially drawn from Roland Barthes on the one hand and
Plato on the other. The upshot of the comparison—with references throughout to a broad
range of semiotic literature—is the exposure of key structuralist problems, which find their
solution in phenomenological developments of the Platonic model (exhibited particularly
through the work of Merleau-Ponty) connecting the ontology of the speaking subject and
the epistemology of the discourse system through the sign relation.
Reading 19: Brooke Williams, “History in Relation to Semiotic”, was presented
originally at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America in October of
 CONTRIBUTIONS AND PERMISSIONS xxi

1983 at Snowbird, Utah. Subsequently expanded into a major article (Williams 1985),
this reading demonstrates how the perspective of semiotic provides a way of reconceptualizing
the foundations of the discipline of history that clarifies the logic actually used by historians—
something that has resisted long-standing attempts of analytic philosophers, as well as re­
cent attempts of semioticians (e.g., Haidu 1982) working from literary models.
Reading 20: Luigi Romeo, “Heraclitus and the Foundations of Semiotics”, is reprinted
from Versus 15.5 (dicembre 1976), 73-90, but omitting pp. lb-19, as explained in the note
on p. 279 below, and incorporating narrative footnotes into the body of the text where
this seemed appropriate. This reading places the philosophical leg of Sebeok’s “Semiotic
Tripod” (medicine, philosophy, linguistics) at the very interface of history with prehistory,
deeper in time even than the explicit semiotic texts of medical tradition favored by Sebeok.
In any event, Romeo’s semiotic reading of the inscrutable Oracle at Delphi cogently sug­
gests how fruitful the semiotic re-reading of previous tradition is bound to be.
Reading 21: Joseph Ransdell, “Semiotic Objectivity”, is reprinted from Semiolica 26.3/4,
261 -288, with very modest editing by the author of concluding Section V. Ransdell argues
at the level of philosophical principles and from the nature of experience itself against the
‘scientific’ and for the ‘doctrinal’ development of contemporary semiotics, a debate resumed
recently in Williams 1985a. From the standpoint of intertextuality, Ransdell’s arguments
anticipate suggestions on objectivity made elsewhere in the volume.
Reading 22: Thomas A. Sebeok, “ ‘Semiotics’ and Its Congeners”, originally written
in 1971, is here reprinted from Sebeok 1976: 47-58. This essay outlines, as it were, a kind
of ‘sociology of language’ wherein the direction and development of semiotics are con­
strued from the polynymic and polysemic interplay of the main competing theoretical ter­
minologies derived respectively from the seminal work of de Saussure on the one hand
and Peirce (after Locke) and Charles Morris on the other, out of which interplay the cur­
rent “semiotics” emerges as from “irreversible inroads”.
Reading 23: John Deely, “Semiotic as Framework and Direction”, was originally
presented as a paper in the October 10 Morning Session of the “Semiotics: Field or
Discipline” Statc-of-the-Art Conference organized by Professor Michael Herzfeld at the
Bloomington campus of Indiana University, 8-10 October 1984. This reading provides
a summary statement of the perspective of the volume as a whole and a programmatic
statement anticipating further development.
Each of the readings assembled in this volume are reprinted with the permission of
the author. Where the copyright was held by someone else than the author, further per­
mission to reprint was obtained, as follows: Permission was granted for the inclusion of
Reading 3 by the Academic Press, London; for Reading 4, by Indiana University Press,
Bloomington; for Reading 5, by Harper & Row Publisher, Inc., New York; for Reading
6, by Umberto Eco, on behalf of the co-authors; for Reading 7, by the Editor of the jour­
nal Language, Los Angeles; for Readings 9, 18, and 21, by Mouton Publishers, Berlin;
for Reading 11, by the Editor of the Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, Buffalo; for
Reading 12, by the editorial office of Diogenes, Paris; for Readings 13 and 17, by the Editors
of The American Journal of Semiotics, Davis; for Reading 14, by the Editor of Recherche Semioti-
que/Semiotic Inquiry, Toronto, and by Indiana University Press, Bloomington; for Reading
16, by Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York; for Reading 22, by the Indiana Univer­
sity Board of Trustees.
The State-of-the-Art Conference at which Reading 23 was first presented was jointly
funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Indiana University Office
of Research and Graduate Development, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Patten Foun­
dation Lecture Fund, the Indiana University Department of Anthropology, the Folklore
Institute, and Qantas Airways (without, of course, any of the papers presented officially
representing the views of any sponsoring organization).
The seminal chapter from John Locke’s Essay concerning Humane Understanding presented
 xxii FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

here as Reading 1, along with the title page of the Essay, is reproduced from the original
1690 first edition by the courtesy of the Lilly Library of rare books on the Bloomington
Campus of Indiana University.
Grateful acknowledgment is made to Mr. Czeslaw Jan Grycz for his assistance in all
aspects of the design for this volume.

■
 I

The Name and Its Context

 A N

ESSAY
CONCERNING

humane HUnUctttanDmg.
In Four BOOKS.

Quam helium efl velle confiteri potius nefcire quod net

cias, quam ifla cjfuticntem naufeare, atque i\pfum fibi
difplicere ! Cic. de Natur. Deor. /. i.

IIIft?
m mm

LONDON:
Printed by Eli%. Holt, for 5Cf)omas 26afTet, at the
George in Fleetjlreet, near St. Dmflaris
Church. MDCXC.
 1

JOHN LOCKE

Coining the Name

Chap. XX. ‘Divifion of the Sciences. 561

CHAP. XX.
Of the Dfrifion of the Sciences.

§i. ALL that can fall within thecompafs of humane Umferftan-

i\ ding, being either, Firft, The Nature of Things, as they
are in themfelves, their Relations, and their manner of Operation : Or,
Secondly, that which Man himfelf ought to do, as a rational and volunta­
ry Agent, for the Attainment of any Ends, efpccially Happinefs: Or,
Thirdly, The ways and means, whereby the Knowledge of both the c_ one*
and the other of thefe, are attained and communicated ; I think, Science
may be divided properly into thefe Three forts.
$. r. Firft, The Knowledge of Tilings, as they are in their own proper
Beings, their Conftitutions, Properties, and Operations, whereby I mean
not only Matter, and Body, but Spirits alfo, which have their proper Na­
tures, Conftitutions, and Operations as well as Bodies. This in a little
more enlarged Senfe of the Word, I call (pvmtt*, or natural Pbilojopby. The
end of this, is bare fpeculative Truth, and whatfoever can afford the
Mind of Man any fuch, falls under this branch, whether it be God him-
fclf, Angels, Spirits, Bodies, or any other of their Aflcdions, as Number,
and Figure, (Sc.
^.■^.SecondlyyipxvmKh, The Skill ofRight applying our ownPowers and
Adfions, for the Attainment of Things good and ufelul. The moft confi-
derable under this Head, is Ethicks, which is the feeking out thofe Rules,
and Meafures of humane Adions, which lead to Happinefs, and the
Means to pradife them. The end of this is not bare Speculation, and the
Knowledge of Truth; but Right, and a Condud fuitable to it.
$.4. Thirdly,Thc third Branch may be called the Doftrintrof
Signs, the moft ufual whereof being Words, it is aptly enough termed alfo
\oyoon, Logick; the buffneis whereof,is to confider the Nature of Signs,the
Mind makes ufc of for the undemanding of Things, or conveying its
Knowledge to others. For fmcc the Things, the Mind contemplates, are
Aaa none
3
4 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

3 'tHviJion of the Sciences. Book IV.

none of them, befides it felf, prefent to the Underftanding , *tis neccflary
that fomething elfc, as a Sign or Reprefcntation of the thing it confiders,
fhould be prefent to it: And thefe are Ideas. And becaufe the Ideas of
one Man’s Mind cannot immediately be laid open to the view of another ;
nor be themfelvcs laid up any where, but in the Memory, which is apt to
let them go and lofe them: Therefore to communicate our Ideas one to
another, as well as record them for our own ufe, Signs of our Ideas are
alfo neceflary. Thofc which Men have found mod convenient, and
therefore generally make ufe of, are articulate Sounds. The Confidera-
tion then of Ideas and Words , as the great Inftruments of Knowledge,
makcsno defpicable part of their Contemplation, who woald take a view
of humane Knowledge in the whole Extent of it. And, perhaps, if they
Were diflin&ly weighed, and duly confidered, they would afford us ano­
ther fort of Logick and Critick, than what we have been hitherto ac­
quainted with.
5. Thu feems to me the firft and mojl general\ as well as natural divi-
(ion of the Obje&s of our Underflanding. For fince a Man can employ
his Thoughts about nothing, but either the Contemplation of Things
themfelvcs for the difeovery of Truth; Or about the Things in his own
Power, which are his own A&ions, for the Attainment of his own Ends’;
Or the Signs the Mind makes ufe of, both in the one and the other, and
the right ordering of them for its clearer Information. All which three,
viz. Things as they are in themfelves knowable; A&ions as they depend
on us, in order toHappincfs j and the right ufe of Signs in order to Know­
ledge, being toto calo different, they leaned to me to be the three great
Provinces of the intelle£ual World, wholly feparate and diftind* one
irom another.

FINIS.
 2

JOHN DEELY

The Coalescence of
Semiotic Consciousness

No discipline is more fundamental than semiotic, compassing, as it does,

the very foundations and origin of experience and knowledge; so it is not surpris­
ing that it has been in its integral possibilities one of the slowest of the philosophical
disciplines to mature toward anything like an explicit and thematic self-
consciousness, as it finally seems to be doing in our day, spurred by the need
for a framework to overcome the excessive compartmentalization of research that
has been brought about by modern science. Consequently, since writing a history
of anything presupposes an understanding of what it is that the history is about,
neither should we be surprised that the history of semiotic is “yet to be written”
(Sebeok 1974: 213 n. 9; Romeo 1976: 74), and that the writing of this history
must eventually take the form also of a rewriting of the entire history of ideas and
of philosophy such as to bring to the fore and make explicit the semiotic com­
ponents latent by the nature of the case (all thought being through signs) in each
of the previous thinkers who have wrestled since ancient times with foundational
questions of knowledge, experience, and interpretation generally. This is already
plain even in the preliminary sketches that have been made toward such a history-
to-be-written (e.g., Rey 1973, Eschbach and Trabant 1983, etc.).
Meanwhile, no more valuable preparatory work can be done than the task
of conceptualizing in hindsight the achievements of our predecessors as they ap­
pear from the semiotic point of view, so as to establish for future workers land­
marks and beacons showing over the ages where and how principal contributions
toward the doctrine of signs were first adumbrated or secured.
In executing such a task, we often find that figures long well known and domi­
nant in traditionally established perspectives sometimes are also pioneers in the
development of semiotic—the case of St. Augustine is an outstanding example
of this. But we also find that figures known secondarily or not at all (quite for­
gotten) in the currently established histories must be reckoned as primary sources
and pioneers of the first importance for the history of semiotic. Indeed, the
neglect of such figures in traditional perspectives sometimes stems directly, it
would seem, from their importance for semiotic—that is to say, from the fact
that their semiotic contribution as such precisely had no place in the traditional
interests and perspectives of their own age. In short, their neglect has been
almost because oj their importance for a discipline and doctrinal point of view
whose time had not yet come, and whose possibilities, even when articulated or
indirectly implied in forays of pioneering genius, remained virtually invisible to
5
6 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

contemporary eyes accustomed only to the light of concerns prevailing in the public
life of the period.

I. Modern Times: The Initial Latin Phase

In treating of a “coalescence” of “semiotic consciousness”, we are concerned
not with an implicit or virtual awareness, so to say, but with the explicit suspi­
cion and attempt to thematically realize the fact and implications of the ideas
whereby consciousness is structured being themselves already signs of objects,
with the immediate and unrestricted consequence that the whole of “objectivity y y
depends upon and is a creation throughout of semiosis, the singular triadic action
of signs standing in its own right outside the order of efficient causality.
The historical unit of focus for further research into the original coalescence
of a thematically semiotic consciousness turns out to be a period about which,
unfortunately, “there is little accurate writing or knowledge” (Randall 1961: 71),
the period roughly between 1350 and 1650. These dates conveniently represent
the death of the last seriously studied figure of mainstream Latin development,
practically speaking, namely, William of Ockham, on the one side (about whom
Gilson writes [1955: 491], with what appears from our standpoint as exquisite
irony, that “the only difficulty there is in understanding Ockham is related to
his fundamental notion of‘natural sign’ ”, which “is in fact a concept” or idea);
and, on the other side, the death of the first seriously studied post-Latin mainstream
thinker, namely, Descartes (who first firmly established the radically antisemiotic
standpoint of modern philosophy whereby ideas are construed as objects before
being signs, exactly as sensible things). Such is the sorry state of research into
the history of philosophy in the contemporary period that this interlude is terra
incognita, the “least known period in the history of Western philosophy” (Ran­
dall 1962: vii-viii)—a situation quite detrimental for the development of semiotics,
as very recent studies (e.g., Herculano de Carvalho 1969, 1970; Romeo 1979)
have begun to make clear. The common prejudice, established in the century after
Descartes and prevailing down to the present day, has been stated with perfect
clarity by Charles Sanders Peirce (1871: 14):
With Ockham, who died in 1347, scholasticism may be said to have
culminated. After him the scholastic philosophy showed a tendency to
separate itself from the religious element which alone could dignify it, and
sunk first into extreme formalism and fancifulness, and then into the
merited contempt of all men.
Professor Savan has observed in discussing this remark that Peirce made it
at a very young age, and that a man so young, breathing the air of the age, should
perhaps not be held too strictly to account for so gross and fallacious a generaliza­
tion. With this I am inclined to agree, particularly when one considers how ex­
traordinarily at variance Peirce’s thought stands in its totality with the compla­
cent contemporaneity with which philosophers today, as in Peirce’s time, contin­
uing the Cartesian heritage as though the intervening centuries had revealed
nothing of its limitations, shamelessly indulge what Levy-Bruhl once described
(1899: ix) as “a taste for abstract and too simple solutions, a conviction that it
is sufficient to argue soundly upon evident principles in order to discover the truth,
even in the most complex problems of social life—in short, a lack of historical
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 7

spirit”, an almost total naivete regarding the historicity of man and “the fact
that”, as Apel observed of Peirce against the moderns (1967: 19), “all thought
is mediated through tradition”, that is to say, semiotically (Williams 1985).
Nonetheless, in that early statement, Peirce truly represents the prevailing
prejudice at the turn of the century which endures, although it has most recently
begun to be qualified, and the period which it has consigned to oblivion may soon
(let us hope) be invaded by intellectual explorers who will bring its true character
and riches into the light of day. In this regard, Gilson (1952: 657), speaking of
course of Latin philosophy after Ockham, well remarked: “We enter here upon a
doctrinal territory ill understood, extremely complex and of which we know at least
this much going in, namely, that the term ‘nominalism’,” a term long used to char­
acterize the totality of post-Ockhamite scholasticism, “does not in any wise suffice
to define it.” Kristeller, whose work has gone further in this area than that of any
other toward undermining the ignorant prejudices that have shrouded the early
Latin phase of modern thought in myths and caricatures, suggests summarily how
the present situation came about. “Historians of thought”, he remarks (1961: 34),
i (
have been sympathetic to the opponents of Aristotelianism in the Renaissance,
whereas most of the defenders of medieval philosophy have limited their efforts
to its earlier phases before the end of the thirteenth century, and have sacrificed
the late scholastics to the critique of their contemporary and modern adversaries.”
The situation that confronts us here may be described as follows (Kristeller
1961a: 114-116 passim):
. . . Renaissance Aristotelianism continued the medieval scholastic tradi­
tion without any visible break. It preserved a firm hold on the university
chairs of logic, natural philosophy, and metaphysics, whereas even the
humanist professors of moral philosophy continued to base their lectures
on Aristotle. The literary activity of these Aristotelian philosophers . . .
is difficult of access and arduous to read, but rich in philosophical prob­
lems and doctrine. It represents the bulk and kernel of the philosophical
thought of the period, but it has been badly neglected by modern histo­
rians. . . . Consequently, most modern scholars have condemned the
Aristotelian philosophers of the Renaissance without a hearing. ... If we
want to judge the merits and limitations of Renaissance Aristotelianism
we will have to proceed to a new direct investigation of the source materials,
instead of repeating antiquated judgments
—such as the one enunciated by Mr. Peirce in 1871. We should note here, as
the above passage from Kristeller already suggests, how little useful for our pur­
poses is the division which standard historiography makes into “early”
(“Fruhscholastik”—1050-1200), “high” (“Hochscholastik” —1200-1300), and
“late” (“Spatscholastik”—after 1300) scholasticism. This division, especially as
between “high” and “late” Latin philosophy, and particularly if we look to the
lines of development linking the Paris of Thomas Aquinas with the Iberian schools
at Coimbra, Salamanca, Alcala, and elsewhere, is arbitrary to a fault, chronological
in the thinnest sense. The truth is that there is no name or place in the currently
conventionalized “history of philosophy” for the epoch of philosophia naturalis that
begins with the 12th century translations of Aristotle and culminates in the cur­
ricula of the 17th century Spanish schools.
 8 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

The translation of the works of Aristotle in the 12th century coincided within
about seventy years with the founding of the European universities, as they con­
tinue to this day. A look at the contents of the entire works of Aristotle reveals
that they comprise in their own way practically the whole range of academic studies
down to this day. What the contents of the works of Aristotle became in those
early times, therefore, was, not surprisingly, the basis for the university curriculum
of the West throughout the later Latin age. By comparison, the developments
of humanism (literary humanism, not the secular and philosophical humanism
meant by the term today) and of Platonism in the renaissance were something
beside or sustained within this mainstream. After Descartes, where today a
graduate student’s continuous historical knowledge of philosophy typically ends
(when it even goes back that far), “everyone knows’’ that those earlier Latin
Aristotelians were victims of idle speculation, having nothing worthwhile to say
to later ages. So why study them? Almost any professor of philosophy in the
mainstream departments of universities in the English-speaking world can tell you
that, without even having to look at the books of the period.
On the other side, even when the great revival of medieval studies took place,
largely, in the “English-speaking world’’, owing to the great and recently deceased
Gilson, the new interest in Latin philosophy only carried its workers up to the
time of Ockham, usually to limn in him the clear beginnings of a “decadence
that would only advance in the remaining Latin ages (a view indeed not wholly
wrong as far as education in the English universities was concerned!), but
sometimes to champion him rather as the last outpost of Latin greatness in
philosophy, as in the work of Boehner (cf. Deely 1982: 165 n. 3). Thus, from
>oth sides—whether one deals with the historians of the middle ages moving toward
ie present, or with the contemporary philosophers so far as they see themselves
ts heir to an historical tradition—a point is reached, Ockham in the former case,
Descartes in the latter, where there is simply a gap, populated it is true by a few
odd figures like Nicolas ofCusa, Marsilio Ficino, Pomponazzi; but basically the
period in question resembles what astronomers might call a “black hole’’. Yet
precisely in that “black hole”, there is good reason to suspect, lies the richest
and most fertile ground for understanding the epigenic unfolding in our own times
of semiotics. I would suggest that this is precisely the principal gestation period
i
for the development historically of the semiotic point of view.
First of all, not only from the point of view of philosophy proper, as we have
seen, but particularly from the point of view of semiotic, this period (1350-1650)
does not at all develop along those lines of vision that are familiar in the standard
histories, which tend to concentrate on the renaissance in Europe and the Italian
peninsula, and on figures that are identified either with the humanist movement,
or with Platonic movements that were indigenous to the renaissance with its newly
awakened sensitivity to and interest in linguistic diversity which, as much as
anything, sets the renaissance apart from the earlier “middle ages”.
The recovery of Greek and awakening awareness of the feedback effect of
language on underlying structures of thought and experience are events of first
importance to the gestation of semiotics. Initially, apart from ecclesiastical con­
cerns with “orthodoxy”, scholars were delighted at the great find made available
by the early translations of Aristotle. But as time went on, particularly as scholars
fleeing Constantinople made Greek more and more accessible to the Latin West,
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 9

further translations of the same works were made, with the semantic fields
distributed often in troublingly alternative ways on key points “settled” in earlier
commentaries. Two or three hundred years of such endeavor, needless to say,
created a situation of some considerable complexity.
We have already noted Gilson’s ironic observation (1955: 491) that “the only
difficulty there is in understanding Ockham” relates to his attempt to bring the
ideas or concepts of the mind into the perspective of a semiotic. It is possible to
find anticipations of such a move also in Aquinas (though Gilson did not find
them interesting), Albert the Great (c. 1250-1252: 4. tract. 3. cap. 2), Aegidius
Romanus (1247-1316), and many others of the medievals (see Eco et al., in this
volume). But preliminary studies of Kaczmarek (1980, 1981, 1983) and Spade
(1980) suggest that it may well have been under the principal influence initially
of followers of Ockham—I am thinking particularly of Pierre d’Ailly c.1372, I
a. 1396—that an inclination among the Latin philosophers came about to develop
a special terminology for the basic problems of semiotic, one adding to the tradi­
tional ontological-epistemological analysis of knowledge not just another set of
terms for dealing with the already complex notion of conceptus or “ideas” (see Deely
1982: Part I, Section 4), but a development specifically striving to assimilate the
entire prcjacent analysis developed from the point of view of ontology to the quite
different standpoint of signification, or, as we would now say, semiosis.
From the point of view of the main semiotic development, the crucial lines
of reflection and controversy over the period in question seem to lie in the univer­
sity traditions of Iberia, Spain and Portugal, with commentators on Aristotle and
Aquinas soon taking over the initial impetus of the Occamites. These university
traditions, above all others, maintained substantial continuity with the doctrinal
achievements of the high middle ages, particularly in the three great centers already
mentioned, namely, Coimbra (the principal university of Portugal), Salamanca
(the principal center in Spain), and Alcala (rival to Salamanca in the late 16th
and early 17th centuries, thereafter to fade and eventually be absorbed through
relocation elsewhere in our own century). In these and related schools, dispute
over signs and signification became rampant—“a matter of daily dispute in the
schools”, as one author of the period put it (Poinsot 1632a: 194/39-40—“quoti-
dianis disputationibus agitare solent”).
Within the summulist logical tradition, therefore—that is (as explained in Deely
1982), within the mainstream interpretation and teaching of logic within the Latin
world everywhere from the 1200s to the Latin twilight at the dawn of modern
times—at least within the Iberian university world, there is a considerable develop­
ment of controversies over signification during the period we have circumscribed.
The possibility of a unified science or doctrine or “theory”, of abstracting, as
it were, a common object in the experience of signification, was, by the end of the
16th century, a matter on which sides were being taken, often against, as in the
case of the celebrated Suarez (1605: disp. 1, par. 6).
How central semiotic notions were becoming in the thought of this period can
be indicated best, perhaps, by the case of Petrus Fonsecus (“Pedro da Fonseca”,
1528-1599), a Portuguese philosopher who became the principal professor (“Pro­
fessor Primarius”) at Coimbra and the organizing force of the group of thinkers
there whose work came to be known collectively as the Cursus Conimbricensis, and
whose treatise De Signis (1607), Professor Doyle has recently brought to light (1984),
 10 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

proves to have been a most influential work within the immediate context of the
17th century, possibly known even to Locke. Of particular interest for present
concerns was the publication in 1564 of Fonseca’s Institutionum dialecticarum libri
octo, essentially a summulist logic text, which was read far and wide in the Latin
world, having gone through some fifty-three editions by the year 1624 (Romeo
1979: 190).
In Pedro’s work, we find the special terminology first proposed (the Conim-
bricenses indicate, 1607: q. 2. art. 1. p. 15) by Aegidius Romanus and deployed
by d’Ailly in a manner if not primitive, at least certainly filled with paralogisms,
now refined to a high degree. Signs themselves we find divided, according to this
way of speaking and thinking, into “formal” and “instrumental”, the former
being the “forms” (species expressae) or ideas within the mind whereby experience
is structured, the latter being words and, more generally, any sense-percepti­
ble item or object of experience which functions as a sign, i.e., to bring some­
thing other than itself into awareness. In Pedro’s own words (1564: lib. I, cap.
VIII):
Formal signs are similitudes or a certain type of forms of things signified
[species, as Albertus Magnus had already intimated c. 1250-1252] inscribed
within the cognitive powers, by means of which the things signified are
perceived. Of this sort is the similitude which the spectacle of a mountain
impresses upon the eyes, or the image which an absent friend leaves in
another’s memory, or again the picture one forms of something which he
has never seen. These signs are called “formal”, because they form and
as it were structure the knowing power.
Instrumental signs are those which, having become objects for know­
ing powers, lead to the cognition of something else. Of this sort is the track
of an animal left in the ground, smoke, a statue, and the like. For a track
is a sign of the animal which made it: smoke the sign of an unseen fire:
a statue finally is a sign of Caesar or someone else. These signs are called
“instrumental”, either because through them as instruments we signify
to others our ideas; or because just as an artist must move his instrument
in order to shape his material with it, so must powers able to know first
perceive these signs in order to know anything through them.
Hence may be gathered the most striking difference between instrumen­
tal and formal signs: since indeed formal signs do not have to be perceived
. by us in order for us to come to an awareness of the thing signified by
:
the perception they structure; but unless instrumental signs are perceived,
they lead no one to an awareness of anything.
It seems probable that this division, developed indigenously throughout our
neglected period, was developed specifically in light of a growing uneasiness with
the long-accepted definition from Augustine’s De doctrina Christiana (c. 397-426:
Book II, c. 1), which had been taken over (as remarked in Deely 1982: Part I,
Section 3) first in the Sentences of Peter Lombard (c. 1150), and thereafter by all
of the Latin writers on sacramental theology (cf. Conimbricenses 1607: cap. 1.
q. 2. art. 1. pp. 14-15., art. 3., esp. “sectio artic. prima”, p. 21 ff., and “sectio
articuli II”, p. 24ff., “sectio artic. tertia”, p. 27ff.). According to the terms of
this definition, being sense-perceptible is essential to the proper being of a sign.
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 11

By Fonseca’s time—as already with Albertus Magnus’ and later Ockham’s forth­
right designation of ideas in the mind as signa naturalia—it was becoming evident
that the concepts of the mind, being the very structures which form our experience
of nature, indeed function as sense-perceptible signs function insofar as these latter
function as signs—yet without being for all that in anywise accessible to sense
perception as such.
Moreover, not only concepts were designated by the Latins as signa naturalia,
but all those phenomena of human experience which seem to have a connection
with what they signify antecedent to and independent of social interaction. For
these and other reasons, the need had been felt for a new way of thinking about
signs, and the division of signs into formal and instrumental, probably proposed
first by Aegidius (a. 1316), as the Conimbricenses tell us (1607: q. 2. art. 1. p.
15), appears to have been the most seminal coinage within the period to accom­
modate this need, as evidenced in the lecture course given by Professor Bosserel
at the University of Graz, Austria, in 1615 (MS 133 of the University) on the
logical doctrines of Fonseca (Synopses in quibus doctrina dialectica R.1 P.‘ Petri Fonseca
ad ordinem Aristotelicam revocatur), particularly at the point where Bosserel synthesizes
Fonseca’s 1564 discussion of signs (translation of Bosserel basically from Romeo
1979: 201 n. 1, retouched by comparison with the Latin):
To signify means to represent something to a being able to know, as, for
example, to the sense, the imagination, the understanding. Signs are
divided into two groups. The first comprises formal and instrumental signs.
The formal ones are similitudes, like images of things signified that exist in
cognitive powers, through which the things signified are apprehended, as,
for example, the resemblance of a friend. In order that these signs may
be known, it is not necessary to see the eyes through which one sees the
signs. Instrumental signs are those which are represented to cognitive
powers as soon as they are recognized by them, and also when they lead
to the recognition of other things, as the footprint of an animal, smoke,
or wrinkles in the forehead.
The second group contains natural and conventional signs. Natural
signs are those which signify the same thing to everybody, such as moans
and laughs. Conventional signs are those which signify through as it
were a socially structured human intention, such as words and letters,
as well as those which have entered the usage of all people, such as ivy
and cypress. [In Greek and Latin cultures, Bacchus, crowned with ivy
during his debauches, made of ivy a universal symbol of drunkenness and
revelry. Similarly, the common use of cypress boughs in ancient funeral
rites and of cypress trees to mark burial sites made cypress a signifier of
death.]
Note that natural signs can also be formal, but not all of them. For
a concept and a moan are both natural signs, yet a moan is not formal,
but instrumental.
We now know with certainty (thanks to the singular work of Doyle 1984, along
with the already mentioned studies of Kaczmarek and Spade) that this division
of signs based on their function in experience relative to the cognizing organism,
with the revision of the classical Augustinian definition that the new division implies
 12 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

(by restricting it to the one class of instrumental signs only), was far from original
with Fonseca. (Cf. Deely 1982: 55-56.)
Of greater importance than the question of authorship (doctrinaliter si non per-
sonaliter) is the fact of a new, specialized terminology, attesting to a new, un­
mistakable direction—the direction of semiotic—in which the late Latin renaissance
mainstream in its most vigorous current was unmistakably moving.
In line with this development, we find in Fonseca also an explicit attempt to
identify the precise role of representation in signification (1564: lib. I, cap. VIII):
To signify is nothing else than to represent something to a cognizing power.
But since everything that represents something is a sign of the thing which
it represents, it happens that whatever signifies something is its sign.
As this text shows, for Fonseca, the relation of representation to signification is
one of identity, one wherein the two are equated.
But thirdly, as a consequence of his reservations concerning the notion of for­
mal “signs” (noted in Deely 1982: 55-56 in connection with the since richly con­
firmed hypothesis of Fonseca’s derivative authorship in respect of this notion)—
namely, that “they are not called signs in full accordance with the customary
usage” (“nec admodum usitate nominantur signa”), that is, the usage establish­
ed by Augustine; “nor are they said to represent with sufficient propriety” (“nec
satis proprie dicuntur repraesentare”)—we find in Fonseca (and this goes against
the line of development otherwise indicated thus far), a specific denial that there
is really a common notion that unites these two kinds of signs. This in effect is
a denial of a unified object at the base of semiotic analysis, and hence of the
possibility of a general account, theory, or doctrine of signs.
In other words, we find in Fonseca a man pressured by the development of
thought and terminology in the summulist tradition to envisage the specific
possibility of a semiotic, who resists the prospect and in the end denies it. The
possibility, he says in effect, is not a real one, in this regard anticipating the view
of the major Latin professor to influence the specifically modern thinkers of the
17th century such as Descartes and Leibniz, thinkers who in turn would set the
| direction of mainstream philosophical development in the national language tradi­
tions. I refer to the magistral Francis Suarez, already mentioned above (1605:
disp. 1, par. 6; cf. Poinsot 1632a: 141/12-142/13), who has found in our own
time an unknowing disciple and unwitting echo in Roger Scruton’s denial (1980:
14) that clouds signify rain in any sense univocal with the way that words signify.
Fourthly therefore we find in Fonseca, contrary to the obvious sense of his
! own words, and again contrary to the semiotic development he otherwise furthers,
an effort to promote continued acceptance of St. Augustine’s definition of the sign
as a correct general definition, that is, one valid for all cases—the definition, it
will be remembered, from the De doctrina Christiana'. “A sign is something which,
on being perceived, brings something other than itself into awareness”. This defini­
tion plainly applies to instrumental signs—sense-perceptible realities which func­
tion subsequently as signs; so, if it is truly a general definition of signs, then in­
deed the possibility of treating ideas in semiotic perspective is precluded.
But, finally, to return to a positive point, we also find at this period, clearly
illustrated in Fonseca’s work, proof of a developing sophistication in the under­
standing of the distinction between natural and conventional signs, as involving

i
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 13

in fact more than two terms. This is a point of considerable theoretical impor­
tance, as I have tried to show elsewhere (1978a; cf. Rollin 1976). Here, I want
only to note its active presence in the summulist currents of the Latin renaissance
(Fonseca 1564: lib. I, cap. IX):
Conventional signs are those which signify by deliberate intention and as
if by a kind of compact. Such signs are of two types. For some signify as
the result of stipulations, such as the words by which men converse, or
the letters by which absent parties communicate; others, however, signify
as the result of customs and traditions of use, in the way that items displayed
in a shop signify what is for sale. And of those signs which signify by stipula­
tion, there is again a twofold signification, proper and improper ....
Indeed, practically all words have an improper signification as a result of
adaptation and change in use, through metaphor, catachresis, metalepsis,
or metonymy.
What is clear at this point—roughly two-thirds of the way through our “lost
period” in the history of philosophy and semiotic—is that there is a growing com­
plexity of considerable interest and not without its antinomies in the understand­
ing of signs. The definition of sign is becoming unsettled, the division of signs
is ramifying and intersecting in unexpected ways that demand further analysis
and, in particular, have consequences for the very attempt at definition.
This situation is well reflected in the complex of analyses put forward under
the title “De Signis” (1607), as the first chapter in their commentary on Aristo­
tle’s De Interpretation, by the group of thinkers inspired by Fonseca, the Conim-
bricenses. The authors of this important work, it would appear, were among the
professors instructing John Poinsot in his undergraduate years at the University
of Coimbra. Certainly the discussions of the Conimbricenses provided the decisive
counterpoint against which Poinsot developed his own thinking in this area, and
much of the clarity Poinsot eventually achieves is owing directly to his wrestling
with the difficulties the Conimbricenses bring into focus without being able to
fully resolve.
Poinsot, an Iberian philosopher of mixed Burgundian and Portuguese des­
cent (Deely 1985: 421-424, esp. n. 32), is the first thinker that we encounter who
both debates the possibility of a unified doctrine or “general theory” of signs and
affirms it unequivocally, setting himself to work out precisely such a doctrine in
a unified treatise. He published an introductory logic text under the rubric of
Summulae in 1631, the year before Locke’s birth. He preceded his textus summularum
with a very interesting announcement of his own forthcoming Treatise on Signs,
to be published in the following year as part of the course in material logic; and
with an equally interesting complaint. The introductory logic texts that have been
written in recent generations have become excessively complicated, he asserts,
through the intrusion into the introduction of the problems attendant upon the
notion of sign, which involves many matters from metaphysics and psychology
which are customarily treated at length only toward the end of the curriculum
(see Deely 1982: 36-40, sequence of tables redone as a foldout chart in Poinsot
1632a: 372-375)—the whole problem of knowledge and ideas. As a result, begin­
ners have experienced needless and excessive difficulty in getting clear about the
more simple business (being exclusively glottocentric) of formal logic as tradition-
 14 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

ally conceived (in contrast with signs as such, which are coextensive with the whole
of cognitive life, perceptual as well as conceptual, pre- and post-linguistic).
Therefore, he says, what he has done (in this following the example of the
Conimbricenses), in order to simplify the summulae texts and at the same time
clarify the larger logical and philosophical tradition in this area, is to reduce to
their proper unity all the basic issues which have been raised concerning signs,
and insert the discussion of these issues into its proper place in the tradition of
logic and philosophy, by substituting a general treatise on signs (tractatus de signis)
for the heretofore customary commentary on the De Interpretatione (Peri Hermenias)
of Aristotle. The reason for this substitution, he explains (1632a: “Super libros
perihermenias”, 38/1-39/18), is that in the logical tradition up till now, e.g., in
the commentary of St. Thomas (c. 1269-1274) on the Peri Hermenias or in its com­
pletion by Cajetan (1496), or in the writings of the other Latins on the subject
all the way down to the 17th century, interpretation, following Aristotle, has been
treated solely in terms of intellectual or logical interpretation. But logical inter­
pretation itself is only one mode or form of interpretation; interpretation as such
is rather co-extensive with the cognitive life of organisms; and logic achieves its
specific forms of interpretation (not only in dependence upon enculturated percep­
tual and sensory habits—such as the ability to recognize the words and syntax
of a given language, but) entirely through the use of signs. And therefore, lest
the foundations of the exposition of logical form go unexamined, it is necessary
to substitute for the narrow logical discussion of interpretation customary in the
second part of logic (i.e., in the problematic of “material’’ logic) rather a general
treatise on signs, which is what the name “perihermenias” properly would mean.
In 1632, the year of Locke’s birth, Poinsot’s Treatise proper is published.
Needless to say, an examination in all the subtle abstract detail (matched in my
opinion only by Heidegger’s Sein undZeit in our own time, which produces a similar
exhaustion in the reader) and far-reaching exposition of this early and perhaps
first systematic semiotic treatise is out of the question here. Since, however, Poin-
sot, being himself a graduate of Coimbra (1605), was thoroughly familiar with
the work of da Fonseca and the Conimbricenses, it will perhaps suffice for pre­
;
sent purposes to single out against the background of Fonseca’s work in particular,
as already presented above, three points of basic theoretical importance, which
may serve to indicate the thrust of Poinsot’s comprehensive doctrine.
First of all, the critique of the definition of the sign handed down by all the
Latin generations from Augustine, implicit in the introduction of the division of
.
signs into formal and instrumental, as we have seen, but hedged by Fonseca, is
on the contrary made explicit and championed by Poinsot (1632a: 27/14-18,
116/1-13; resumed in Deely 1978a: 5-7). The ground of this critique, as of the
existence of a unified subject matter for semiotic, is the insight that what is essen­
tial in our experience to the being and functioning of a sign is not that it be
something perceived but that it bring something other than itself into the awareness
of an organism, which is exactly how ideas function within the mind—to bring
something other than themselves into awareness. When one thinks of a horse,
for example, it is the horse one is thinking of, a determinate object among many
alternative determinations of thinking, not the subjective mental state, the idea
in your mind, that objective presence presupposes. The consequence of this is
that formal and instrumental signs, precisely as signs, are indeed univocal in their
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 15

way of being, and are therefore equally truly signs: the crucial point of doctrine
that Poinsot establishes from a number of angles (e.g., 1632a: Book I, Questions
1 and 2; Question 5 at 202/19-45) before tackling it exprofesso in the opening Ques­
tion of Book II, “Whether the Division of Signs into Formal and Instrumental
Is Univocal and Exhaustive”; discussion in Deely 1978, Williams 1985a).
What is crucial in this connection is to see that the distinction between formal
and instrumental signs as it comes to Poinsot from previous tradition, however
important, is assimilated by him in a way that makes it derivative from, rather
than constitutive of, the foundation of semiotic. Given the novelty of the perspec­
tives opened up by the notion of formal signs once it has been introduced, it is
perhaps not surprising that this has been the one element of Poinsot’s semiotic
that was fastened upon (even in the absence of any understanding of his unique
way of grounding that distinction in the relative) in the polemical climate of the
last quarter century of logic and philosophy in the English-speaking world, by
philosophers interested primarily in a “realist” epistemology and logic—thus Mari-
tain (1924, 1943, 1957, 1959, etc.), Oesterle (1944), Adler (1967), Simon (1961),
Veatch (1952), Parker and Veatch (1959), Wild (1947). The strictly limited suc­
cess met with by these attempts to appropriate this conception from Poinsot’s con­
text traces directly to the fact that each of these authors attempts to employ the
distinction of formal signs directly, as if it were independent of Poinsot’s prior
account of relative being (but then, it is no longer Poinsot’s distinction); yet it is
precisely that prior account which gives to the distinction its proper force (see
Deely 1974: 875 n. 26, 1985: 479-481) and sets its use apart in Poinsot’s context
from the earlier discussions—as from the contemporary ones. Indeed, in the case
of Wild (1956: 558) and Adler (1968: 582), so “independent” is the use made
of the notion taken from Poinsot, in terms of its semiotic origin, that they deploy
it in the context of a view of relation that is the contrary opposite of the one Poin­
sot regards as indispensably propaedeutic to the possibility of any finally coherent
unified account of signifying. For Poinsot, when the notion of formal sign is ad­
vanced in detachment from an account of the relative being constitutive of a
signs and is treated rather, not as a particular instance of this being (the i
traorganismicly founded instance), but as something posited independently, cu
as it were, out of whole cloth, it appears inevitably as an extremely interestir
but essentially arbitrary or ad hoc construct (as Ransdell 1966: 143 expressly pointc i
out), lacking proper philosophical justification and hence finally unconvincing in
its own right. This is a point to which Poinsot, in taking over the terminology
of earlier discussion, gave a great deal of thought, as Herculano de Carvalho well
notes (1969: 139).
Secondly, Poinsot expressly denies the equation (explicit in Fonseca and im­
plicit in most writers on signs down to the present day) between representation and
signification (1632a: 26/39-27/6, 116/14-117/17, 122/17-123/32). Representation
and signification differ in this: an object can represent another than itself, and
thus be a sign, but an object can also represent itself; whereas it is a contradiction
for a sign to be a sign of itself: a sign is a sign only if it is a sign of something
at least modally other. Representation and signification differ as the foundation
of a relation differs from the relation it founds.
Poinsot, thus, explains this distinction too by taking over the terms of the ac­
count of relation traditional in Latin thought from the time of Boethius. Accord-
16 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

ing to this tradition, relation involves three basic elements: what they called the
foundation, or ground, in our terms—some characteristic of an individual; the rela­
tion itself, which is over and above the individual—supra- and inter-subjective,
we would say; and that to which the thing is related through its foundation, which
they called the term or terminus of the relation. In terms of signs, what Poinsot
is saying is that the sign—signification—consists in the relation, the second of
the three elements. Representation at best is the foundation for the relations of
signification. So, apparently for the first time, Poinsot establishes a systematic
distinction between signification and representation, where the role of represen­
tation is isolated and identified within signification. All signs, thus, involve
representation, but not all representations are signs {pace Fonseca).
As an aside, in order to glimpse in passing the theoretical importance of this
point, recall how Locke begins his Essay Concerning Human Understanding with the
notion of ideas as directly apprehended representations of objects. At the conclu­
sion of his Essay, when calling for a semiotic analysis of ideas, he suggests that
such an analysis will perhaps result in a different sort of logic and critic than we
have been acquainted with hitherto. What Poinsot shows in the course of his treatise
is that when indeed ideas are analyzed as signs, it is impossible for them to be
the direct objects of our awareness in the sense that Locke lays down at the begin­
ning of his Essay (Introduction, par. 8), and again at the opening of Book IV (par.
1). Viewed in this light, Poinsot’s semiotic appears historically as an alternative
epistemology to the solipsistic course that modern thought actually takes in the
national language traditions (see Deely 1978b, 1982: 168-179, 1983, 1985b). For
given the distinction between representation and signifying as Poinsot construes
and applies it first to the distinction between representation and signification and
then to the further distinction of formal from instrumental signs, there is some
irony in the discovery that the closing chapter of Locke’s famous Essay, where
he marks out the domain of semiotic and identifies ideas as signs (Book IV, Chapter
XXI, esp. par. 4), is at variance in principle—contradictory variance—with the
doctrine of ideas as objects with which he introduced the Essay and on which he
grounded the body of its expositions. It was this earlier doctrine, basically consis­
tent with Descartes’ cogito (a fact more fundamental than the rejection of innate
ideas) that became through the unfolding of its implications the common doc­
trine of the modern mainstream, rationalist and empiricist alike.
How precisely is the doctrine of ideas as signs contradictory to the modern
doctrine of ideas as objects directly cognized? Even here in passing this contradic­
tion bears a closer look.
Consider how signs function in our experience of what is essential to them
as signs: they bring into awareness something other than themselves, what they
themselves are not. (By construing ideas as that which the mind is directly aware
of, Descartes, Locke, and those after them must posit something else on the basis
of which the “idea-objects” are presented. What this “something else” would
be—the mind itself precisely as acting, perhaps, as opposed to any results of such
acting—they do not discuss in express detail. It is this, however, that constitutes
the idea as we are defining it and as Locke proposed that it should be considered
in the perspective of semiotic, namely, as a sign.) Immediately we are struck by
how much closer to unreflected usage in the natural languages such a formula
brings us when applied to ideas than does the standard modern formula which
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 17

makes of ideas objects in their own right. When we apprehend of some natural
or cultural entity—a tree, say, or a flag—we are not aware directly of any mental
state as such. Rather, we are aware of a tree or a flag, something an idea most
definitely is not. At the same time, it is clear that a tree we are looking at, in
order to be present not merely in the physical environment but in our awareness
as well, requires for this relative-to-an-observer existence some factor within the
observer on the basis of which the tree presumably existing in nature also exists
as terminus of awareness (as item in an Umwelt and intersection in a web of sign
relations, as we explain later in this volume). This intraorganismic factor on the
basis of which a given object, concrete or abstract, perceptual, real or unreal,
exists for an individual as something of which that individual is aware, i.e., as
terminus of his or her cognition, is what an “idea” is seen to be in semiotic perspec­
tive. Of course, any object, once cognized, may further become a sign in its own
right for the one cognizing it, as a certain tree may lead the biologist on to con­
sider an entire evolutionary history, or the lover to recall a former tryst.
Note the procedure here. The basis for positing the existence of ideas is our
awareness of objects—any objects, including perceived objects with a physical
dimension—not, as in modern philosophy (cf. Hume 1748: 680) or the introspec­
tive psychology that preceded behaviorism, the other way around. Conformably
with our spontaneous interpretation of experience and in line with the “opinion”
noted by Berkeley (1710: 524) as “strangely prevailing amongst men”, we af­
firm first the indubitable experience of apparently cognition-independent aspects
of things both natural and artificial of which we become aware, and from the fact
of that awareness we infer the existence of ideas—an “Abstraction” in the Peircean
sense (c. 1902a: 1.227).
In other words, in approaching cognition from a semiotic point of view (Deely
1981), the first requirement is to distinguish between signs which make possible
the existence of objects cognized—ideas in the generic sense—and signs which
must be perceived as objects even in order to function as signs. Both types of signs,
those which are such precisely because they are not what we directly apprehenr
and those which are such precisely as part of what we are aware of, function t
signs in exactly the same way, to wit, to bring to awareness another than itsel
This precisely is the relativity constitutive of the sign in its proper being. But sigr
of the former sort, ideas (“concepts or ideas”), are not known or knowable throug
direct perception. On the contrary, they are cognized, if at all, only on reflection,
and as the foundation or ground in the knower of what is apprehended directly.
As private, i.e., inasmuch as each organism forms its own ideas, they are not ob­
jects at all, but the foundation or basis for relations of cognition to objects, which,
owing to the indifference of relation to its subjective ground, may be “real” or
cc
unreal”.
Thus, solipsism, the persistent proclivity of classical modern thought, is over­
come at a stroke, and the semiotic approach to cognition explains the possibility
of communication in the same way that any two things can be related to a com­
mon third. Ideas as belonging to an individual are private, but as signs they relate
that individual to objects that are other than private states, objects that still other
individuals may also form “ideas of’, and so enter into communication about
through the use of extraorganismic elements—such as sounds, marks, or
gestures—as signs (see Deely 1982: Appendix II). Signs of this latter sort, being
 18 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

fundamentally objects first of all, may or may not be successfully used to signify
in any given case, as the first-time visitor to a foreign culture learns all too well.
Their being as signs depends on their ontological difference from the being as
signs of ideas, the intraorganismic factor identified above.
In sum, the definition of ideas as objects of awareness, which Descartes made
the center of his Meditations (1641) and with which Locke began his Essay (1690),
the definition which unremittingly influenced the classical modern formulation
of theories of knowledge and psychology, especially in the work of Hume with
impact on Kant (awakening him from one dogmatic slumber only to induce another
far deeper), is incompatible with common experience and incompossible with the
definition of ideas as signs which Locke proposed on concluding the Essay. If the
concluding proposal is more sound than the opening one, it is not too much to
say that the introduction of the semiotic point of view into the account of cogni­
tion portends a revolution for philosophy and psychology alike, and an end to
the modern era of solipsism and reductionism.1
Thirdly, our author in some sense sees that an essential feature of semiotic
analysis (<(doctrina signorum”, in his terms) is that it is a new beginning for the
whole enterprise of philosophy. For one thing it entails a new analysis of experience
that subsumes what were previously the last conclusions of the system within its
experiential starting point (Poinsot 1632a: Second Preamble, esp. 86 n. 16; Deely
1982: 168-173, 1985: 404-411; Winance 1983). For another, the analysis of sign—
semiotic—provides a point of view that is superior to, that literally transcends,
the traditional division of being into what is independent of the mind (ens reale)
and what is dependent upon it (ens rationis), because in the sign, as in experience,
both orders of being are found (Poinsot 1632a: 117/28-118/6). The foundational
importance of this point in Poinsot’s thought cannot be overstated (Deely 1977).
When clouds, through our experience, come to function as signs of rain, we have
a natural sign; but of course, in some culture, clouds might also function as signs
of a particular relationship to the gods, which is to us obviously not a question
of something natural. Social and natural being come together in the sign.
i It is in the identification of this standpoint as the one proper to semiotic that
Poinsot finds his originality as the first systemizer of the foundations of the doc­
trine of signs, beyond realism and idealism. It is from this vantage that Poinsot
unfolds his semiotic systematically, not in counterpoint to other views but as deter­
mined directly by the matter-at-issue, the “proper object” of semiotic, namely,
semiosis. And it is to this vantage that he assimilates all counterpoint—what the
contemporary “realists” missed. The first task of the semiotician (Poinsot 1632a:
117/25-118/18) is to secure a standpoint superior to the division of being into what
exists independently of our cognition (ens reale, “mind-independent being”) and
what exists dependendy upon cognition (ens rationis, “mind-dependent being”).
For Poinsot, semiotic must take its stand, in the felicitous description of Sebeok
(1975a), squarely “at the intersection of nature and culture”.
This new, wholly experiential point of departure selected for Poinsot’s philo­
sophical account of signs (Ransdell speaks similarly—1980: 181—of the “basic
phenomenological stance” endemic to semiotic) is what sets his semiotic on a path
toward reconciling in the sign the seemingly opposed orders of nature and
culture—“seemingly”, that is to say, in modern thought at least since the famous
Critique of Pure Reason of Immanuel Kant (1781, 1787). Kant’s conclusions in this
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 19

regard merely systematized and made unmistakable inclinations that had been
at work from the beginnings of modern thought in its manner of treating
knowledge. But Poinsot’s simple recognition of semiotic’s basic task also amounts
to a revolution within the perspective of natural philosophy or “physics” tradi­
tional in Poinsot’s day. For the sole concern of that tradition was to uncover and
explicate the structure of ens reale, which they thought to have achieved, after
Aristotle, with the division of mind-independent being into substances or natural
units of independent existence (see Ashley 1973) with their accidents or various
properties and characteristics. Thus, the division of being into the Aristotelian
categories of substance and the various types of accident was generally thought
to be the permanent achievement of ontology in the Latin age.
Poinsot’s approach to semiotic, his point of departure, that is, simply under­
cuts this categorial scheme, not in the sense of invalidating it or showing it to
be false, but in the sense of going below it and beginning at a more fundamental
point, with an analysis of experience prior to the possibility of the working out
of any such scheme, Aristotelian (“realist”) or Kantian (“phenomenalist”) equally
(Deely 1977). Comparatively to the traditions of ancient Greek and mediaeval
Latin philosophy alike, Poinsot establishes afundamental ontology in just that sense
which Heidegger calls for in our own time namely, an “ontology” which accounts
for the categorial interconnections (1927: 3) and lays bare the ground of the prior
possibility of truth as a “coming together” or “correspondence” (convenientia) bet­
ween thought and being (1929). Poinsot Finds this fundamental ontology in our
experience of the way in which things appear to be relative. The simplicity of his analysis
on this point is nothing short of ingenious, although his terminology and style
of expression are so history-laden with the concerns of previous traditions of discus­
sion in this area, going back continuously some eleven hundred years in the Latin
(to the work of Boethius—discussions in Krempel 1952, Deely 1982, Eco et al.
in this volume), that it makes for difficult access on the part of contemporary
readers separated by linguistic tradition as well as centuries from contact with
that then-living community of discourse. I will try to recapture the central ir
sights of concern here by the use of some simple examples to illuminate the ii
troduction of the minimum technical terms.
Consider the twofold case of a room in which all the furniture has just bee
moved in but not yet arranged, and that same room after each item of furnitui
has been “placed”. No thing, literally, has been altered in the two cases—each
thing in itself, each item of furniture, remains just as it was, assuming no damage
in the rearrangements; and yet the simple “fact” of arrangement makes all the
difference in the world between the two cases. It is not in the things that a difference
has been made, but in between them. Moreover, this “in between” difference is
there in both cases, whether or not anyone happens to be contemplating it. We
have here the matter of what Poinsot calls, among other things, “categorial”,
l £
predicamental”, or “real” (physical) relations.
Now consider further the case of the “unarranged” room while its inhabitant-
to-be is deciding how to arrange it. Suppose, for simplicity’s sake, that the per­
son in question completely thinks out in advance the exact position for each item,
and only then proceeds to place the furnishings exactly according to plan. At the
moment when everything has been thought out but nothing yet placed, there exists
in thought a network of objective and communicable but cognition- or mind-
 20 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

dependent (“mental”) relations (relationes rationis); yet once the furnishings have
been moved “according to plan”, this very same network has been made to exist
in the physical order of what stands independently of cognition. Thus Poinsot
observed (1632a: Second Preamble, esp. 93/16-96/36, in this following Aquinas
c.1266: q. 28. and Cajetan 1507 before him) that as a mode of “reality” relation
is unique in that its essence (esse ad aliud, “being between”) is separate from its
cause or ground of existence (esse in alio, “the character or feature upon which
a relation is as such founded and dependent here and now”), which is not the
case for any other mode of reality, any other feature of cognition-independent
being as such. Poinsot sees in this the ultimate reason for the possibility of semiosis:
relation in what is proper to it, namely, suprasubjectivity (esse ad), is indifferent
to realization now in nature, now in thought, now in both at once (Deely 1971a,
1972, 1972a, 1974, 1985: 472ff.). Relation in this sense, precisely as indifferent
to the opposition of what depends upon and what is independent of cognition,
Poinsot calls relatio secundum esse, “relation according to the way it has being” or
ontological relation. (It is in this relation that any sign as such will consist.)
Consider now the case of some “individual” being, whether “natural” —
say, a dinosaur—or “artificial”—say, a lamp in the newly arranged room. Such
individuals are emphatically not relations in the being proper to them (secundum
esse): they exist subjectively as something in their own right, not just (merely and
solely) between other things sustaining them in a derivative way, but as sources
of resistance and interaction. And yet, if we seek to explain why they are or how
they might be altered from their present state, we find it necessary to refer to
what the individuals in question themselves are not. Thus, even the individual
entities and “natural units” of experience existing in their own right—even
substances in Aristotle’s scheme, the most absolute of the subjective entities—are
seen to be in some sense relative when it comes to the question of how they come
to be or of how they are to be accounted for. Relativity in this sense, precisely
as infecting the whole scheme of categories of cognition-independent existents (as
I also of phenomenal entities physically sustained, as a liber clausus), Poinsot termed
relatio secundum did, “relation according to the way being must be brought to ex­
pression in discourse”, or (synonymously) relatio transcendentalis, “transcendental
relation”. (It was here that the Conimbricenses thought to locate signs.)
With this division of being, then, into transcendental and ontological rela­
i tion, Poinsot has in hand two simple “categories” which are exhaustive and ex­
clusive, but whose terms are entirely matters of direct experience (unlike Aristotle’s
division of being into substance and accident, which was also exhaustive and ex­
clusive, but directly experienced only on the side of certain accidents: discussion
in Powell 1983), and whose relevance to the doctrine of signs is immediate: for
all authors agree (cf. Williams 1985a: xxxii-xxxv), and indeed experience makes
quite unmistakable, that every sign as such is a relative being (something making
known another than itself); and since, by the prior terms of the analysis of relative
being, we know that there are only two irreducible types of relativity, it remains
only to apply that analysis to our experience of semiosis in order to determine
in what precisely a sign consists (the formalis ratio signi, as Poinsot puts it), that
is to say, what is it that constitutes a sign in its proper being?
The answer to this question is ontological relation, an answer which enables
Poinsot to resolve a number of aporia which have plagued accounts of signifying
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 21

from ancient times down to the present, and which turn out to be decisive for
epistemology and philosophical thought generally.
To mention only some of the most salient points, this resolution enables Poinsot
to explain the indifference of discourse to physical reality (the possibility of lying,
scientific posits like Eudoxus’ spheres that prove to be mythical, talk about past
or future, fiction, etc.) and, at the same time, the power of discourse to express
a factual situation. In sharp contrast to the direction his contemporary Descartes
was even then giving to what was to become the modern mainstream of philosophy
on the other side of the transition from Latin to the national languages, Poinsot
was able to provide an analysis of ideas as signs which short-circuited the poten­
tial problem of how we can come to know any reality other than our own minds.
He did so by showing that ideas in their existence as “private” (esse in) are mere
transcendental relations serving to ground in their proper being (esse ad) relations
to objects which by definition are in every case suprasubjective and accessible
to many—in the same way, as we have noted, that any two or more things can
be related to something in common. Communication and public life, immediate
components of common experience, are thus verified theoretically by the terms
of Poinsot’s semiotic, as is also the possibility of a science of nature which attains
its object by the critical control of objectivity through the isolation of variables.
Notice that these remarks, confined to the central point of the doctrine (the
foundation of semiosis in the nature of relative being), have made no mention
at all of the distinction between formal and instrumental signs, or of any other
division of the sign, for that matter. Considerations of specific types and contexts
of signs, for Poinsot, refer back to and are best treated only in light of the founda­
tional semiotic doctrine, securing the nature of signification in ontological relativity
and showing its contrast to representation: while every sign involves representa­
tion fundamentally, yet formally the sign in its proper being goes beyond the
representative on which it is as such founded, exactly by leading awareness to
something other. In Poinsot’s termini technici, the representative element in significa­
tion is a transcendental relation, whereas the signification proper is in every case
an ontological relation, and a categorial or “real” one—cognition-independent
in this sense, even though, as actually semiotic, occurring precisely within and con­
stituting the cognition in its suprasubjective reach—when the conditions for rela
tion to obtain in the physical order (Poinsot 1632a: 91/3Iff., 137/9ff.)—principally
the cognition-independent or “subjective” existence of its term—are fulfilled.
Thus, while the concept as a similitude or “representation” is but a remote con­
nection with existing entities, as Descartes and Hume brought out so forcefully,
it is not in this capacity that ideas, understood semiotically, provide the objects
of apprehension, being (in this capacity) but transcendental relatives founding
ontological relations, which latter alone are the proximate means for apprehend­
ing objects, whether “real” or not. As Powell summarized (1977, published in
Deely 1985: 470):

Thanks to these innovations, Poinsot can be seen as a bridge for a

philosophy of realism between medieval philosophy of real individual
substance and modern philosophers of empiricism and of social world. Em­
piricism is satisfied in terms of realism by making transcendental relations
and categorial relations the empirical origin of realism in philosophy. Social
 22 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

world is made intelligible in terms of realism by the univocity as known

of real and unreal relations in language as customary signs.

Or again (ibid. 471):

Poinsot wrote many purely traditional treatises as well as this one, but this
Treatise on Signs contains in the concept offormalis ratio signi a moment when
medieval realism of individual substance was passing into modern philo­
sophies of empiricism and social world. We do not claim that Poinsot’s
concept of the formalis ratio signi is the only such moment. But the “for­
malis ratio signi” defined as relatio secundum esse expressed both the “realist
reason” of medieval substance philosophy and the “subjective empiricist
reason” of modern philosophies.

Compare this last point to Locke’s notion of semiotic, as put forward in 1690.
In concluding his Essay, Locke proposes his new division of knowledge, which
we may schematize thus:

KNOWLEDGE:

SPECULATIVE— PRACTICAL—
of things which of things which are
arc what they are what they are owing to
by nature human thought or action

SEMIOTIC—
of the means whereby
speculative and practical knowledge alike
arc acquired, elaborated, and shared

1 This proposed division is reminiscent in different ways both of Aristotle’s divi­

sion of the sciences,
j
KNOWLEDGE

1
SPECULATIVE PRACTICAL
:

PHYSICS or “NAT­ MATHEMATICS METAPHYSICS ART—the science ETHICS—

URAL PHILOSOPHY’ of making things, the science of
i.e., philosophical any production doing, i.e., of
understanding of the the normative
physical universe regulation of
human action

and of the Stoic Division,

 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 23

KNOWLEDGE is
of the ORDER
which the mind

finds in things finds in its own puts mto puts into

of the physical workings: RATIONAL behavior: things:
world: NATURAL PHILOSOPHY or LOGIC ETHICS ART
PHILOSOPHY3 (Xdyoq)

but with a very important difference which I failed to notice before in another
treatment of this matter (Deely 1978: 152-154).
Notice that in the Stoic division, as also in that of Aristotle, the various types
of objects specifying the various types of knowledge are distinguished, and they
are kept distinct. Locke divides knowledge at first exactly the way Aristotle does—
essentially he divides it into speculative (the knowledge of things which are what
they are, independently of us, which Locke calls physics, betraying not only a Greek
influence but, much more proximately, the influence of the Latin renaissance)
and practical (that is, the knowledge of things which depend for their coming into
existence upon human thought and action). So far he is merely repeating Aristo­
tle. But now, when he brings in his semiotic, what we are confronted with is a
proposal for studying in a systematic and unified fashion the ways and means
whereby speculative and practical knowledge alike are acquired, developed, and
communicated. This establishes a threefold division of the sciences, all right, but
it is more unlike than it is like the division either of the Stoics or of Aristode;
because with Locke’s third branch we are given a distinction which unites: it
distinguishes the different orders only in order to show how they are brought
together in the sign—and this is exactly the point of view superior to the division
of being into ens reale (the principal object of speculative thought in the Aristotelian
tradition) and ens rationis (certain forms of which are the object of practical thought)
that we already encountered as the entrance to Poinsot’s doctrina signorum. The
object of semiotic is neither ens reale nor ens rationis preclusively, but both in th<
ways they get mixed up with and compenetrate one another in experience.
What is being drawn here, by Poinsot, by Locke, by—more fundamentally-
semiotic, is a new line: in the old tradition (cf. Russman 1981), the basic conceri
is with what is what it is independently of man, and secondarily with the thing
that are brought about by and depend upon man. With semiotic, the basic con­
cern is with both equally. For the first time, the standpoint is achieved which
of itself opens—to borrow an apt formulary from a contemporary philosopher
(Maritain 1966: 32)—“onto the avenues of non-being windows as large as those
open onto the avenues of being”; and the basic realization behind this achieve­
ment is that “what is” is circumscribed not by a fixed but by a shifting line whose
shifts are determined precisely by the interaction between the two orders of being
through the function of signs, through semiosis. The study of that shifting real­
ity, that shifting line, is semiotic. Clouds as signs of rain is the classical case of
the natural sign as something which is what it is independent of man. Now of
course there are people trying to seed the clouds to produce rain, bringing what
was formerly wholly outside human control partially within that control—hardly
a possibility the medievals envisaged. More centrally, “heroes” for a given culture
24 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

shape the development of that culture through myth and folklore in ways that
cannot be reduced to causal lines stemming from actual achievements in the order
of physical events, just as stories false in their origin can become true shapers
of a course of social events, thus acquiring a reality which must be dealt with
in its own right and even in the “institutionalized forms” and customs of cultural
life, so that “the paths of non-being” become “as difficult as those of being”.
The older divisions separated the various orders of knowledge, the “sciences”.
This division shows how they are united in human experience. We may schematize
the relation of knowledge to experience on this basis thus:

SEMIOSIS—
the building up of a
structure of experience
through sign-relations (signa
in actu excrcito) founded in:

ENS REALE—the things and/or ENS RATIONIS—the

of nature which give rise things of experience which
to speculative understanding have no proper being apart
from our activities and which
we endeavor to control through
art and ethics, i.e.. practical
understanding

SEMIOTICS—
reflections upon the role of signs
in structuring experience and
revealing nature and culture
to our understanding (signa
in actu signato)

It is with Poinsot, we may say, that the long tradition of Logic and Philosophia,
winding back over the centuries to ancient Greece and beyond, finally achieves
semiotic in actu exercito, while with Locke it is achieved in actu signato, that is, the
doclrina signomm first systematized by Poinsot receives from Locke what was destined
to become its “logically proper name”. From the 17th century onwards, the rela­
tion of logic to semiotics is something achieved both in fact and in name, though
the achievement will not be recognized for another three hundred years.

II. Modem Times: The Intermediate National Language Phase

Keeping within our chosen perspective of logical development, what happens
between Locke and our own day?
From the point of view of semiotic, just as Poinsot’s Tractatus de signis, so also
Locke’s proposal for a new approach to the sciences, falls still-born from the press.
If one looks at the posthumous editions of Poinsot’s Ars Logica, one finds that the
editors unmistakably and systematically misunderstand or make nothing of the
standpoint of his semiotic, concerning themselves only with reducing it so far as
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 25

possible to the prejacent perspectives of logical and ontological philosophical

analyses, as witnessed in Gredt in our own time (discussion in Deely 1985: 461
n. 97). Except for some honorific references on the matter of signs (e.g., Makowski
1679: 248), the limited example of Comas del Brugar 1661 is the only trace of
further development along the lines indicated by Poinsot’s semiotic that I have
found in the Latin. If one looks in the national language traditions for traces of
Locke’s influence, indeed one finds it everywhere, but nowhere on the point of
semiotic as “another sort of logic and critic than we have been hitherto acquainted
with.” Indeed, the chapter proposing semiotic is commonly omitted from the many
abridged editions of Locke’s celebrated work that appear in succeeding centuries.
The silence is broken, it would seem, only by Leibniz’s superficial criticisms in
his Nouvcaux Essais sur Ventendement humain (composed 1704; published 1765), which
Fraser appends in the notes to his classical 1894 edition of Locke’s text (p. 463),
and for the evaluation of which the best preparation might well be a careful reading
of the Aristotelian tract so influential in the 13th and 14th centuries, De Sophisticis
Elenchis, on the unmasking of spurious arguments. Until of course Peirce’s reading
of Locke’s proposal (cf. Sebeok 1974a: 5-10), soon after which the silence is
thoroughly shattered!
From the point of view of logic too, whether “formal” or “material”, as from
the point of view of semiotic itself, we encounter from the 17th century an ex­
tended period of barrenness, curiously styled “classical” logic (cf. Bochenski 1970:
14), and which is characterized by a diffuse interest centered “much more on
rhetorical, psychological, and epistemological problems than on logical ones”
(Bochenski 1970: 254)—and, in general, by a drift away from awareness of foun­
dations. As a consequence, if we omit, as (we have seen) has long been the custom
of researches in these areas, consideration of the contributions of the Latin Iberian
mainstream, it can be said that “from the 400 years between the middle of the
fifteenth and the middle of the nineteenth century we have”, as the Kneales (1962:
298) put it, “scores of textbooks but very few works that contain anything at once
new and good.” Bochenski (1970: 9) speaks just as harshly of “the utterly barren
period” stretching from Descartes to the mid-nineteenth century, when the new
development of formal logic begins. Typical of and early in this decadent phase
was the famous La Logique ou l’Art de Penser, the so-called Port Royal Logic, of Arnauld
and Nicole (1662).
Barren as this period seems to have been respecting the problematic of formal
logic, if we recall the more integral problematic adumbrated by the entire organon,
it should be noted that this period at least stands out in the work of thinkers who
sought to flesh out in the context of experimental science our understanding of
induction. This general process, whereby the mind forms its commerce with sensi­
ble nature ideas about how that nature works, had of course been recognized and
set in contrast to the syllogism (deductive reasoning) from the earliest times, and
indeed by Aristotle (e.g., Topics 1.12). That there is such a process is evident from
the fact that we are not born with a predetermined set of notions about the world,
but develop our concepts first from experience. As a late modern author sum­
marized (Maritain 1923: 272), “there must indeed be two distinct kinds of in­
ference, one of which will lead or introduce us to the knowledge of universal things
starting from singular facts of experience, and the other which will lead us from
previously formed universal propositions to other propositions on the same uni-
 26 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

versal plane”, that is to say, one process by which we first reach our ideas, and
another by which we are able to elaborate those ideas once acquired.
It is also true that the Greek and Latin periods of logic developed primarily
in terms of the understanding of deductive reasoning, so that inductive reason­
ing, though known, was underdeveloped in these traditions, and indeed, with
a few exceptions (notably Albertus Magnus, e.g., c. 1250-1264: II, tract. 7, ch.
4; c. 1264-1270: I, tract. 3, ch. 4), neglected. Thus the way was prepared in early
modern times for an emphasis on inductive reasoning to appear as something
almost entirely new, “ignorantly or perversely rejected by our forefathers in favour
of the deductive reasoning, which they associated with the name of Aristotle, and
now held to be in comparison an idle thing”, as Joseph described the situation
(1916:394).
This was precisely the situation Bacon sought to cultivate and exploit with
his New Organon (1620) and De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum (1623), not altogether
fairly from the standpoint of an integral familiarity with the “old” Organon of
Aristotle, it is certain (Joseph 1916: 391-392; Maritain 1923: 282-283), but with
a virtually complete success from the standpoint of sociology of knowledge. In
the process, as we will shortly see, the interrelation of certain essential structures
of the mind’s working were lost from view, structures which had nonetheless been
clearly labelled and recognized, even if not thoroughly utilized or analyzed, in
the older Latin traditions. In the modern period, following in the line of Bacon
(and not helped in this particular by the influential “lack of subtlety on Hume’s
part” concerning the nature of necessities outside of thought, as Wallace remarks
[1980: 127]), induction, conceived simply as the ascent from particular facts to
general conceptions, laws, or principles, came to be the subject of studies going
far beyond anything to be found in the earlier periods, but with the curious result
that, instead of bringing about a progressive clarification of our understanding
of the matter, induction became “one of the most confusing terms in Logic”
(Joseph 1916: 395). The mid-19th century brought in many respects the climax
of this modem development, in the works particularly of Herschel (1831), Whewell
(1837, 1840), Lotze (1843, translated into English 1884), and Mill (1843). Of Mill’s
System of Logic Joseph writes (1916: 395):
To that more than to any other work is to be traced the prevalence of the
opinion, that inductive reasoning, or Inductive Logic as the theory of it,
is a discovery of the moderns—an opinion which certainly contains less
truth than falsehood. The name induction may be said with him to have
stood for more than a particular form of inference; it was the battle-cry
of a philosophical school, the school, as it is called, of experience. But as
i a result of this, and of its previous history, it has become one of the most
i
confusing terms in Logic.
Knowing apparently nothing of Peirce, Joseph summarized the results of the
post-Baconian studies of induction thus (p. 397):

We incline to think of Deduction and Induction as processes moving be­

■
tween the same points, but in opposite directions; Deduction, we think,
argues from general principles to particular facts, Induction from particular
facts to general principles. Even if this were true, such a statement tells
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 27

us nothing of the difference in the nature of the reasoning between the

two cases; and in point of fact, though there are arguments of those two
kinds, the distinction is by no means the most important that can be drawn,
does not coincide with the distinction between the arguments traditionally
assigned to Deductive and Inductive Logic respectively, and leaves out
some of the operations of reasoning that best deserve to be called scientific.

In terms of the clarifications in principle that such a situation cries out for,
it would seem that the most fertile development for semiotics in this area of logic
comes with the re-discovery by C. S. Peirce around 1866 that the notion of in­
duction is heterogeneous, comprising not one but two distinct species of move­
ment: the movement of the mind whereby we form an hypothesis on the basis
of sensory experience, which Peirce called abduction (sometimes “hypothesis”, also
“retroduction”), and the movement back whereby we confirm or infirm our
hypothesis with reference to the sensory, for which movement Peirce retained the
name induction. Fisch (1980: 11) writes as follows:

The extreme diversification of Peirce’s work had a focus and a purpose.

The focus was in logic, conceived at first as a branch of semiotics, but even­
tually as nearly coextensive with it, though with a distribution of emphasis
different from those of semioticians who are not logicians. The purpose
was to distinguish the possible kinds of semioses or sign-functions, and,
among them, to make the most thorough study he could of arguments in
particular, and above all of their functions in mathematics and in the
sciences. His major single discovery was that what he at first called hypothesis
and later abduction or retroduction is a distinct kind of argument, different
both from deduction and from induction, and indispensable both in
mathematics and in the sciences. This discovery came at least as early as
1866. ...

I call this a re-discovery, because it seems to be a fruitful elaboration of the

distinction commonly taught in the summulist tradition under the heading of in­
duction, between ascensus (“abduction”) and descensus (“induction”). For exam­
ple, Poinsot 1631:

Liber Tertius Summularum, cap. 2: . . . St. Thomas [c. 1269-1272a: Book

I, lect. 30] posits but two ways of acquiring scientific knowledge, to wit,
demonstration [deduction] and induction. Demonstration indeed is a
syllogism, which proceeds through universals: whereas induction proceeds
in terms of singulars, by the fact that all of our knowledge originates from
the particulars perceived by sense. Induction accordingly is defined as “a
movement from sufficiently enumerated particulars to a universal”; as if
you were to say: “This fire heats, and that one, and that one, etc. Therefore
all fire heats.” And since opposites have a common rationale, under this
definition of induction, which is in terms of ascent, its opposite is
understood, namely, descent, that is to say, the movement from univer­
sals to singulars. And induction, as regards ascent, is ordered to the discovery
and proof of universal truths as they are universals, that is, insofar as they
correspond with the particulars contained under them. For it cannot be
 28 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

shown that anything is the case universally except from the fact that its
particular instances are such. Descent from a universal to particulars, on
the other hand, is principally ordered to showing the falsity of a universal
as such. For the falsity of a universal is best established by showing that
something that falls under it is not the case. At the same time, supposing
the truth of a universal established and discovered through ascent
[abduction], descent [induction] also serves to show the correspondence
of the universal to those singulars contained under it.
Liber Tertius Summularum, cap. 3: “On the Manner and Means of
Resolving Terms by Ascent and Descent.”

In this way of understanding the matter, a simplistic “contrast of opposite

directions in the reasoning process between the same two points” (cf. Eco 1976:
131-133) is replaced rather by the phenomenological contrast between thought
in its interaction with the realm of material things outside itself, on the one hand,
which interaction moreover is of a twofold character, and thought considered in
its internal development according to the relations which are proper to its own
realm.2 Thus we have the three irreducibly distinct movements recognized in
common by Peirce and some among the older Latin authors grounded in the in­
tegral treatment of the Organon:
DEDUCTION
Ideas
(syllogismus)

®
Things Things

This diagram brings out clearly that there are three irreducibily distinct
movements of the mind, not just two, as modern tradition customarily implies;
but it should be well understood that we are dealing with anything but a static
situation. It is a structural matter precisely and only as (semiosically) developmen­
tal, as I have tried to bring out in a supplemental diagram (1985a, 1985b: 19-20)
showing that we are confronted here with a kind of spiral, beginning at concep­
tion in the acquiring of ideas through experience (even intrauterine, as Margaret
Mead considered in some later studies), which ideas, as tested in interaction,
! seldom prove to be adequate (i.e., “quite as we thought”), thereby giving rise
to a second and third ascent and so on in a kind of spiral, interrupted, mayhap
rudely, by death:

i
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 29

So we have a kind of integral notion of “logic” (far from a purely “formal”

logic, be it syllogistic or caiculistic), developing temporally—and hopelessly
developmental, short of psychosis—along the pattern of the proposed model.
The reversal of terminology here—reserving the traditional term “induction”
for the phase of the process least commonly but properly associated with it in tradi­
tion, while substituting the new term “abduction” in place of the erroneously
univocal common use of the term “induction” for the ascent wherein the mind
unifies experiences through the formation of representative notions—has consider­
able pedagogical merit. In conceptualizing the matter thus, Peirce characteristi­
cally transcends his modern contemporaries in the direction of a different and
more profound understanding of the foundations and origin of thought in expe­
rience, that is to say, in the direction of semiotic. But, equally characteristically,
coming late in the modern development, it is not with him a question of any simple
return to a prior understanding. With Peirce what is always at stake is a creative
development of the basic problems. From this point of view, he considers (c. 1902b:
2.98), “the division of all inference into Abduction, Deduction, and Induction
may almost be said to be the Key of Logic”, explaining (ibid.: 2.96):
An Abduction is Originary in respect to being the only kind of argument
which starts a new idea. A Transuasive Argument, or Induction, is an argu­
ment which sets out from a hypothesis, resulting from a previous Abduc­
tion, and from virtual predictions, drawn by Deduction, of the results of
possible experiments, and having performed the experiments, concludes
that the hypothesis is true in the measure in which those predictions are
verified, this conclusion, however, being held subject to probable modifi­
cation to suit future experiments.
The creative development of basic problems in philosophy, however, always
has the result in principle of making possible a better integration of the whole history
of thought. Thus, we are far removed here from the superficial contemporary
contrast (e.g., Copi 1982: 389; Halverson 1976: 31) between arguments whose
conclusions are necessarily true (deductive arguments) and arguments whose con­
clusions are only probably true (inductive arguments). The old notion of material
logic may have gone out of fashion for good reasons, but that hardly justifies us
in making light of or glossing over the fact that an argument can be deductive
in form and hence necessary in its conclusion while being at the same time only
probable in its truth by reason of uncertainties bearing on the matter or content
of the premises. It is glib superficiality to contrast deductive to inductive arguments
as arguments with necessary conclusions to arguments with probable conclusions,
since conclusions can be necessary in point of form and still remain only prob­
able in point of matter. What is required rather is an answer to Joseph’s ques­
tion of the difference in the nature of the reason in the two cases, and when this is
given (e.g., Maritain 1923: 206-213, 258-287, one of the few modern authors,
and perhaps the only one of genius, to be steeped—if anything, overly so—in
a philosophical awareness of the Latin past), it becomes clear that the reason for
probability in the conclusion of any argument is always the same, namely, a material
deficiency (cf. Maritain 1923: 276-278). It is not probability and necessity that
fundamentally contrast induction and deduction, therefore (pace Cohen and Nagel
1934: 278-279), but rather the very nature of the mind’s movement as proceed-
 30 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

ing in terms of the connection between propositions or concepts as such (deduc­

tion) or in terms of the connection between propositions or concepts as represent­
ing sensible data under a determinate form of unity (induction, whether ascend­
ing or descending).
In the line of formal logic itself, the middle of the 19th century also brought
a more or less sudden awakening with the pioneer work of George Boole, The
Mathematical Analysis of Logic, published in 1847, the same year as De Morgan’s
Formal Logic. From that time to the present, in several different directions (Jevons
1864; Schroder 1877, 1890-1905; Frege 1879; Peano 1889; Hilbert 1905;
Whitehead and Russell 1910-1913; Carnap 1934; and many others), we might
say of “formal logic” that if the Aristotelians of the Latin period developed a
formal logic, then the development over this recent period (in which Frege plays
a privileged role—some, e.g., Quine 1952, Dummett 1967, Sluga 1980, etc., would
say rather the founding role—through the introduction of the quantifier-variable
notation for expressing generality) must be called formal with a vengeance!
Leibniz (1646-1716) envisioned the possibility of a logical language so perfect
that merely by mechanical manipulation it would be capable of traversing all the
possibilities of human knowledge (see entry for Leibniz in Deely 1982: 220-221).
In the spirit of Lull before him (1274; discussion in Deely 1982: 184-185), Leib­
niz dreamed indeed of a kind of religious order that, by this logistic method, would
resolve the theological disputes which had plunged Europe of his day into un­
ending sectarian warfare!
Russell’s theory of descriptions in our own day (1905, 1910, 1919), or Car­
nap’s work on a logical language (1934), is not so different. What happens in
logic to inspire such dreams in periods otherwise so diverse?
I think basically two things, one fundamentally erroneous, the other ingenious
and of considerable technical merit, but both of which have the effect of divorc­
ing logic from concerns of common life or substantive use in philosophy, and reduc­
ing it to a sub-species of semiotics far removed from the foundations of a doctrine
of signs.
I The first and chimerical notion is that mathematics is essentially continuous
with logic, such that the one is a part of the other. In the most extreme form ow­
ing especially to Frege, the contention was that all mathematical terms can be
defined by logical terms, and all mathematical theorems can be deduced from
■ logical axioms. Russell and Whitehead set themselves to demonstrate this thesis
; in their Principia Mathematica and failed. Indeed, that the thesis in question is not
only difficult to establish, but false and therefore impossible to establish, came
to be the accepted view.
The other notion, which has merit on its own terms if pursued for what it
is, is that the understanding of purely logical relations might in some respects
■

. be advanced if the semiotic web of natural language were abandoned, and in its
place were substituted an artificial symbolic system totally controlled by stipula­
tions. The pure forms of inner consistency within such a system of axioms and
stipulated markers can then be explored with a thoroughness and rigor that proves
impossible in the complex historical system of actual language. Moreover, within
such a construct, the use of methods of calculation becomes possible to such a
degree that this latest phase of formal logic is commonly called “mathematical”,
a designation which has not advanced clarity in the understanding of what is
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 31

fundamentally involved in the study of inner consistency when an artificial sym­

bolic system is substituted for one that is capable of performing the actual task
of sustaining a socio-cultural system in its manifold relations to the extra-linguistic
realities which surround and penetrate human life. Nonetheless, what is revolu­
tionary about contemporary logic is not the aspect of calculus. On the contrary,
the aspect of calculus is itself entirely dependent upon, becomes possible only in
function of, the fundamental innovation that, in contrast to all the previous forms
of logical development, as Bochenski puts it (1970: 412), the so-called “symbolic”
or “mathematical” logic

proceeds constructively, i.e., by investigating logical laws in an artificial

language that it has devised. Such artificial languages exhibit very simple
syntactical and semantic relations, as compared with natural languages,
with the result that formal logic has undergone a change very like that
effected by Galileo in the domain of physics. Instead of the immediate,
but complex facts, the simpler underlying connections can now be
investigated.

All the earlier varieties of logic, notably the Latin summulist traditions in Iberia
and elsewhere between 1350 and 1650, this same author notes (p. 266):

make use of an abstractive method; the logical theorems are gained by

abstraction from ordinary language. Mathematical logicians proceed in
just the opposite way, first constructing purely formal systems, and later look­
ing for an interpretation in every-day speech.

The constant and deliberate increase in formalism, i.e., use of a calculus as

the general principle of logical method in the late modern period, especially after
Frege, becomes possible precisely and only because, as in mathematics, “the shape
and not the sense of the symbols” (Bochenski 1970: 266) is the matter of the rules
of operation. Where a natural language is concerned, resort to formalism is possible
only within the limits imposed by the sense of what is being formalized: hence the
importance of the discussion of supposilio among the scholastic logicians (Deely
1985a: esp. chs. 6-7), which cannot be directly compared with the use of quan­
tifiers in symbolic logic, let alone be dispensed with in favor of them, as some
contemporary logicians think (e.g., Kneale and Kneale 1962: 511; Geach 1968:
esp. chs. 3-5). The reason for this is straightforward, as can be gleaned from the
following remark of Copi 1982: 380, substituting the expression “natural lan­
guage” where he uses the expression “English”:
One cannot translate from a natural language into our logical notation
by following any formal or mechanical rules. In every case one must under­
stand the meaning of the sentence in the natural language, and then sym­
bolize that meaning in terms of propositional functions and quantifiers.
But it is precisely the understanding of sentences in a natural language that
the doctrine of suppositio is designed to express. Hence it deals with a concern
that is presupposed as settled whenever quantification is employed.3 Since they
do different jobs, the one cannot be replaced by the other. Hence also the fact
that while formalism has already been employed and highly developed “in scho-
32 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

lasticism especially”, it could never there receive ‘‘such thorough-going applica­

tion” as to become the general principle of method it becomes in ‘mathematical’
logic (cf. Bochenski 1970: 266-412).
In the early stages of this development, as by a remnant today (e.g., Geach
1968, 1972), it was commonly held that there was an opposition and competition
between the ‘‘old”, “Aristotelian” logic and the “new”, “true” logic. Of course,
the mere fact that no scientific history of formal logic existed at the time, and
that a few centuries had intervened between the “new” logic and any tradition
that could seriously and substantively be called Aristotelian, did not at first in­
terfere with anyone’s enthusiasm, least of all Bertrand Russell’s. “No wonder
then”, comments Bochenski (1970: 9, cf. Dumitriu 1977), “that with the rise
of mathematical logic theorems belonging to the elementary wealth of past epochs
were saddled with the names of De Morgan, Peirce, and others.
As sanity and sobriety began to prevail, thanks to the more profound inquirers
in the new area such as Peirce, Lukasiewicz, and most recently Bochenski, it
became possible to see that the logic of Frege’s Begriffsschrifl (Bochenski 1970: 268),
no less that that of the Principia, can more profitably be viewed as an outgrowth
and a development and, in one very precise sense, the perfection of the formal
problematic of the Analylica Prior, because now the entire philosophical-epistemolog­
ical baggage of “material logic” has been, through the simple expedient of pure­
ly artificial language, effectively jettisoned in favor of a study of the inner con­
sistency of symbolic forms purely and entirely for its own sake, divorced from
any check of further concerns. In this sense there is a continuity, it is possible
to argue, between mathematical logic and the problematic of the prior analytics,
if that problematic is first isolated within the Organon and then pursued entirely
for its own sake—no longer for the purpose of an ars seu logica utens, but solely
for the purpose of developing a “science” in its own right, the science of necessary
relations so far as they can be traced to the control and stipulations of men. Viewed
in this light, “mathematical” logic does indeed appear as an outgrowth, develop­
ment, and perfection of the constant tradition of formal logic, so that, as Bochen­
ski says (1970: 413), “there can be no doubt that in this period formal logic once
more attained one of its peaks of development”, or that “by using the formalized
languages of symbolic logic as a means of representation”, as Menne remarks
(1962: VIII), “classical and traditional theory can be made more precise logistically
and its consequences more easily examined”—although, Bochenski warns (1970:
22) at “appreciable risk of misunderstanding,” not only because such is present
“in every case of translation”, but particularly because it is a question of transla­
tion into “a terminology with so narrowly defined a sense as that of mathematical
logic. y y
From the point of view of semiotic, however, “perihermenias” (Deely 1982:
188ff. n. 16) in that full sense of the interpretive activity coextensive with cognitive
life, mathematical logic appears only as a most restricted form of interpretation,
far more restricted even than the too narrow tradition of Aristotelian commen­
tary on the De Interpretation criticized so effectively by Poinsot and others for leaving
the foundations of logical form unexamined.
To appreciate this, recall the division of instrumental signs into “ex instituto”
(stipulated) and “ex consuetudine” (customary). Applied specifically to the signs
of language, linguistic forms, it is possible to show that both these aspects are
 THE COALESCENCE OF SEMIOTIC CONSCIOUSNESS 33

constantly at play in ordinary language and in fact that it is precisely this interplay
that defines the term “natural” as it functions in the expression “natural lan­
guage” (cf. Deely 1978a; 1982: Part II Section 87-92). The habit structures of a
population, the experiences of a people; the fact that when I communicate with you
using words of a common language, those words yet have resonances in your mind
that they don’t have in mine, and conversely; the fact that there are riches of con­
nections in the linguistic traditions of the English language or of the Nahuatl tongue
or of the Eskimo tongues—sign relationships that are carried there embodying a
collective history of the peoples and specific populations: when you substitute the
element of ex institute so far as possible for all elements of custom, when you cut off
what is arbitrary from all that has become naturalized in a language, such exactly
are the factors that drop out—history, experience, the past of a people. These are the
very elements that, by their presence and incremental growth, gradually pressured
thinkers of the renaissance in the summulist tradition who strove constantly to take
account of them—instead of devising ways to anesthetize and amputate them—in
the direction of an ever richer understanding of signification culminating eventual­
ly, in a privileged instance, with a grasp of the foundations of logical interpretation
in semiosis, with all that that implies for the theories of knowledge and truth.
With the dominant contemporary logic, the pressures on the movement of
thought tend in precisely the opposite direction. In the context of natural language,
the understanding of logical interpretation tends to broaden beyond the confines of
what can be stipulatively controlled. Ultimately, following out this tendency leads
from within logic itself to a foundational doctrine of signs, both philosophically and
historically. In the context of an artificially stipulated symbolic system, the under­
standing of logical interpretation tends rather to narrow itself precisely to the
elements of control, and become a pure technique, a calculus of consequences more
and more empty of natural substance. In the extreme, this tendency leads logic
itself into a hollow or empty formalism, more and more technically perfect, as
relations of reason build upon one another constructs ever more intricate and
subtle, but by the same token further and further removed from foundations in
reality—what the older logicians used to call “distinctions of reason reasoning”
(cf. Poinsot 1632: 294al-300b48).
The philosophers of our universities today who have attached themselves to
such a method and see in its exercise the very progress of philosophy, therefore, not
surprisingly find themselves without a great deal to say of general interest for sem-
ioticians. Theirs is a technique which belongs to the field of semiotics, not to the
area of semiotic foundations (Deely 1976: 171-173; 1977; 1978a; and esp. 1985:
411-417); a technique which is not even by itself properly logic (Bochenski 1970:
17), and which has an ad hoc rather than properly systematic value (which can
nevertheless be considerable) for the exposition of any given problem or set of prob­
lems in philosophy or anywhere else (Deely 1975, 1975a: 254-271). Thus (Bochen­
ski 1970: 22):

For particular logicians, or a particular form [of logic], the use of an arti­
ficial symbolism is not only possible, but to be desired. But then every
case requires a special symbolism. What we cannot do is to create a unique
symbolism suitable for all the ideas that have been developed in the dif­
ferent varieties of logic
 34 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

—particularly when it is a question of investigating the very foundations and prior

possibility of logical form!
You can see then that the maturation of semiotic imposes the conditions of
a revolution on contemporary philosophers. It will, for the first time, exhibit un­
mistakably the proper and central place of historical experience in philosophical
reflection; secondarily, as a consequence of this if nothing else, it will force an
overall re-evaluation and redistribution of the materials of intellectual history;
and it will end the diverting of students away from questions that properly form
the substance of philosophical education.
Of course, it may be, as Heidegger believed (1947: 119), that the logistic and
“scientific” philosophers are so far gone down their by-way that future thought
in these areas will no longer be called philosophy.
Be that as it may, semiotic and semiotics are here to stay.

i
 3

THOMAS A. SEBEOK

The Doctrine of Signs

I am inclined to think the doctrine of signs a point of great
importance and general extent, which, if duly considered, would
cast no small light upon things, and afford a just and
genuine solution of many difficulties.
—George Berkeley 1732: 307—

Consider what these ten little dramas have in common:

—A radiologist spots a silhouette on a chest x-ray photograph of a patient and

diagnoses lung cancer;
—A meteorologist notes a rise in barometric pressure and delivers next day’s
forecast taking that change into account;
—An anthropologist observes a complex of ceremonial exchanges practiced among
members of a tribe; she draws analytical insights about the polity, economy, and
social organization of the people she is studying;
—A French language teacher holds up a picture of a horse. His American pupil
says “horse”. The teacher shakes his head and pronounces “cheval”;
—A historian takes a look at the handwriting of a former President and gains
insight therefrom of her subject’s personality;
—A Kremlin-watcher observes the proximity of a member of the Politburo to
the Party Secretary on Mayday and surmises his current status;
—A compromising fingerprint is introduced at a trial and the defendant is con­
victed on that evidence;
—A hunter notices in the snow sets of rectangular tracks of pointed hoofs with
an impression of dew claws; the fore-foot track is 15 cm. long and 13 cm. broad,
and the corresponding measurements for the hind-foot track are 15 cm. and 11
cm. There are spherical droppings on the trail 20-30 mm. long and 15-20 mm.
broad. The hunter surmises, with a high degree of probability, that a fully grown
bull elk is trotting ahead of him.
—A man finds himself being stared at by a dog whose head is held high and neck
is arched, growling, barking, lips contracted vertically and teeth bared, ears erect
and turned forward; he concludes he is in danger of imminent attack and takes
evasive action.
—A peacock displays to a susceptible peahen; she circles rapidly, squats, and
coition ensues.
Those of us who practice semiotics tend to treat these happenings the same
way despite their manifest substantive differences of setting, cast of human or
speechless characters, and many other variables. What entitles us to do so is an
abstractive operation which resolves each episode to an instance of semiosis, or
sign action. In this view, semiotics is not about the “real” world at all, but about
35
36 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

complementary or alternative actual models of it and—as Leibniz thought—about

an infmite number of anthropologically conceivable possible worlds. Thus semiotics
never reveals what the world is, but circumscribes what we can know about it;
in other words, what a semiotic model depicts is not “reality” as such, but nature
as unveiled by man’s method of questioning. It is the interplay between “the book
of nature” and man its decipherer that is at issue. The distinction may be pic­
tured by the simile of a fisherman casting his net; the size of the fish he can catch
is limited by the morphology of the net but this fact does not provide tutorage
in ichthyology. A concept of “modeling systems” has been central to Soviet
semiotics of the so-called Moscow-Tartu school since the 1960s, but, having been
derived from a representation of language in structural linguistics, it has focused
on culture to the exclusion of the rest of nature. In the age-old philosophical quest
for reality, two alternative points of departure have been suggested: that the struc­
ture of being is reflected in semiotic structures, which thus constitutes models,
or maps, of reality; or that the reverse is the case, viz., that semiotic structures
are independent variables so that reality becomes the dependent variable. Although
both views are beset by many difficulties, a version of the second view, proposed
by the remarkably seminal German biologist, Jacob von Uexkiill, under the watch­
word Umwell-Forschung—approximately translated as “research in subjective
universes”—has proved to be in best conformity with modern semiotics (as well
as ethology). The same attitude was expressed by Niels Bohr when he answered
an objection that reality is more fundamental than the language which it underlies;
Bohr replied: “We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say
what is up and what is down”. Signs have acquired their effectiveness through
evolutionary adaptation to the vagaries of the sign-wielder’s Umwelt. When the
Umwelt changes, these signs can become obstacles and the signer extinct.
According to the incomparable polymath, C. S. Peirce (1839-1914), who has
justly been called “the most original and the most versatile intellect that the
Americas have so far produced”, and who uniquely reinvigorated semiotics, the
antique doctrine of signs, semiosis involves an irreducibly triadic relation between
a sign, its object, and its interpretant. This trio of terms and their next of kin
have far resounding philosophical overtones. Before rehearsing some of these, let
me dwell on a common definition of semiotics, and pause to consider its com­
ponents and a few of its consequences.

I. A Common Definition of Semiotics

The subject matter of semiotics, it is often credited, is the exchange of any messages
whatsoever, in a word, communication. To this must at once be added that semiotics
is also focally concerned with the study of signification. Semiotics is therefore
classifiable as that pivotal branch of an integrated science of communication to
which its character as a methodical inquiry into the nature and constitution of
codes provides an indispensable counterpoint.
A message is a sign, or a string of signs, transmitted from a sign-producer,
or source, to a sign-receiver, or destination. Any source and any destination is
a living entity or the product of a living entity, such as a computer, a robot,
automata in general, or a postulated supernatural being, as when a boy (source),
on bent knees (nonverbal message), beseeches his deity (destination), “I pray the
Lord my soul to take” (verbal message). It is important to realize that only living
things and their inanimate extensions undergo semiosis, which thereby becomes
 :
THE DOCTRINE OF SIGNS 37

uplifted as a necessary, if not sufficient, criteria] attribute of life. By “living things”

are meant not just the organisms belonging to one of the five kingdoms, consisting
of the Monera, Protocista, Animalia, Plantae, and Fungi, but also their hier­
archically developed choate component parts, beginning with a cell, the minimal
semiosic unit, estimated to correspond to about 50 genes, or about a thousand
billion (1012) intricately organized atoms. (Viruses are omitted because they are
neither cells nor aggregations of cells.) Our bodies are assemblages of cells, about
a hundred thousand billion (1014) of them, harmoniously attuned to one another
by an incessant flux of vital messages. The origin of nucleated cells is a dimly
apprehended story of the symbiotic and semiosic collaboration among single cells—
populations of blue algae and bacteria without apparent internal components; they
evolved less than a billion years after the formation of the Earth (and ample traces
of them were harvested in Greenland). Simple cells, it is thought, fused to form
the complex confederations of cells composing each living being. They, in turn,
are integrated into organs, organs into organisms, forming social systems of ever
increasing complexity. Thus physics, biology, psychology, and sociology each em­
bodies its own peculiar level of semiosis. The genetic code governs the exchange
of messages on the cellular level; hormones and neurotransmitters mediate among
organs and between one another (the immune defense system and the central ner­
vous system are intimately interwreathed by a dense flow of two-way message
traffic); and a variety of nonverbal and verbal messages conjoin organisms into
a network of relations with each other as well as with the rest of their environ­
ment. As Frangois Jacob picturesquely described the progression: “From family
organization to modern state, from ethnic group to coalition of nations, a whole
series of integrations is based on a variety of cultural, moral, social, political,
economic, military and religious codes. The history of mankind is more or less
the history of these integrons and the way they form and change”. Semiosis on
a superior level in the hierarchy of integrons is irreducible to that on a lower level,
viz., ultimately to physics.1
The semiosic comportment of even the major organismic groupings, with dif­
fering lifestyles, has been unevenly studied. In the web of nature, plants are, above
all, producers; an examination of their communicative behavior, under the ban­
ner of “phytosemiotics”, began only in 1981, when the German semiotician, Mar­
tin Krampen, published an insightful programmatic article under that title. The
polar opposite of plants are the fungi, nature’s decomposers; our knowledge of
their peculiar brand of semiosis is even more rudimentary. Primary interest has
hitherto focused on animals (zoosemiotics), the ingesters, which mediate between
the other two, and, according to what they consume, may be categorized either
as herbivores or as predators; their nutritional mode may also mark the character
of their respective reliance on sign-use.
Note that message traffic in four out of the five kingdoms is exclusively non­
verbal; verbal messages have been found only in animals and there surge solely
in one extant subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. Man’s most distinctive trait is that
he, alone throughout terrestrial life, has two separate, although, of course,
thoroughly commingled repertoires of signs at his disposal: the nonverbal—
demonstratably derived from his mammalian (especially primate) ancestry—and
a uniquely human verbal overlay. The latter constitutes the subject matter of the
most advanced and highly formalized branch of semiotics, general linguistics, the
study of verbal commerce and its subjacent grammatical foundation. This essay,
38 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

however, by and large concentrates on the nonverbal—as in most examples which

opened this essay—or on issues concerning both, because the former are overwhelm­
ingly more copious, not only in nature but even in human-to-human interchanges.
The definition advanced here presupposes a message-producer, or source, and
a message-receiver, or destination. In the samples above, extant or formerly alive
sources and destinations figure in roles like a patient and his physician; an ethno­
graphic fieldworker and her informants; a teacher and his pupil; a historian and
a late public figure; a remote foreign official and a political scientist; an elk and
a hunter; a dog and his potential casualty; a peacock and a peahen. The barometer
read by the weather forecaster is a man-made instrument of observation, one of
a class of sense-enhancing devices like a bubble chamber, constructed to render
ineffable messages effable; thus no physicist can really “see” subatomic particles,
not even aided by the most powerful electron microscope (or accelerator-detector
complex), but only (in the simple case) the tiny bubbles of hydrogen produced by
them—the vaporous beads in the tank “stand for”, i.e., model, their interactions.
As for the dermatoglyph presented to the court, this functions here as a probative-
ly synecdochic message-by-contiguity about the guilt of a presumed criminal.
In any given transaction, a source is necessarily coupled by means of a chan­
nel to a destination; the variety of such passage-ways is constrained by the specific
sensorium of both. This state of affairs was neatly summed up by George Dalgar-
no (the Scottish author of Ars signorum, a fascinating semiotic treatise from the
mid-seventeenth century): “It is true”, he wrote in 1661, “that all the Senses
are Intelligencers to the Soul less or more; for tho they have their distinct limits,
and proper Objects assigned them by nature; yet she is able to use their service
even in the most abstracted Notions, and Arbitrary institution”. Dalgarno adds
“that Nature seems to have fitted two, Hearing and Seeing, more particularly
for her service”, but this is a superficial view. By far the most hoary messages
are molecular, and the chemical channel is the most prevalent. Three of the hier­
archical levels of basic endosemiotic control are regulated, respectively, by the
genetic code, by humoral as well as cell-mediated immune reactions, and (since
the appearance of the sponges) by the large number of peptides present in the
central nervous system, functioning as neurotransmitters. The olfactory and
gustatory senses are likewise semiochemical. Even in vision, the impact of photons
on the retina differentially affects the capacity of the pigment rhodopsin (which
fills the rods) to absorb light of different wave lengths, the condition for the
univariance principle. Acoustic and tactile vibrations, and impulses delivered via
the thermal senses are, as well, finally transformed into electrochemical messages.
Humans and many other animals are routinely linked by several channels simul­
taneously or in succession. Parallel processing of messages introduces a degree
of redundancy, by virtue of which it becomes more likely that errors in reception
will be minimized; however, it is also possible for collimated messages to con­
tradict one another—this is how a rhetorical figure such as irony performs in spoken
or written discourse, as does the back-arch display of a house cat in zoosemiotics.
It is unknown how most sources generate—or, to use a less overburdened term,
formulate—a message. Human beings are capable of launching an enormous
number of novel messages appropriate to an indefinite variety of contexts, but
the electrochemical intricacies of their initial entrainment by that cramped globe
of tissue known as the brain remain an enigma. Plainly, however, the message-
as-formulated must undergo a transductive operation to be externalized into serial
 THE DOCTRINE OF SIGNS 39

strings appropriate to the channel, or channels, selected to link up with the destina­
tion. This neurobiological transmutation from one form of energy to another is
called encoding. When the destination detects and extracts the encoded messages
from the channel, another transduction, followed by a series of still further trans­
formations, must be effected before interpretation can occur; this pivotal recon­
version is called decoding. Encoding and decoding imply a code, a set of unambigu­
ous rules whereby messages are convertible from one representation to another;
the code is what the two parties in the message exchange are supposed to have, in
fact or by assumption, totally or in part, in common. Usingjoseph Weizenbaum’s
famous computer program, aptly named Eliza, human interlocutors tend to pro­
ject sympathy, interest, and intelligence upon Eliza, as they would upon a
psychotherapist. In fact, Eliza “knows” nothing (Weizenbaum 1977). A similar
fallacy about shared codes is the theme of Jerzy Kosinski’s brilliant novelette,
Being There (and the faithful movie based on it—Ashby 1979), in which an illiterate,
retarded gardener is ascribed supreme gnostic attributes because he—essentially a
blank page—mimics, echoes, and reflects back the interactive codes of every one
of his conversational partners, whatever their native speech community may be.
Receivers interpret messages as an amalgam of two separate but inextricably
blended inputs: the physical triggering sign, or signal, itself, but as unavoidably
shaped by the context. The latter plays a cardinal role, yet the concept has eluded
definition; too, it is generally unknown how destinations “take account of’ con­
text. In semiotics, the term is used both broadly and loosely to encompass preceding
messages (anaphoric presuppositions), and probably succeeding messages
(cataphoric implicatures), environmental and semantic noise, all filtered by short-
and long-term memory, genetic and cultural.
These six key factors—message and code, source and destination, channel and
context—separately and together make up the rich domain of semiotic researches.
However, the pivotal notion remains the sign.

II. Components, Consequences, and Philosophical Overtones

This term has been defined in many different ways since its introduction in Ancieni
Greece. In medical semiotics, for example, sign is used in conjuction with, or
rather, in opposition to symptom, since at least Alcmaeon (6th-5th cent. BC), Hip­
pocrates (c.460-3?7BC), and especially Galen (c. 130-200AD). Clinical practition­
ers usually distinguish between “soft data”, or subjective signs, dubbed symptoms,
meaning by this whatever the patient relates verbally about his feelings (“I have a
pain in my chest”) or exhibits nonverbally (groans while pointing to the chest);
and “hard data”, or objective signs, which clinicians actually call “signs”, mean­
ing whatever the physician observes with his eyes and ears (bloody sputum, wheez­
ing) or with his instruments (shadow on an x-ray photograph). Many philosophers
also use the term “sign”; however, not a few contrast it with symbol rather than
with symptom. Ernst Cassirer (1923-1929), for instance, claimed that these two
notions belonged to different universes of discourse, and that “a sign is a part of
the physical world, a symbol is a part of the human world of meaning”. Minimalist
approaches such as these are far too imprecise and superficial to be serviceable,
as Peirce painstakingly demonstrated throughout his voluminous writings. For
Peirce, “sign” was a generic concept, of which there are a very large number of
species, multiplying from a trichotomous base of icon, index, and symbol, each de­
fined according to that sign category’s relation to its object in a particular context.
 40 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

To clarify what a sign is it is useful to begin with the medieval formula, aliquid
stat pro aliquo, broadened by Peirce, (c.1897: 2.228) to “something which stands
to somebody for something in some respect or capacity”. To the classic notion
of substitution featured in this famous phrase—the late Roman Jakobson (1896-1982)
called it renvoi, translatable as “referral”—Peirce here added the criterion of in­
terpretation. At this point, let us take a closer look at the Object-Sign-Interpretant
trichotomous cycle alluded to earlier, and also pause to consider Peirce’s ‘some-
body”: the destination or other receiver of the message.
The initial distinction between object (O) and sign (S) raises profound questions
about the anatomy of reality, indeed about its very existence even, but there is
nothing approaching a consensus about these riddles among physicists, let alone
philosophers. One obvious implication of this postulated duality is that semiosis re­
quires at least two actants: the observer and the observed. Our intuition of reality is
a consequence of a mutual interaction between the two, von Uexkull’s private world
of elementary sensations (Merkzeichen, or perceptual signs) coupled to their meaning­
ful transforms into action impulses ( Wirkzeichen, or operation signs), and the phe­
nomenal world (Umwelt), that is, the subjective world each animal models out of its
“true” environment (.Natur, or reality) which reveals itself solely through signs. I he
rules and laws to which those sign-processes—viz., semiosis—are subject, are the
only actual laws of Nature. “As the activity of our mind is the only piece of nature
known to us”, he argued, in 1920, in his great work on Theoretical Biology, “its laws
are the only ones that have the right to be called laws of Nature.” Any observer’s
version of his Umwelt will be one unique model of the world which is a system of signs
made up of genetic factors plus a cocktail of experiences, including future expecta­
tions. A complicating fact of life is that the bare act of observation entails a residual
juncture that disturbs the system being observed. The essential ingredient, or nutri­
ment, of mind may well be information, but to acquire information about anything
requires, via a long and complex chain of steps, the transmission of signs from
the object of interest to the observer’s central nervous system. Its attainment, more­
over, takes place in such a manner that this influential action reacts back upon
the object being observed so as to perturb its condition. In brief, the brain, or mind,
which is itself a system of signs, is linked to the putative world of objects not simply
by perceptual selection, but by such a far-off remove from physical inputs—sensible
stimuli—that we can safely assert that the only cognizance any animal can possess,
“through a glass darkly”, as it were, is of signs. Whether there is a reality behind
I signs—perhaps what Heraclitus called logos, the repeatable structure that secures
for any object its ideal unity and stability, and which the topologist Rene Thom
and I have independently rendered as “form”—mankind can never be sure of.
As Heraclitus so eloquently put it, “You could not discover the limits of soul, even
i if you traveled every road to do so; such is the depth of its form.” In sum, this
reasoning entides us to rewrite O as Sin, so the initial twofold distinction is resolved
to one between two sorts of signs.
What about the third correlate, Peirce’s interpretant (I)? What did he mean
by this much-discussed (and even more often misunderstood) concept? True, no
1 single, canonical definition of it is to be found in his voluminous writings, but
he does make it clear that every sign determines an interpretant “which is itself a
sign, [so] we have a sign overlying sign.” He also points out that an interpretant
can be either an equivalent sign or “perhaps a more developed sign”, which is
where novelty enters the system, enabling us to increase our understanding of
 THE DOCTRINE OF SIGNS 41

the immediate object. To illustrate all this, ponder some interpretants of the English
noun horse. They could be (partial) synonyms like colt, gee-gee, gelding, hinny, mare,
pony, stallion, stud, or thoroughbred—to say nothing of heroin—and the like, or the
interpretant could be a monolingual rewording, including standard dictionary
definitions, as the OED’s beginning: “A solid-hoofed perissodactyl quadruped
. . . having a flowing mane and tail, whose voice is a neigh”. Another of its inter­ :!
pretants is the scientific name Equus Przewalski caballus, as are all (roughly equivalent :!
translations into verbal signs in other languages, like cheval, Pferd, losad, hevonen, I
etc. Historical tokens, such as Bucephalus, Morocco, Clever Hans, and all the :
Lippizaners of the Spanish Riding School of Vienna belong here, along with :!
literary representations like Dean Swift’s Houyhnhnms (1726), Peter Shaffer’s
play “Equus” (1974), Conan Doyle’s saga of “Silver Blaze” (1892), Eco’s creature
Brunellus (1980: 23), and entire scientific treatises as different as Xenophon’s
disquisition Treatise on Horsemanship (c.365BC), Stefan von Maday’s Psychologie der
Pjerde und der Dressur (1912), and E. H. Gombrich’s penetrating essay, “Medita­
tions on a Hobby Horse” (1951). Intersemiotic transmutations into nonverbal
signs include innumerable and world-wide engravings and paintings of horses
(notably from the Magdalenian caves), sculptures (from the Neolothic onward,
including the Chinese tradition since Lung-shan), Scythian friezes, Greek cen­
taurs as well as modern filmic portrayals, as c t National Velvet” (Brown 1944),
or “The Black Stallion” (Ballard 1979). Finally, of course, any “actual” horse
I point to may become, by virtue of that gesture, which is an indexical sign (an
< L
object of direct experience so far as it directs attention to an object by which
its presence is caused”), an interpretant. There is no doubt that an intralingual
synonym or paraphrase of, or extended discourse on, any sign will enrich com­
prehension of the object it represents, as will also its interlingual translations and
intersemiotic transmutations. Each further interpretant tends to amplify in­
telligence and afford opportunity for a cascade of semantic innovation and therefore
change. (Another, more technical way of putting this is that any metalanguage
explicating an object language is always richer than the latter.)
In brief, it follows from Peirce’s way of looking at the sign that the second
distinction, as much as the first, resolves itself into two sorts of signs, to wit, S
and S|n. Once more, here are his words: a sign is anything “which determines
something else (its interpretant) to refer to an object to which itself refers (its object) in
} >
the same way, the sign becoming in turn a sign, and so on ad infinitum.
If objects are signs, in indefinite regression to a supposititious logos, and if
interpretants are signs marching in progression toward the ultimate disintegra­
tion of mind, what is there left that is not a sign? What of the “somebody”
mentioned by Peirce—the observer or the interpreter of the train after train
of sign-actions? In a celebrated article he published in 1868, Peirce anticipated
and answered this question, contending “that the word or sign which man
uses is the man himself’, which is to claim that “the man and the external
sign are identical, in the same sense in which the words homo and man are identical.
Thus my language is the sum total of myself, for the man is the thought.”2 In
short, the “somebody” is also a sign or a text. What of man’s faculty of pro­
creation, shared with all other life forms? Peirce showed that even this capacity
is inherent in signs, a parallel that has been elaborated by the French topologist
Thom, in his path-breaking “From Icon to Symbol” (1973). Omne symbolum de
symbolo—signs come into being only by development out of other signs.
 42 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

The position adverted to in the foregoing paragraphs, according to which, at a

certain point in the semiosic cycle, there are objects, included among them con­
scious observers or interpreters (which Charles Morris defined as organisms for
which something is a sign)—such as people, porpoises, and perhaps Phobians—
and there are, at another point in the cycle, interpretants, both being kinds of
signs, is a familiar one in philosophical tradition. This position—one that surely
follows from Peirce’s wistful throw-away remark (1906a: 5.448 n.l) about
something he took to be a fact, “that the universe ... is perfused with signs,
if it is not composed exclusively of signs”—is known as idealism, and that of a
particular hue, sometimes called “conceptual idealism”, which maintains that
our view of reality, viz., our Umwelt, entails an essential reference to mind (Gemut)
in its constitution. As Kant insisted—and, of course, both Peirce and von Uex-
kiill had thoroughly assimilated Kantian principles—“raw experience f > is :
unat-
tainable; experience, to be apprehended, must first be steeped in, strained through,
and seasoned by a soup of signs. For this reason, this brand of idealism can be
called “semiotic idealism”, in the apt designation recently put forward (1983)
by the Toronto philosopher David Savan. Furthermore, to paraphrase Savan,
semiotic idealism comes in two flavors, strong or radical, and mild or tolerant,
as between which he leans toward the latter, namely, “the thesis that any proper­
ties, attributes, or characteristics of whatever exists depend upon the system of
signs, representations, or interpretations through which they are signified1. Without
necessarily committing oneself to this or that brand of idealism—only the realist
positions are, I think, altogether devoid of interest—it is clear that what semiotics
is finally all about is the role of mind in the creation of the world or of physical
constructs out of a vast and diverse crush of sense impressions.
A few months ago, I was an auditor at an international state-of-the-art con­
ference, co-sponsored with my university by the National Endowment for the
Humanities. The topic debated was whether semiotics is a field or a discipline—a
question Umberto Eco had suggested in a speech delivered ten years earlier on
the same campus. Most speakers were specialists in one or more of the complex
historical sciences the French call les sciences humaines. The designated formal discus­
sant was the illustrious and skeptical English social anthropologist, Sir Edmund
Leach, who had detected undue hubris in the presentations, pointing out to the
speakers that “others were there before you”. As to this, he was undoubtedly
correct. Mankind’s obsessive concern with signs dates from the appearance of
the most dramatic of all steps in hominoid evolution, the emergence of verbal
signs and the changes in information storage and transmission that accompanied
this transition. The same preoccupation with signs is evident throughout infant
and child development. When my five-year-old daughter asked me, a few weeks
■
ago, “Daddy, just what does the Salivation Army do?”, and, some time ago,
when my seven-year-old wondered just how Dracula was killed by a “steak” driven
into his heart, I knew I was not being led into the tangled thickets of philanthropy
t; or Transylvania, but that locus classicus of signs in action, paranomasia.
A few lines above, I used the expression “historical sciences”, but this, too,
\ may well perpetuate an illusion. According to at least one version of quantum
theory, John Archibald Wheeler’s highly imaginative rendition (1981) of the so-
called “Copenhagen interpretation”, the past is theory, or yet another system
i of signs; it “has no existence except in the records of the present”. At a semiotic
level we make the past as well as the present and the future.
 '

i;
1!
! I

:
i:
II :
:I

.■I

Semiotic Systems: •<

[\
Anthroposemiotics
Zoosemiotics
Phytosemiotics :
 4

DONALD PREZIOSI

The Multimodality
of Communicative Events

In the semiotic task of revealing more precisely the place of the built
environment—or any other system of signs—in communication, the analysis of
communicative events in their multimodal totality has acquired today a fundamental
urgency and importance. In the present section I would like to discuss the com­
plexities inherent in such events as well as our current abilities to adequately model
such complexities.
Communication, in the broadest sense, involves the transmission of informa­
tion regarding the perception of similarities and differences. Any semiotic system
is a complexly-ordered device for the cuing of such perceptions in given sensory
channels and in conventionally-delimited media.
A communicative act such as a verbal utterance does not normally exist in
vacuuo (except perhaps in the fictitious atmosphere of certain recently fashionable
linguistic models); rather, speech acts are invariably co-occurent with com­
municative acts in distinct signalling media. This state of affairs is neither acci-
dental nor circumstantial, for on the basis of internal evidence alone, it is increas­
ingly evident that each of the isolable sign systems evolved by humans has been
designed from the outset to function both semi-autonomously and in deictic con­
cert with other sign systems.
But beyond an understanding of certain formative entities in the linguistic
code—whose meaningfulness, as in the case of “shifters”, can only be disambigu­
ated through cross-modal indexing—we remain at a serious loss to account for
the extraordinarily complex systematicities of normal (i.e., multimodal) com­
munication in daily life.
It has been clear for a long time that an adequate account of communicative
events demands of us more than a mechanical summation of the organizational
properties of particular codes as analytically isolable, and more than is currently
offered by the hybrid heuristics of sociolinguistics and “pragmatics”, which, while
admirable for their remarkable rediscovery of the wider world in which verbal
!> language is embedded, nevertheless rarely escape an implicit verbocentrism. One
can only stretch paralinguistics so far.
In the ongoing semiotic bricolage of daily life, we orchestrate and intercalate
i
anything and everything at our disposal to create and maintain a significant world,
or simply to get a message across. It is clear that the attempt to understand such
complexities through the scientistic superimposition of design features, analytic
methods and even data language drawn from the study of one of its embedded
44
 THE MULTIMODALITY OF COMMUNICATIVE EVENTS 45

components—for example verbal language—upon other significative modalities

has, by and large, been a failure. While it is true that much has been learned
by such activity, it must be decisively admitted that the ultimate expected illu­
mination has tended to be rather dim and fleeting in comparison to the energies
expended—or, as more often has happened, the mute stones and gestures have
remained mute.
Of course this is not to deny the importance and relevance of a semiotics of
the code—whether architectonic, gustatory, linguistic, or somatotopic; rather it
becomes increasingly urgent to reaffirm the status of such models as selective,
partial and synecdochal fictions.
If we are to augment the ongoing multiplication of semiotic models of specific
codes in given cultural contexts beyond the trivial reductionisms of currently
available “semiotics of culture”, our focus must be held tenaciously upon the
actualities of semiosis in daily life which implicate and combine varieties of
significative formations drawn from distinct signalling media. Moreover, general
sign theory itself must push beyond the ultimate propositional logics which, perhaps
not so curiously, seem to privilege the perspective (verbal or visual) of the given
analyst.
None of this criticism is particularly new or original. It is raised again, and
must be continued, until our picture of the extraordinarily complex nature of nor­
mal human semiosis begins to be clarified in a non-trivial fashion. Clearly, this
is not intended as an indictment of the semiotic enterprise itself, rather only its
dominant priorities. If semiotics is to realize its potential as a principled, insight­
ful and radical contribution to the problem of meaning in human life, it must
remain absolutely clear about the relative urgencies of its priorities.
Additionally, if semiotics is to be more than merely a new formalism, I think
that we must be prepared to admit that it may be at least theoretically possible
for semiotics to learn from the experience of other perspectives which in the past
or at present have attempted to wrestle with equivalent problems. There is nothing
more vacuous than a semiotics of art (for example) which is less well-informed
or insightful than the received art history.
Again, I think these issues are self-evident, and rather than continue to pur­
sue them in the abstract, I would like to begin to address the question of the im­
plications of a holistic and multimodal approach to semiosis.
It is clear that communicative acts in a given medium are normally co-occurrent
with acts in other modalities which may or may not implicate or address distinct
sensory channels, and I think it is also clear that communicative events resemble
complex, dynamically equilibrated spatiotemporal arrays of such acts, of which
the basic primate display is a simple, but (in the human line) radically apotheosized
analogue.
Furthermore, it is evident that the analysis of transmissions in any one of a
series of copresent modalities in a communicative event may not necessarily result
in an entirely complete, coherent, or homogeneous semantic domain. Much of
the information simultaneously broadcast is often redundant and perceptually
augmentative, and some of it may be contradictory. Some of it may be supple­
mentary in providing collocational semantic markings with respect to informa­
tion in another modality.
I think it is a reasonable assumption that each of the various sign systems
46 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

employed by humans in social communication has been designed or evolved to

operate in concert with all others. Crossmodal indexing, redundancy, complemen­
tarity, and supplementarity are properties of any code, perhaps to a greater degree
than we may have been willing to admit in the past. Any human sign system is
defacto not merely an open system, but it is an asymmetrical and dynamic system:
it possesses both dynamism in its synchronicity and stability in its diachrony.
This is an extremely complex state of affairs, since it situates human sign
systems somewhere between mechanistic well-formedness and idiosyncratic
bricolage; but I will also take it as a reasonable assumption that this state of affairs
has not only been highly adaptive in the evolution of the human line, but that
it has, in a variety of imaginable ways, been responsible for what it is we have
become as a species.
The peculiar internal nature of human sign systems is both a concomitant
of and a contributor to our characteristically crossmodal behavior. Moreover, the
human grade of intelligence is such that when faced with a choice, we invent a
third possibility, or we answer a question with a question. We contrast with our
nearest primate relatives not merely by the possession of any one code (whether
verbal or visual), but rather by the globality of our intelligence in all modalities.
The chief task of semiotics—its highest priority—is the clarification of the
multidimensional geometries of relationship underlying this multimodal behavior,
which is manifest in even the most simple communicative events in daily life. 1 he
question is, what is minimally implicated in any such event?
If we situate ourselves at the locus of verbal language, it will be evident that
any speech act is co-occurent, minimally, with the following:
(1) some state of gestural, somatotopic or spatiokinetic signing, involving
the significative use of the body and its culturally and conventionally-
delimited components; (2) some state of costuming or dermal patterning,
involving the significative use of artifactual markings or materials which
figure a body’s topologically-defined ground; and (3) some state of architec­
tonic or environmental structuration, involving the significative use of a
built environment or an appropriated topography.
Each of these modalities—which, depending upon the conventions of a given
culture, may themselves incorporate more than one “code” as such—may be said
to broadcast simultaneously with a particular speech act. In concert, these inter­
calated transmissions define and delimit a communicative event.
As important as it may be to identify and define the modal components of
a given communicative event, it is no less important to stress and explicate their
salient contrastive structural properties, for it is not the case that we are dealing
with topologically identical cells in a matrix, or merely different shapes in a jigsaw
puzzle. Nor for that matter will the relative contributions of copresent signings
in different modalities necessarily be equivalent; nor will it be necessarily the case
that they will always be hierarchicalized in any one linear direction, wherein any
one set of signings invariably stands as a “figure” to the “ground” of other sign­
ings in other modalities.
There are significant structural differences among the copresent signings in
a communicative event, which in large part are concomitants of the particular
sensory channels implicated in a transmission. Vision is directional; audition is
 THE MULTIMODALITY OF COMMUNICATIVE EVENTS 47

omnidirectional. Moreover, there are important differences with respect to relative

permanence of broadcast: speech signals decay instantaneously; buildings and their
infrastructures remain perceptually available for use across a multitude of differ­
ent speech acts. Clearly, there is an ascending scale of relative “object-perma­ i
nence” in the list of modalities given above.
Thus, any nontrivial understanding of the inherent multimodality of commu­ I:
nicative events must reject a simple summation or communicative relationship M
of its components, for we are dealing with different kinds of components which
have been evolved to do partially different things.
The cases where a speech act occurs outside this multimodal context are
ii
relatively minimal. But the situation is not necessarily symmetrical with other
modalities, and speech acts may be absent in communicative events, whether or
not they are replaced by surrogate or complementary signings in other modalities.
Various kinds of gestural signings may serve in such a capacity, whether derived
metaphorically or synecdochally from verbal structure, or arising independently
of a linguistic code. Some such systems may be truly “deponent”, in the sense
of being ancillary or paralinguistic, operating in rhythmic synchrony with speech,
while others will be capable of semantic disambiguation without the copresence
of verbal transmission.
There is an enormous amount of redundancy in even the simplest com­
municative event, and a great deal of redundancy is built into the operant behavior
of any code. But this phenomenon is not only infra-modal, it is cross-modal, and
information supplied by one modality may be augmented by distinct formations
in other codes. It may well be that the particular effability of any one code is to
a certain degree a concomitant of its embeddedness in arrays of copresent codes,
both actually and potentially. In visual communication, the symbolic and !
significative potential of a given gestalt is a necessary coefficient of its ground,
in mutual reciprocity. From the perspective of communicative events, this codeter­
minate “ground” involves both inframodal and crossmodal contextualization.
The real question here is the extent to which we are capable of modelling such
complexities. Taking merely the four modal activities noted above—namely, verbal
utterances, dermal patterning, somatotopic signing, and architectonic appropria­
tion—then our task will be to clarify the relationships defined by the operant
behaviors of copresent signings in these domains. It seems evident that these rela­
tionships will not only be linearly syntagmatic, metonymical or commutative—
since however useful it may be to model such phenomena as if they were “texts”
or complicated “rebuses”, they are more than these. Nor are they merely
paradigmatically associated, or metaphorically related: a communicative event
is necessarily more complex than a linguistic unit such as a phoneme, defined
by the intersective copresence of a simultaneous bundle of distinctive features.
The relationships in question will be both metonymical or synecdochal, and
metaphorical—that is to say, both syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Furthermore,
whether a given relationship between signings in any two modalities is paradigmatic
or syntagmatic may well be a function of the stance of the analysis. In other words,
the relationship may be non-transitive or irreversible: a metaphorical relation­
ship from one direction may be synecdochal when modelled from the other direc­
tion. All of this may be over and above the patent syntagmatic-paradigmatic oscilla­
tion among units in a particular code at different levels in its hierarchy of sign
 48 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

formations. It may very well be the case that not only will such relationships be
asymmetrical, they may be differently asymmetrical from the standpoint of dif­
ferent modalities.
But there are two further complications. The first concerns the phenomenon
of markedness which pervades any code: to what extent do we really understand
markedness relations as applied cross-modality? I am not aware of any study which
addresses this problem either directly or indirectly, although the work on
palaeolithic symbol systems by the Soviet writer Toporov (1972) and the American
anthropologist Marshack (1976) may lead to insights into this problem. It is most
clearly understood in work in linguistic semiotics, notably in the work ofJakob-
son and others (see especially Jakobson and Waugh 1979), where its relationship
to metaphor and metonymy is distinctly specified.
The second complication regarding the nature of crossmodal relationships in
communicative events has to do with the problem of the relative dominance of
various functions in a transmission in a given signing, and its copresent associa­
tions in other modalities. In other words, will it necessarily be the case that a
focus upon conative, or phatic, or aesthetic functions in a given signing will be
equilibrated with an equivalent focus in another modality? I suspect that here
also the situational possibilities are quite complex, for it is evident that from the
perspective of a communicative event in its totality, distinct modalities may con­
tribute different weightings in functional dominance: otherwise equivalent verbal
utterances with a dominance on one function may acquire different transmissive
foci in different settings. Once again, this fact suggests that a semiotics of the
code per se is a selective fiction in isolation from its multimodal communicative
context. And taken together, the various complexities just outlined suggest that
the relationship between a semiotics of the code and general sign theory is necessar­
ily not metaphorical, but inevitably synecdochal.
The calibration of these possible geometries of relationship is precisely what
is the most urgent task facing semiotics. As it is, it is exceedingly complex in merely
dealing with the four modal domains abstractly and generically discussed here,
let alone in the actual pluralistic conditions of semiosis in daily life, which in­
volves the intercalation of signings drawn from many distinct codes—both those
inherited from our palaeolithic past, such as verbal language and the architec­
tonic code (the latter of which is now evidenced as early as 300,000 B.C. in its
present form), as well as those assembled yesterday.
The situation is precisely this: if it is the case that each of the various semiotic
! codes evolved by humans are irreducible with respect to each other—in other
words, that the contents expressed by complex nonverbal units cannot be translated
into one or more verbal units, and vice-versa, except by weak approximation—
then the hope to find some uniformitarian common denominator, some “meta”
language, some non-trival and non-reductionist general theory of semiosis, is an
illusion except as a selective and synecdochal fiction. There are no metalanguages;
rather (and much more interestingly) only selective infralanguages which are part
1
and parcel of given codes. And since any infralanguage by its very nature adds
to the body of a given code itself, and thereby alters its topology, so in any at­
tempt to see itself as an object it must undoubtedly act so as to make itself distinct
from, and thereby false to, itself. In this condition it will always partially elude
itself. The kitten will always chase its own tail.
i
 THE MULTIMODALITY OF COMMUNICATIVE EVENTS 49

I suspect it is in the very nature of any human sign system to partially elude
itself, and herein lies the very effability of the semiotic codes which we have evolved.
But if there is no truly synoptic picture of semiosis in a value-neutral sense, no
one perspective which subsumes all others, we are left with something which in
the long run is inherently much more useful—namely a mutable focus on com­
municative events which affords a temporal and syntagmatic cascade of perspec­
tives which selectively illuminate a situation in a stereoscopic and overlapping
fashion.
It is precisely the operant nature of our multimodal understanding which
privileges each perspective selectively and successively. Since any analysis is a
function of the purposes to which it is put, it is in the nature of any analysis to
be provisional, for there are many different functions and purposes, some of which
arc contradictory and irreducible, even if they may be copresent in the same
analysis to varying degrees of dominance.
Consequently, it will be necessary to be explicit regarding the inevitable
teleological determinants in any semiotic analysis, even if this implies not only
an abandonment of a semiotics of the code except as a provisional fiction, but
also an abandonment of a uniformitarian theory of semiosis itself in favor of a
holographically-overlapped matrix of generic and irreducible semiotic theories.
Of course this is not to deny the necessary operational paradox that any code
can be employed, in communication, as a provisional metalanguage. Nor is it to
deny the evident fact that even though many codes are mutually irreducible in
a strict sense, they may reveal correlative processes of formation and transmis­
sion, as we have argued in the present study. But whatever they share is shared
by virtue of their status as human sign systems with partly-overlapping and
mutually-implicative functions. Codes are necessarily correlative rather than iso­
1
morphic. The role of semiotics is to provide a clearer understanding of how and
why each copresent system provides its own particularly powerful perspective on i
the totalities of human experience, and the ways in which each such perspective
necessarily implicates all others. The most urgent task awaiting semiotics is precise­
ly a principled attention to the directional geometries of this implication.
And in addressing these implicational relationships our analyses will be most
productive when the essential and fundamental difference between meaning and
reference are clearly borne in mind. Meaning is the specification of an ordered
trace of relationships which a given sign or matrix of signs prescribes with respect
to other signs within the same code, whereas reference is not an indexical rela­
tionship which a given sign bears to formations outside of semiotic systems, toward
some fictive “real” world, but rather involves cross-modal implications. In verbal
language, for example, “shifters” are cross-modally indexical with respect to
significative formations in a somatotopic modality (i.e., the relative placements
and perspectival positionings of addressers and addressees in communicative
events). In an identical fashion, the “meaning” of a given painting or environmen­
tal construct is internal to its own code, whereas the “reference” of a mediaeval
religious composition (or any other) may implicate a culturally copresent set of
texts, doctrines or beliefs, which themselves comprise significative formations in
their own right in adjacent codes. And the relationships among all these may be
metonymic or indexical, or metaphoric.
I believe strongly that a clarification of these issues can only lead to a salient
 50 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

enhancement of the semiotic enterprise, shunting our focus more tenaciously uponz
the nature of relationship itself, which after all is what semiotics is all about, froiE
its conceptual foundations to the fine grain of its ongoing analysis. I have triecz
to suggest here that the most productive direction such analysis can take today—
is in the direction of the disambiguation of the cross-modal relationships manifest
in their totality primarily in the complexities of communicative events. In addi­
tion, it is only in this way that our understanding of the internal structural nature
of individual codes can be made less fictive.

•
*

1
 5

JACQUES MARITAIN
i

Language and the Theory of Sign

A treatise on the sign and symbol, such as I hope may one day be
written, would on the one hand endeavor to winnow out what
is essential in the extensive intellectual elaboration to which
mediaeval thinkers subjected this matter, above all in logic (theory
of concepts and judgment) and in theology (theory of the
sacraments). On the other hand, it would endeavor to link up with
this, making use of the conceptual procedure thereby established,
the scientific investigations of our own day and that vast
assemblage of problems of whose importance various contemporary
schools of thought . . . have been so well aware, and which
relate to the symbolic, its role in primitive civilizations, in
magic, in the arts and sciences, in the social lift of our more
developed civilizations, etc. The project for such a treatise, it seems
to me, should include: I. a philosophical theory of the sign (general
theory of the sign—the speculative sign; the practical sign);
2. reflections and hypotheses with regard to the magical sign;
3. reflections on art and the sign, science and the sign, social life
and the sign, religion, ethics, mysticism and the sign. The present
study will attempt only to clear the ground for the subject by
suggesting certain very incomplete notions on a few of the themes
which arise from the first two parts of the project outlined above
[and as restricted, moreover, to the specific subject of
language as it forms but a part of the
larger consideration of the sign],
—Jacques Marilain 1943: 191—

I should like here to take up again some parts of an outline on a general the­
ory of the sign I wrote a number of years ago (1937-1938, 1938; also, with ad­
ditions, 1943, 1956 [comment in Williams 1981: 318 n. 17]), and to make use
of them to propose some considerations on language. These considerations may
be grouped under three headings: language and awareness of the relation of
signification; language and the magic sign; language and reverse or inverted
signification. [This threefold grouping is preceded by a brief precis or synopsis
of the general theoretical considerations as first advanced in 1937-1938, with the
corresponding references to the Latin text of Poinsot 1632a, from which Mari-
tain principally derived the general considerations, restored here in square brackets
exactly according to the footnotes appended by the author to the texts of 1938
and 1943.]

1. Recapitulations of the General Theory of the Sign

No problems are more complex or more fundamental to the concerns of man
and civilization than those pertaining to the sign. The sign is relevant to the whole
extent of knowledge and of human life; it is a universal instrument in the world
51
52 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

of human beings, like motion in the world of physical nature. [Gloss in Deely
1985: 490 n. 2 par. 2.]
Signum est quod repraesenlat aliud a sepotentiae cognoscenti-. A sign is something that
makes something other than itself present to knowledge. A sign manifests and
makes known something for which it stands vicariously and to which it is related
as the measured is to the measure. [Poinsot 1632a: 25/11-13, 116/3-5, 116/14-
117/17.]
The ancients drew a distinction between the natural sign (signum naturale) and
the conventional sign (signum ad placitum). In their view, a sign is what it is by
virtue of its specific and characteristic function of making known some other thing.
[Poinsot 1632a: 119/10-15, 119/30-39, 119/50-120/6, 121/21-30, 123/13-25,
125/35-39, 128/14-18, 137 n. 4.] The relation of the sign to what it manifests is
a real relation, i.e., is founded in reality in the case of a natural sign, since a
natural sign is better known than that which it manifests, and since the property
of being more knowable, and this in relation to something else that is thereby
made knowable, is a real property, not a purely ideal relation (relatio ratioms) existing
as such in thought only. [Poinsot 1632a: 137/9-14, 138/16-41, 140/7-15, 141/4-11,
141/12-18, 154/21-30, 161/32-34, 164/13-165/8.] The fact that smoke gives us
knowledge of fire rather than of water, and that tracks of oxen give us knowledge
of the ox rather than of man, and the concept of a horse of the horse rather than
of stone—all this is based on a real intrinsic proportion between these signs and
the things they signify. This realistic notion of the natural sign rests, in short,
on a metaphysics for which intelligibility and being are consubstantial (verum et
ens convertuntur).
This real relation is not one of efficient causality. Sign strictly keeps to the
order of “objective causality” or of the formal causality of knowledge, not ofeffi-
:ient or productive causality. When a sign produces an effect it is never by virtue
of being a sign. The sign is not even the efficient cause of the knowledge of the
thing signified; it makes it known only by standing in lieu of the object within
the cognitive faculty to which it brings the presence of the object, thus function­
ing in the same line of causality as the object itself (formal causality). [Poinsot
1632a: 194/31-37, 195/3-9, 195/18-29, 202/46-203/14.]
Not every image is a sign, and not every sign is an image. For the image (which
“proceeds from another as from its principle and in the likeness of that other”)
may be of the same nature and have the same ontological status as that of which
it is an image (the son is the image, not the sign, of his father). And many signs
are not images (smoke is not the image of fire, nor is a cry the image of pain).
[Poinsot 1632a: 218/29-48, 219/29-48.] We might define a symbol as a sign-image
(both Bild and Bedeutung), a sensible thing signifying an object by reason of a presup­
posed relation of analogy.
Signs have to do with all types of knowledge. They are of considerable impor­
tance in the psychic life of nonrational animals [Poinsot 1632a: 204/9-205/3], and
here I think we should interpret the data concerning conditioned reflexes from the
point of view of psychology, not merely of physiology [Poinsot 1632a: 278/11-29].
The external senses make use of signs (I see Socrates when I see his statue;
my eye sees him in it), for the use of signs does not necessarily imply discourse.
Thus the thing signified has a kind of presence—the presence of knowability—in
the sign; it is there in alio esse [“in another mode of existence”. The summarized
 1

LANGUAGE AND THE THEORY OF SIGN 53

text of 1943 continues at this point—p. 193—after a comma: “in another mode
of existence. Here is a point of capital importance from which flow many great
truths, and which must be noted in passing as absolutely characteristic: ‘Quid est
illud in signalo conjunction signo, et praesens in signo praeter ipsum signum et entitatem ejus?
Respondctur esse ipsummet signatum in alio esse’—‘What may be that element of the
signified which is joined to the sign and present in it as distinct from the sign
itself and its own entity? I answer: No other element than the very signified itself
in another mode of existence’ (Maritain’s citation and translation ofPoinsot 1632a: ■

209/1-5, with further cross-references noted to 205/35-37, 206/6-31, 207/26-28,

208/34-47). Hence the content of significance with which overflowed the statues ■;

of the gods. The god did not exist; but all the cosmic and psychic forces, the at­
tractions, the passions which took shape in him, the idea which the artist and
his contemporaries conceived of him—all that was present in the statue, not in a
physical sense but in alio esse, in another mode of existence, and after the manner
of the presence of knowability. For the statue had been made precisely to make
all that known, to communicate it. In our museums, this pagan content is asleep,
but it is always there. Let some accident take place, an encounter with a soul
itself sensitized by some unconscious content: contact is established; the pagan
content will be awakened and will unforgettably wound that soul’’].
The birth of ideas and thus of intellectual life in us seems bound up with the
discovery of the signifying value of signs. Animals make use of signs without
perceiving the relation of signification. To perceive the relation of signification !.i
is to have an idea, i.e., a spiritual sign. Nothing throws more light on this subject
than the miracle of the first dawning of intelligence in people who are deaf and
dumb and blind (like Marie Heurtin, Helen Keller, Lydwine Lachance). It
depends essentially on the discovery of the relation of signification between a
gesture and the object of a desire. The keystone of the life of the mind is the sign.
In the realm of social life, the part played by signs is no less important: they
give rise to social as well as to individual consciousness. It is through its symbols
that a city, a class, or a nation becomes conscious of what it is.
Only in God does the life of the intellect make no use of signs. He knows
Himself and all things by His essence. That is the privilege of the pure Act.

2. Language and the Intellectual Awareness of the Relation of Signification

At this point I should like to submit my first remarks about language. I just
alluded to the first awakening of intelligence in blind deaf-mutes. Let us look a
little more closely into the case.
For the first stirring of the idea as distinct from images, the intervention of
a sensible sign is necessary. Normally in the development of a child it is necessary
that the idea be “enacted’’ by the senses and lived through before it is born as
an idea; it is necessary that the relationship of signification should first be active­
ly exercised in a gesture, a cry, in a sensory sign bound up with the desire that
is to be expressed. Knowing this relationship of signification will come later, and
this will be to have the idea, even if it is merely implicit, of that which is signified.
Animals and children make use of this signification; they do not perceive it. When
the child begins to perceive it (then he exploits it, he toys with it, even in the
absence of the real need to which it corresponds)—at that moment the idea has
emerged.
 54 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

But in “imprisoned souls”, among blind deaf-mutes, the first stirring of an

idea cannot spontaneously arise for lack of natural sensory signs. These require
the convergence of all the senses; a cry which is not heard, a gesture which is
not seen—how can these poor walled-in souls actively make use of such to ex­
press a desire? With them there can be no natural and spontaneous exercise of
a relationship of signification, preceding the knowledge thereof, and hence
preceding the birth of the idea.
In order to exert the first relationship of signification of which they are to make
use, they must know this relationship; the idea, the very knowledge of significa­
tion must needs come to life at the same time as its first practical use! That is
why some external help is indispensable. The miracle of awakening to the life
of thought will come to pass precisely when—owing to the patiently repeated at­
tempts of the teacher, who denies a desire and then suggests a sign, an artificial,
conventional sign, intended to procure the satisfaction of the desire he has denied—
the child suddenly discovers by some sort of sudden eruption of the idea the significa­
tion of this conventional sign (for example, of some gesture or other, in the language
of the deaf), and from that moment on progresses with astonishing rapidity. A
Marie Heurtin, a Helen Keller achieved the higher levels of intellectual life.
Now it seems to me that the way in which ideas are born to blind deaf-mutes
can help us to picture how the discovery of language may have taken place.
The discovery of language, then, coincides with the discovery of the relation
of signification, and this would explain why, as a matter of fact, the invention
of language and the birth of ideas, the first release of the intellect’s power, pro­
bably took place at the same time.
It is conceivable, I think, that a genuine language of natural sensory signs may
have preceded language strictly so called (made up of conventional sensory signs),
and that the latter may have developed out of the former. The “miracle” would
have happened at the moment when man, beyond the fact of using natural gestures
to express hunger, anger, or fear, would also have grasped the notion that this
gesture was possessed of the virtue of signifying. By the same stroke a field of
infinite possibilities would have opened. Then, once the relation of signification
was discovered, the process of arbitrarily selecting or inventing other gestures and
of using them as conventional signs no doubt developed quite rapidly.
Did a language made up of simple natural signs ever actually exist? Did, on
the other hand, a language made up of conventional signs which were only gestures
ever actually exist? It is not within my province to discuss such hypotheses.
Moreover, my private opinion is rather that things took place in a dramatically
different way. But as a philosopher I wish to point out that such hypotheses are
logically conceivable. I do so in order to emphasize that what defines language
is not precisely the use of words, or even of conventional signs; it is the use of
any sign whatsoever as involving the knowledge or awareness of the relation of significa­
tion, and therefore a potential infinity; it is the use of signs in so far as it manifests
that the mind has grasped and brought out the relation of signification.
Granted the imaginary possibility that a language of gestures ever existed,
we might also imagine that later some kinds of vocal gestures or wordless singsongs
led to articulate language. In any case, the invention of those particular conven­
tional signs which are words, the creation of a system of signs made up of
“phonemes” and “morphemes” was in itself a second “miracle”, a further

►
 *

LANGUAGE AND THE THEORY OF SIGN 55

discovery of human intelligence, no less characteristic of man, but less essential

than, and by nature not prior to, the discovery of the relation of signification.
So far we have spoken of genuine language. Let us point out that the word
(t
language”, when referring to animals, is equivocal. Animals possess a variety
of means of communication but no genuine language. I have observed that animals
use signs. But, as I also pointed out, no animal knows the relation of signification
or uses signs as involving and manifesting an awareness of this relation.
The full import of this is best realized in connection with the use of conven­
tional signs by animals. Karl von Frisch’s admirable studies have shown (1950)
that bees use conventional signs: he has observed that a scouting bee performs
two types of dance (a round dance and a wagging dance) to indicate to the other
members of the hive in what direction and at what distance the source of food
it has visited is to be found. Yet, as Professor Benveniste rightly points out (1952:
5,6,7), such conventional signs do not truly constitute a language in the genuine
sense of this word.
The bee’s message does not call for any reply from those to whom it is
addressed, except that it evokes a particular behaviour which is not strict­
ly an answer. This means that the language of the bees lacks the dialogue
which is distinctive of human speech. . . . Moveover, the bee’s message
cannot be reproduced by another bee which has not seen for itself what
the first bee has announced. . . . The bee does not construe a message
from another message. Each bee, once advised by the scouting bee’s dance,
flies out and feeds at the spot indicated, reproducing the same informa­
tion on its return, not with reference to the first message but with reference
to the fact it has just verified itself. Now the characteristic of language is
to produce a substitute for experience which can be passed on ad infinitum
in time and space. This is the nature of our symbolism and the basis of
linguistic tradition. If we now consider the content of the message it is easy
to see that it always concerns only one fact, viz., food, and that the only
variations of this theme concern the question of space. The contrast with
the boundless possibilities of human language is obvious. Furthermore,
the behaviour which expresses the bee’s message is a special form of sym­
bolism. It consists in tracing off an objective situation of fact, the only situa­
tion which can be translated into a message, without any possibility of varia­
tion or transposition. In human language, on the contrary, the symbol
as such does not trace out the facts of experience in the sense that there
is no necessary relationship between the objective reference and the
linguistic form. . . . The essential difference between the method of com­
munication discovered among bees and our human language . . . can be
stated summarily in one phrase which seems to give the most appropriate
definition of the manner of communication used by the bees: it is not a
language but a signal code. All the characteristics of a code are present:
the fixity of the subject matter, the invariability of the message, the rela­
tion to a single set of circumstances, the impossibility of separating the
components of the message, and its unilateral transmission.
All this means, in the last analysis, that the relation of signification remains
unknown to the bees. They use signs—and they do not know that there are signs.
!

i
56 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

By what process the dance of the bees developed as a conventional sign is a great
mystery of biology and animal psychology. But in itself it no more implies lan­
guage, in the genuine sense of the word, than the fact of a dog’s barking when he
sees a stranger, or of his crouching down or sitting up when his master utters cer­
tain words. The whole thing belongs to the realm of conditioned reflexes, whereas
language pertains to the realm of the intellect, with its concepts and universal
notions.

3. Language and the Magical Sign

A particularly important place in a general theory of sign should be given,
I think, to the distinction between logic and magic signs.
By a logic sign, I mean a sign operating under certain functional conditions
through which it is a sign for the intellect (whether speculative or practical), that
is, when the predominance of the intellect defines a particular psychological or
cultural regime. Under such conditions the sign, be it in itseli sensible or intellec­
tual, speaks ultimately to the intellect and refers ultimately to a psychic regime
ruled by the intellect.
I call magic a sign operating under a different functional regime, where it speaks
primarily to the imagination, regarded as the supreme and ruling standard of
the psychic or cultural life as a whole. The sign, be it in itself sensible or intellec­
tual, ultimately speaks to the imaginative faculties and refers ultimately to a psychic
regime immersed in the vitalizing depths of the imagination.
My working hypothesis is here the new notion of “functional conditions” or
“states” (using the word “state” here in a sense similar to that intended by
lemists when they speak of the solid, liquid, and gaseous “states” of matter,
• by theologians when they speak of the “state of pure nature”, the “state of
mocence”, etc.), and I am pointing to a fundamental distinction between the
state of our developed cultures and another state, in which for the psychic and
cultural life as a whole the last word rests with the imagination as the supreme
and final law. No doubt the intellect is present, but, in a way, it is not free. That
is the kind of “state” I am calling the “magic” regime of psychic and cultural life.
May I add that this working hypothesis was lucky enough to reconcile op­
posed points of view in a particularly controversial field. Some time before his
death, Professor Lucien Levy-Bruhl was so kind as to write me of his agreement
on this point. “As you put it quite rightly”, he said, “‘primitive’ mentality is
a state of human mentality, and I can accept the characteristics through which
you define it” (1938).
As we have seen above, animals make use of signs. They live in a kind of
magical world; biologically united to nature, they use signs belonging to a psychic
regime which is entirely imaginative.
Intellect in primitive man is of the same kind as ours: it may even be more
alive in him than in some more civilized people. But the question here is that
of its “state” and of the existential conditions under which it operates. The whole
mental regime of primitive man is under the authority of the imagination. In him
the intellect is in every way involved with and dependent on the imagination and
its savage world. This kind of mental regime is one where acquaintance with nature
is experienced and lived through with an intensity and to an extent we cannot
easily picture.
 LANGUAGE AND THE THEORY OF SIGN 57

This is a state of inferiority, but it is by no means despicable. It is a human

state, the state of mankind in its infancy, a fertile state through which we have
had to pass. Under this regime humanity enriched itself with many vital truths,
a number of which were perhaps lost when it passed on to an adult state. These
truths were known by way of dream or instinct and by actual participation in
the thing known—just as if we imagined that in the knowledge a bee has of the
world of flowers a light which the bee does not possess, the light of reason or of
the intellect, were present in a diffused, undifferentiated state, before becoming
condensed into stars and solar systems separating daylight from darkness.
Here we meet with a difficulty analogous to that which we find when we try
to penetrate the mental life of animals. Whatever we picture to ourselves is bathed
in intelligence, and in intelligence which is free. We have great trouble in depict­
ing to ourselves what another mental regime can be like. (And if we are Carte­
sians, it is impossible for us to do so.)
Let me say in brief that in our logical state, sensations, images, and ideas
are solar, bound up with the luminous and regular life of the intellect and its laws
of gravitation.
In the magic stale they were nocturnal, bound up with the fluid and twilight
mental life of the imagination and of an experience which was astonishingly power­
ful but entirely lived through and dreamed.
The same is true of the sign, and of the relation of sign to thing signified.
3.1. Since truth is a relation of the cognitive faculty to the thing and belongs
only to the judgment of the intellect which grasps it as such, it should be said
that in primitive man this relation is experienced but is not winnowed out for
its own sake. It is known, of course, because the intellect is present, but it is known
in a nocturnal manner, since intelligence is in this case immersed in the powers
of the imagination.
When we consider primitive man we may say that in him the relation of the
mind to the thing is ambivalent: the same relation is “false” (in the eyes of our
evolved consciousness) to the extent that it asserts, for instance, the existence of
composite tribal ancestors (like duck-men or kangaroo-men). It is “true” to the
same extent that it affirms the vital union of man and nature of which this myth
is the symbol. But for primitive man a distinction of this kind has no meaning.
This is because his very adhesion to truth is not ours, since for him the idea of
truth has not been winnowed out for itself.
He adheres en bloc, at the same time and indistinctly, to the symbol and the
symbolized: here is for him, in indivisible fashion, an image or a likeness of truth,
an equivalent, an als ob of truth, without his having winnowed out the idea of
truth for its own sake. In similar fashion a child believes in a story, in the adven­
tures of Alice in Wonderland; awaken the child, withdraw him from the world
of the imagination and he knows very well that a little girl cannot enter a rabbit
hole. But primitive man does not wake up; he is not yet withdrawn from the
motherly bosom of the imagination, which makes him familiar with the whole
of nature and without which he could not face the relentless severity of his ex­
istence as a cave dweller at war with the beasts. He lives in the world of make-believe.
3.2. Bergson has admirably shown that what is to be found at the source and
basis of magic as a primordial element is the relationship of causality (1932:
175-177, = 1935: 155-157):

I
58 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

. . . [Man] realized at once that the limits of his normal influence over
the outside world were soon reached, and he could not resign himself to
going no further. So he carried on the movement, and since the move­
ment could not by itself secure the desired result, nature must needs take
the task in hand. . . . [Things] will then be more or less charged with sub­
missiveness and potency: they will hold at our disposal a power which yields
to the desires of man, and of which man may avail himself. . . . [The work­
ings of Magic] begin the act which men cannot finish. They go through
the motions which alone could not produce the desired effect, but which
will achieve it if the man concerned knows how to prevail upon the good­
will of things. Magic is then innate in man, being but the outward projec­
tion of a desire which fills the heart.

That which I believe to be lacking in Bergson’s theory is that it does not take
into account the indispensable instrument of magical activity—the practical sign.
[In his texts of 1937-1938, 1943, Maritain takes this notion from Poinsot a. 1644c—
i.e., the sixth and last posthumous volume of Poinsot’s Cursus Theologicus which
reached publication in 1667—disp. 22. art. 1. dub. 4. par. 83, dub. 5. pars. 99-102,
108, 110-111, 114-115.] It is surely true that magic implies an appeal to some
cosmic power which brings the desire of man to a happy outcome, an appeal which
itself presupposes some sympathy, some compliance in things. But it must be added
that magic makes use of signs. Here the relationship proper to the sign, and to
the practical sign, necessarily intervenes. Man does not merely outline some causal
action; he makes a sign (to semi-personal cosmic elements). It is needful that we
insist upon the mental characteristics of these practical signs, subject as they are
to the nocturnal regime of the imagination.
3.3. First of all, in my opinion, we here find ourselves confronted with a refrac­
tion in the world of imagination, or with a nocturnal deformation, of the prac­
tical sign in its quality as sign, or considered in the order of the relationship itself
of signification, that is to say, in the order offormal causality, wherein the sign is,
by its essence, the vicar of the object. Let us not forget that this relationship of
sign to signified is, in its own order, singularly close. The motion toward the sign
or the image, says St. Thomas [1272-1273: III.25.3.], following Aristotle
[c.330BCb: ch. 1, 450b27-31], is identical with the motion toward the object itself:
“Sic enim est unus et idem motus in imaginem cum illo qui est in rem ” [“So the move­
ment toward an image is one and the same as a movement toward that which
is imaged”: discussion in Poinsot 1632a: 211/29-212/18]. In the formal-objective
order the sign is thus something most astonishing, whereat the routine of culture
alone prevents our wonder. And this marvelous function of containing the object—
with respect to the mind—of having present in itself the thing itself in alio esse,
is fully exercised in primitive man. Words are not anemic or colorless, they are
overflowing with life—with their life as signs—for primitive man. But that in itself
sets a snare for his imagination. Thanks to the condition of experienced and lived
participation wherein is established his whole mental life, the presence as to
knowledge of the signified in the sign becomes for him a presence as to reality,
a physical interchangeability, a physical fusion, and a physical equivalence of the
sign and the signified (invocation of mythical names; magic objects, spells,
idolatry). Primitive man is intoxicated with the excellence of the sign; yet the sign
 V
LANGUAGE AND THE THEORY OF SIGN 59

never altogether loses its genuine relationship of signification (to some other thing).
The idol is god and yet is never altogether god.
3.4. Then again a slurring takes place from formal-objective causality to effi­
cient causality. The creation of signs is a mark of the preeminence of the mind,
and the instinct of the intelligence quickly informed man that symbols make him
enter into the heart of things—in order to know them: at once, in a psychic regime
wherein the imagination is dominant, this slurring will take place, man will think
that symbols make us enter into the heart of things in order to act physically upon
them and in order to make them physically subject to us and in order to effect
for us a real and physical union with them. Moreover, are not the signs in ques­
tion first and foremost practical signs? At once the imagination will take a sign
directive toward an operation as an operating sign. And why should we be
astonished that the imagination of primitive man cannot distinguish between for­
mal causality and efficient causality, when the intelligence of philosophers so often
confuses them?
The sign, then, not only makes men know, it makes things be; it is an effi­
cient cause in itself. Hence all the procedures of sympathetic magic. In order to
make rain, the sorcerer waters the ground. In order to obtain abundant tubers,
he buries in the ground at seed time magical stones of the same shape as the desired
tubers, which shall “teach” the yams and the taro to grow big, to reach the same
size as the stones. The stones make them a sign, they are pattern symbols. The
theory of mana among the Melanesians (avenda among the Iroquois, wakonda among
the Sioux), the theory of a force spread throughout nature wherein all things par­
f !
:
ticipate in various degrees, seems to be the fruit of a later reflection upon this !
use of the sign. To the extent that reflection will be intensified, the idea of this
semi-physical, semi-moral environment will become more materialized.
3.5. But the sign, in spite of everything, remains a sign. Inevitably there will
take place a return of the order of causality to which it belongs, that is, of formal
causality and of the relationship of signification—which with primitive mar
becomes a relationship of fusion and of physical equivalence—upon the relation
ship of efficient causality and of operation. And the imagination will oscillate from
one way of thinking the sign to the other. In the perspective of efficient causality
(as well as in the perspective of the relationship of signification understood in ac­
cordance with its true nature) there is a distinction, a difference, between the cause
and the effect (as well as between the sign and the signified). In the perspective
of formal causality denatured by the imagination, and of that intoxication with
the sign induced in primitive man by the relationship of signification, there is
.
a physical interpenetration and fusion of the sign and the signified.
Since we are by hypothesis dealing with the nocturnal regime of the imagina­
tion, and since for the imagination as such (as dreams bear witness) the principle
of identity does not exist; and then again, since the intelligence is still present,
bound up with and clothed in the imagination, it is easy to understand that for
primitive man the identity of things is constantly unmade and made again. It
is altogether too hasty for us to say that with him there is simply an identity be­ i
tween the sign and the signified. No, there is an oscillation, there is a going and
coming from distinction to identification. When children play by building sand
castles, these castles are truly castles for them. If you trample them, the children !
will cry with rage and indignation. But once their play is at an end, what were

f
60 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

castles are only sand. Primitive man believes to be identical (through the living
power of the imagination) that which he obscurely knows to be different (through
his intelligence, bound up in the imagination). It is impossible to understand
anything about his thought if it be conceived from the point of view of the logical
or daylight state of the intelligence, taken as the rule and measure of all thought.
It is the thought of an awakened dreamer, wherein the role of play (and the
allowance of play) is tremendously great.
3.6. If the above remarks are true, we may conclude that language began in
mankind in the form of “magical” language. To the mind of the primitive man
the word does not signify a concept, and, through the concept, a thing; it directly
signifies a thing; and the word and the thing it signifies are both distinct and one,
for the word, in so far as it remains a sign (formal causality), is not physically
the thing, and in so far as it is a magical sign (confusion between formal and effi­
cient causality), is physically the thing or causes it to exist. Nothing is more natural
for primitive mentality than to make the name into a real equivalent of the thing
named, suchwise that a sick person will swallow the paper on which the name
of a remedy is written with the same confidence as the medicine itself. Under
the cover of the mirage and illusion proper to magical thought, at least the digni­
ty and sacred mystery of the words were felt and recognized (even though over­
rated). [Compare Heidegger 1927:81 ff.]
Once the mind and the society have passed under the solar regime of intel­
ligence, the sense of this dignity and sacred mystery—now purified of its magical
connotations—remains essential to human civilization. When civilization decays,
the sense in question dissipates itself and is finally lost. Then, in order to recover
it, poetry may possibly be tempted to return to magic and to crave for the power
of words (cf. Tate 1952), as can be seen in Mallarme and many other modern poets.
There is a curious—and tragic—phenomenon, where something great and in­
valuable is looked for, and missed (namely, the genuine dignity of words, which
refers to truth, not to power), and where by dint of refinement the civilized mind
retrogresses to that magical notion of the sign which was normal in the childlike
state of mankind, yet is for mankind in its adult state but a pathological symptom.

4. Language and the Reverse Sign

As appears with particular clarity in the consideration of works of art, a final
distinction must be made, namely, between the direct sign (which denotes an object)
and what might be called the reverse or inverted sign (which manifests the subject).
All the signs which we have been considering in this study are direct signs. The
letter .d signifies the sound A, mourning weeds signify death. But the sign can
also act in the inverse way. While manifesting an object it can by a kind of in­
verted or retroverted signification also denote the subject itself which is using the
sign and its states, its dispositions, and its secrets which it does not admit to itself,
the subject being in that case taken as object by some observer. This is the sense
in which Freud and his disciples understand the word 11 symbol"-, they no longer
think of its direct but only of its reverse or inverted signification. The Freudian
symbol is a conscious content caused by the unconscious states of which it is the
symptom. The birth of Minerva from the forehead of Jupiter is no longer the
symbol of the divine origin of wisdom; it is the “symbol” of the idea of
physiological birth ex utero which has been thrust back into the unconscious, and
 LANGUAGE AND THE THEORY OF SIGN 61

the idea of the divine origin of wisdom becomes itself the “symbol” of this un­
conscious representation. As has been pointed out by Roland Dalbiez (1936), it
would be better in this case to say “psychic expression”, a notion that is valid
especially for the products of “dereistic” thought (dreams, hallucinations, neurotic
symptoms).
But even in normal thought the signs which man uses to signify things (direct
signs) signify man himself (reverse signs). Every work of art is a confession, but
it is by discovering the secrets of being (guessed at by dint of suffering the things
of this world) that it makes confession of the poet’s secret.
4.1. As far as language is concerned, the part played by the reverse or inverted
sign appears in an arresting way in those kinds of slang which are not simply
spontaneous appropriations of speech to a special (and especially trying) human
task or a closed (though possibly large) environment, divided from the society,
manners, and speech of “cultivated” people, but which are, in actual fact,
discriminating languages, typical for groups which segregate themselves from the
community, either because they are composed of derelict, potentially delinquent,
or criminal people at war with society or because they are composed of highbrow
people who consider themselves privileged, as happens with young persons who
have been selected to be trained in certain prominent institutions especially devoted
to the formation of a vocational or intellectual elite.
The phenomenon is particularly interesting in this latter case, and it seems
to be linked, as a rule, with those rites of initiation which are called brimades in
French, and which correspond roughly to “hazing”. As an instance among
thousands, I would refer to the book in which Romain Rolland tells us of his
recollections as a student in the Ecole Normale Superieure of Paris, a highbrow
school for future intellectuals; he gives us a curious lexicon of the slang that was
used there at that time. For example, with reference to the Director of the School
(Georges Perrot), to some professors (La Coulouche, Chantavoine, and Fortunat
Strowski), and to a general in charge of military instruction (General Jeanningros),
fane un Perrot meant to make a blunder\faire un Coulouche, to play the phrasemonger;
fane un Chantavoine, to play the euphuist;/an? un Tunat, to make a bad pun; fain
un Jeanningros, to utter a stupidity (Rolland 1952: 18-19).
Slang, as a rule, not only signifies concepts and things but also, and first of
all, the subjective behavior, the feelings, habits, oddities, jokes, tricks, collusions,
experiences, and resentments which are peculiar to the group and differentiate
it from any other; it alludes to the secret life of the group and strengthens this
collective life. It affords a particular delight because only the man who belongs
to the group can understand it, and because in using it he immerses himself in
this incommunicable hermetic life. Each time he uses the slang of the group, he
affirms and reinforces his communion with the group and, in one sense, the giv­
ing up of his own personality to the group. The word becomes a kind of magic
and operative sign of the unity of the group, and of its difference from ordin­
ary mankind. Then, indivisibly from its function as direct sign, the word is es­
sentially a reverse or inverted sign of the subjectivity, self-love, and pride of the
group.
That is why slang cannot really be translated into ordinary language without
losing its meaning and flavor. More than an object of thought, it means the over­
tones that accompany this object in terms of human and social subjectivity. The
62 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

human despair and abjection with which certain abject writers have to saturate
the world of things could not be expressed except in their slang.
Now, if it is true that the essence of language is to manifest thought and ob­
jects of thought, it is difficult not to conclude that the various slangs of which
I spoke involve a kind of perversion of the function of language.
Finally, the question I would like to raise in this connection no longer deals
with slang. It is whether, since the event of Babel, all tongues of the earth—
though they are in no way slang but genuine types of language—do not run the
risk of being tinged with some admixture of a similar impurity. For peoples divided
from each other by their languages, and walled up in their own particular means
of intelligible communication, there is an inherent temptation to yield to an inner
spiritual trend toward cherishing over and above all the closed subjectivity of the
group, its difference from the rest of mankind.
No doubt an element of reverse or inverted signification is inseparable from
the direct signification of the words. But genuine language, while expressive of
the group’s subjectivity, gives unquestionable prevalence to objectivity, and direct
sign, and to the universality of direct, intellectual meaning; and then the secon­
dary function of language, i.e., the intention of expressing subjectivity, remains
itself open, it is oriented toward a communication of the collective self, which tends
to make itself sincerely known to others. The risk of impurity of which 1 am speak­
ing materializes when this intention of expressing subjectivity becomes oriented
toward the self-assertion of the group in a closed, aristocratic, or resentful manner,
and as against all other groups.
The primary and the secondary functions of language are both human.
Language attains complete freedom, and the excellence of its own nature, when
these two functions are perfectly fused. The subjective function, however, is, as
I have said, secondary. Furthermore it remains, as a rule, in an inchoate and
unsatisfactory condition, because our words are primarily destined to designate
material and external things. As a result, in their secondary function itself they
signify the subjectivity of the social group rather than that of the individual per­
son, and they do so in a more or less awkward and rough manner, which depends
on the particular history and accidental experiences of the group. Let me say,
therefore, that if Angels used words, it is only in the language of Angels that the
two functions of which I am speaking would be really and perfectly fused. It is
only in the tongue of Angels that language could attain complete freedom and
the excellence of its own nature.
But Angels use no words.
Poets, in mankind, desperately endeavor to achieve a certain similarity of the
language of Angels, or of perfect language, capable of expressing things and the
self together in one and the same breath. Thus, what birds realize by music only,
man can somewhat realize by poetry, and his music has also an intelligible sig­
nificance, a spiritual meaning.
 UMBERTO ECO, ROBERTO LAMBERTINI,
COSTANTINO MARMO, AND ANDREA TABARRONI

cc ? 5
Latratus Canis
or: The Dog’s Barking

In the Middle Ages, how did dogs bark?

The question is not so whimsical as it seems. It opens for exploration the whole
area of medieval zoosemiotics.

/. The Center and the Margins

Aquinas and the medieval thinkers knew well that the strength of a philo­
sophical system is measured best not in the academic lessons wherein the
philosopher expounds his own doctrine ex cathedra, but in the course of the quaes-
tiones quodlibetales wherein the master is requested to establish, for example, whether
it is the king, woman, wine, or truth which acts most potently on the human will.
The marginality of the problem does not represent an intellectual diversion, but
a critical mode in which the system ought to show its flexibility and explanatory
power. From its center a system always seems well defined and all but beyond
challenge; it is at its periphery that it gets put to the test.
In discussing language, logicians and grammarians of the middle ages com­
monly cited, among their examples of pseudo-language—that is, at the margins
of true language—the latratus canis. Indeed, not only the dog’s bark, but also the
horse’s whinney, the pigeon’s coo, the cow’s moo, the pig’s oink, and—it goes
without saying—the speech of parrots and magpies. What is curious about this
particular example, always or nearly always present in the medieval classifica­
tions of signs, is that, without explanation and so, as it were, unnoticed, it appears
in a different position in each classification. The question is, why? What lies behind
and motivates the unremarked shifts?
This problem of how to classify the bark of the dog, or, for that matter, the
wail of the infirm (gemitus infirmorum), nests in a problematic doubtless marginal
with respect to the problems which modern logic and contemporary philosophy
of language recognize as central for a theory of signification and reference.
Nonetheless, for and in the “middle ages”, animals used “to say” many things,
even entirely without knowing it. In the Bestiaries, for example, they show up
as living signs of something other than themselves, characters of a book scriptus
digitus Dei, ‘words’ of a symbolic lexicon, regardless of any “language” they might
produce themselves.
But philosophers and grammarians—in ways different and of different im­
port, as we shall see—were interested throughout this period in the latratus and
63
64 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

the other voces animalium as a kind of linguistic phenomenon, mentioned frequently

enough, as we have said, in relation to the wailing of sick persons (the gemitus
infirmorum), and to other kinds of interjections. But when one extrapolates from
these various discourses a taxonomic tree, it results that in certain trees the latratus
is a sprig on the same branch as the gemitus infirmorum, while in other trees it is
on another branch entirely.
This discovery is enough to pique anyone’s curiosity. For medieval materials
at first glance normally appear to be stubborn repetitions of a common archetype
or model, differing not at all or at least not perceptibly. But here, accessed from
the margin and viewed, as it were, in a slanted light, this appearance disappears
to some extent, as concealed differences stand out against the background of seem­
ing repetitions—differences of the sort promising to reveal the heart of systems
in reality very different.
Viewed from the center, animals other than man—‘brute’ or ‘irrational’
animals—find only a generic place in the Latin writings, and only to play an
oppositional role against the animalia rationalia in the framework of essential defini­
tions on the Tree of Porphyry. Beyond this, the central philosophical theories ol
the middle ages leave the brutes to their collective destiny, furnishing no instruc­
tions whatever for distinguishing the dog from the wolf, or for that matter from
the horse or any other species of the genus animal beyond the human. Refinements
along this line have to wait for naturalists and artificial language theorists of the
17th century, particularly in England.
It is not that medieval scholars were lacking texts on animal behavior. It is
rather that, unfortunately, even though as early as the 12th century attention was
beginning to be paid directly to the observation of natural phenomena, as in the
works of Aquinas’ teacher, Albert the Great (a trend which would find a kind
of maturation in the scientia experimentalis of Bacon), observations which are not
second-hand are not what we find in the many medieval texts. Even the Histona
Animalium of Aristotle becomes available only much later in the Latin age. The
dog and the other animals appear rather as a topos, framed by the inertia of auctontas
and the migration of examples drawn from tradition rather than from the direct
observation of nature. The Schoolmen knew various discussions about the natural
characteristics of dogs, not to mention the problem of the noises of fish and the
voices of birds (including parrots and magpies), through the mediation of Pliny
and of Ammonius.
Likewise, something must have filtered down from the discussions which took
place between the Stoics, Academicians, and Epicureans about the possibility of
an “animal logos’’. Sextus Empiricus says (c.200: 1.1, 65-77) that the dogs
manifest, through their behavior, various capacities of reflection and apprehen­
sion. Sextus quotes an observation of Chrysippus, according to which, when a
dog follows his prey to a point where three roads meet, having sniffed the two
ways not taken by the hoped-for victim, forms a flawless dialectical syllogism:
“the beast must have passed by here, or by there, or by there. By here, no; by
there, no; therefore by there’’. It is debatable whether Sextus was known to the
middle ages, but it is certain that this same argument is repeated in the Bestiary
of Cambridge. Since it appears neither in Isidore nor in the Physiologus, a great part
of the Greek discussion must have migrated somehow through other secondary
sources.
 LATRATUS CANIS, OR: THE DOG’S BARKING 65

The mass of ancient “naturalistic” observation carried in the Stoic legacy sur­
vived in the work of the Latin philosophers, notably through the mediation of
Augustine. Nonetheless, generally speaking, every appearance of the dog among
the Latins shows a dependency on that passage of Aristotle’s De Interpretation
(c.330BC: 16a ff.) which controlled the entire medieval discussion on human
and animal language. Thus the dog circulates in the philosophical and linguis­
tic literature of the Latins mainly as a barking animal, making noise along with
parrots, cocks, and horses—sometimes along with the gemilus infirmorum, some­
times under another heading. The barking of the dog, born as a topos, a lopos
remains.
Nevertheless, as we will see, the authorities have a nose of wax, and beneath
literal appearances, every time the topos is cited, one has grounds for suspecting
that a slight or more than slight shift of perspective has taken place; and that
medieval semiotics knows on this point not one but two lines of thought, within
which the lalratus canis comes to occupy positions which are different in substance
in differing classifications according to whether the classifications are mainly of
signs in general (a concern Stoic in origin) or of voces (a concern Aristotelian and
Hippocratic in origin, according to the ancient tradition clearly distinguishing
between the theory of verbal language conventionally related to its objects and
the theory of signs as rather natural givens entertaining with what they signify
a relation of inferentiability).

II. Signs and Words

To accomodate the ambiguous position of the latratus canis in the medieval
theories of language, therefore, one must realize that Greek semiotics, from the
corpus Hippocratum up to the Stoics, made a clearcut distinction between a theory
of verbal language (onomata) and a theory of signs (semeia). Signs are natural events
acting as symptoms or indices, and they entertain with that which they point to
a relation based upon the mechanism of inference (“if such a symptom, then such
a sickness”; “if smoke then burning”). Words stand in a quite different relation
with what they designate or point to, as with the “passions of the soul” which
they signify. This relation is based upon the mere equivalence or biconditionality
which appears also in the influential Aristotelian theory of definition and tree of
Porphyry which springs from it.
It was Augustine who first proposed a “general semiotics”—that is, a general
‘science’ or ‘doctrine’ of signs, where sign becomes the genus of which words
(onomata) and natural symptoms (semeia) are alike equally species.
With Augustine, there begins to take shape this ldoctrina’ or ‘science’ of signumt
wherein both symptoms and the words of language, mimetic gestures of actors
along with the sounds of military trumpets and the chirrups of cicadas, all become
[:
species. In essaying such a doctrine, Augustine foresees lines of development of
i
enormous theoretical interest; but he suggests the possibility of resolving, rather
than effects a definitive resolution of, the ancient dichotomy between the inferen­
tial relations linking natural signs to the things of which they are signs and the
relations of equivalence linking linguistic terms to the concept(s) on the basis of
which some thing ‘is’—singly or plurally—designated.
Medieval semiotics knows at this point two lines of thinking as possibly uni­
fied, but without having achieved their actual unification. This is a crucial obser-

r
66 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

vation, inasmuch as a main reason why the latratus canis occupies different posi­
tions in different classifications of signs stems from whether the given classifica­
tion is one in the Stoic and Augustinian mode or of voces in the Aristotelian mode
of a theory of spoken language. Out of the tension of this opposition—under the
provocation, as it were, of Augustine—is born much of the distinctively Latin
development of semiotic consciousness. It is this increasing of semiotic awareness
that we want to explore, by way of examining a series of figures strategic for the
medieval Latin development.

III. Aristotle
The Latin controversy latratus canis has as its detonator the passage of the De
Interpretation where Aristotle, intending to define nouns and verbs (c.330BC:
16-20a), makes to this end some marginal statements about signs in general.
To summarize the results of an unending discussion among the interpreters
of the passage in question, Aristotle basically says that nouns and verbs are cases
of phone semantike kata syntheken, which is what the post-Boethian Latins call vox
significativa adplacitum. Aristotle remarks that words are symbols of the affections
of the soul (“passiones animae”), and that written words are symbols of the spoken
ones. He takes symbol here for a conventional device; and he assigns this ‘con­
ventionality’ as the reason why symbols are not the same in every culture. The
passions of the soul, by contrast, are alleged to be the same for all, since they
are images (we could also say “icons”) of the things they manifest. It is in speak-
ng of the passions of the soul that Aristotle adds, somewhat parenthetically, that
vords are of these passions “before all else” signs.
Have we here an instance of mere redundancy, in which the word “sign”
is used synonymously with the word “symbol”? Indeed not, for when Aristotle
speaks expressly of signs (semeia) in his Rhetoric (c.335-334BC), he makes it plain
that symptoms, natural events from which one can infer something else, are what
is at issue.
In context, Aristotle is simply saying that, even though words are conven­
tional symbols, they can, insofar as they are uttered, also or in the first instance
be taken as symptoms of the fact they make evident, to wit, that the one who
speaks has something in mind.
This becomes clearer a few lines further on, where Aristotle remarks that, since
even vocal sounds can be taken as signs (that is, as symptoms), so also can non-
articulated noises emitted by animals function as symptoms. He says “noises”
{agrammatoi psophoi) rather than “sounds” because, as Ammonius and all subse­
quent commentators will explain, he is also thinking of certain animals, such as
fishes, which do not emit sounds vocally but make noises nonetheless (“quidam
enim pisces non voce, sed branchiis sonant”, Boethius will say, “et cicada per
pectum sonum mittit”). Aristotle says that these noises manifest {delousi) something.
Now, what happens with the first influential translation of De Interpretation
made by Boethius? Both ‘symbol’ (symbolon) and ‘sign’ (sbneion) are translated
with the term nota, with the result of suppressing, in effect, the Aristotelian nuance.
Moreover, delousi is translated not as manijestant (“they show”) but as significant
(“they signify”). Where Aristotle spoke of the noises of animals, and lexically
distinguished noise from sound, the medieval commentators from Boethius on­
ward translate phone (sound) with vox (voice) and psophos (noise) with sonus (sound).
 LATRATUS CANIS, OR: THE DOG’S BARKING 67

Thus, for the medieval commentators, animals without lungs emit sounds, but
animals with lungs utter voices, and voces can be significativae.
The road is open for a significant bark of the dog.

IV. Boethius latrans

The bark of the dog appears for the first time in Greek in the commentary
of Ammonius on the De Interpretatione (c.400); but this work does not appear in
Latin until the translation of Moerbeke in 1268. It is Boethius who brings it into
the Latin world as an example of vox significativa not ad placitum (by convention)
but rather naluraliter, as set forth in Table 1:

voces
significativae

naturalitcr ad placitum

gcmitus infirmorum nomina

latratus canis
hinnitus cqui
etc.

A sound that for Aristotle was a sign in contrast to symbols falls here rather
under the heading of the vox significativa which also includes words or symbols.
Under this same heading or category Boethius also places the gemitus infirmorum,
the whinney of horses, and even the sounds of animals without lungs that “tantu
sonitu quodam concrepant”. Why do these sounds signify naluraliter? Evidently
because through them one is able to know their cause by a symptomatic inference.
In grouping things thus, Boethius leaves out of account two important dif­
ferences. First, the difference emphasized by the Stoics between natural events
which ‘happen’ but are not emitted by living beings, like the smoke from which
fire can be inferred or the medical symptom from which a disease can be inferred.
Second, the difference between sounds emitted intentionally and those emitted
unintentionally. Infirms wail often unintentionally. Do dogs bark without inten­
tions? Or do dogs have an intention to communicate? Boethius says of the horse
that “hinnitus quoque eorum saepe alterius equi consuetudinem quaerit”, that
is, the horse whinnies to call another horse, intentionally and with a precise sex­
ual purpose. He also says (Boethius, that is, not the horse) that animals frequent­ ;
ly utter voices “aliqua significatione praeditas”, that is, sounds endowed with
some meaning. But endowed by whom? By the animal uttering or by the man
listening? Boethius disregards this question, just as he has disregarded the dif­
ference between animate and inanimate nature in the giving of signs.
Thus the dog is put in an awkward situation. It emits voces, but it does so
naturally. Its voice stands ambiguously poised between natural event and inten­
tional utterance. If it barks intentionally, it is not clear whether in doing so it
intentionally talks to another dog or to men—not a minor question from the view­
point of zoosemiotics. Moreover, does man understand the dog (or horse) because
man has a natural disposition to interpret symptoms, or because man has a natural
disposition to understand the canine (or equine) language?

r
68 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Boethius, in transferring the dog from Greek to Latin, has launched a tradi­
tion of classifying voces that merges the Stoic classification of signs with the
Aristotelian classification of symbols but leaves unresolved the problem of inten-
9 9
tionality in the emission of these voces . l <

V. Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas takes over the Boethian classification, and develops from
it only a more complex taxonomy. He deals with the problem in more than one
page of his commentary on the De Interpretatione (c. 1269-1274), but his remarks
are shaded by a number of ambiguities, ambiguities which echo various influences.
In some passages, Aquinas, along Augustinian lines, calls signum every vox
significativa. In other passages the sound of a military trumpet, evidently not a
case of vox vocalis, is also spoken of as a signum. It seems that, for Aquinas, signum
is every utterance endowed with meaning, whether it be vocal or not. But he does
not here take into account the signa naturalia (the semeia), even though natural signs
will play an important role in the theory of the sacraments and in the theory of
analogy. Interpreting Aquinas in terms of the sources probably echoed in his text,
his elaboration of the Boethian classification beginning with sonus as the genus
of vox can be synthesized in the following Table1:

sonus
r
vox non vox
1 I
r 1 i
significativa non significativa significativa non
I I significativa
r l
naturaliter cx insti- litterata non natural­ ex insti-
tutionc articulata litterata iter tutionc
non
r 1 articulata
sine cum
tempore tempore
I
gemitus nomen verbum blitris sibilus illitterati tuba accidental
infirmorum, noises
vox animalium

In this scheme, the bark stands together with meaningful vocal sounds, even
though it is natural and non-conventional; while the unarticulated whistle emitted
without the intention of communicating anything stands together with articulated
vocal utterances, such as blitris, since all together they belong to the species of
meaningless sounds.
But it is not at all in the opposition between intentional and unintentional
that Aquinas locates the main difference between human and animal sounds, be­
tween a man’s utterance and a dog’s bark. The situation is much more complicated
than that—and much more interesting. To see where Aquinas steps beyond
Boethius (perhaps inspired by the Boethian question about the whinney of the
horse), we must turn from his commentary on the De Interpretatione to his com­
mentary on the Politics (c. 1269-1272: Bk. I. lect. 1. nn. 36-37), where he turns
again to the difference between human and animal sounds, with some supplemen-

I
 LATRATUS CANIS, OR: THE DOG’S BARKING 69

tary observations. Just as men have ways of deliberately signifying to one another
pain and pleasure, so too have the animals, ways which are comparable to what
are called interjections among men.
Here Aquinas touches a problem treated more broadly by Roger Bacon (1267:
1.9), who distinguishes between a wail of an infirm emitted involuntarily, which is
a pure symptom of illness, and an interjectory wail emitted in order to signify the
same pain but now intentionally and according to a definite linguistic conven­
tion. In such a way, inside the same Aquinian framework, the latratus canis changes
position: it is as if in between the voces significativae naturaliter, where the gemitus
stands, and the voces ad placitum, where spoken language stands, an intermediate
zone were posed, where man produces—paralinguistically, we would say now—
interjections and the dog barks. The key difference between human language and
the pseudo-language of the dog does not consist in the opposition intentional/non-
intentional, nor in the opposition natural/ad placitum (vaguely hinted but substan­
tially eluded, as the later discussions of Poinsot in particular demonstrate), but
in the opposition between mere interjections and those devices (namely, words) by
which human language is able to express, over and above feelings of joy and sor­
row, abstractions concerning good and evil, just and unjust. Only through such ab­
stractions does human language establish cultural institutions within human society
—domum et civilatem—as distinct from the society of animals without such capacity.
VI. The Stoic Legacy among the Latins: Augustine
The confusions we have witnessed in the Latin interpreters of De Interpretation is
absent from those thinkers, such as Augustine, who were not exposed to the Aristo­
telian influence, but were more directly subject to the Stoic tradition.
In De doctrina Christiana (c.397-426) Augustine, having given his famous (and
later much criticized) definition of the sign as “that which, beyond the impression
it conveys to sense, makes something besides itself come into awareness”, develops
the distinction between what he terms signa naturalia and signa data. Natural signs are
ones that “apart from any intention or desire to signify make something besides
themselves known”, such as the smoke which reveals burning and the face of the
enraged which of itself reveals anger without any intention to do so. Signa data
are those exchanged by living beings in order to convey “motus animi”, i.e.,
inward states, which are not necessarily concepts but can be sensations or
psychological states—any subjective condition or state of which the one seeking
to communicate has awareness. And what these signs produce or evoke in the
soul of the addressee similarly need not be a concept.
With this stroke of genius, and without a tremor of doubt, Augustine places
among the signa data both the words of Holy Scripture {verba divina) and the ut­
terances of animals (“Habent enim bestiae inter se signa, quibus produnt ap-
petitus animi sui”), abandoning the wail of the infirm among the natural signs
together with the smoke of fires and the tracks of animals:
signa
I
1
naturalia data
I I
gemitus verba Scripturae
fumus tuba
vestigium latratus
 *

70 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

However, having located the dog’s bark surely among the signa data, Augustine
becomes not so sure about the exact nature of the intention expressed and whereby
the animals give signs; but this doubt he waves aside as “not pertaining to the
point at hand” (“Quae utrum, sicut vultus aut dolentis clamor sine voluntate
significandi sequantur motum animi, an vere ad significandum dentur, alia
quaestio est, et ad rem, quae agitur, non pertinet”—loc. cit., II, 1-3).

VII. Abelard
Does the dog mean what he says, or not?
The problem finds an original solution in Abelard. In his Dialectica
(i. 1118-1137), his classification of signs can be traced back to the Boethian one,
dividing voces significativae into those signifying naturaliter and those signifying ex
impositione (by convention). But in his Logica seu Summa Ingredientibus (a. 1120),
Abelard adds a new opposition, that between voces significativae and voces significantes,
which arises from speaking either ex or sine institutione.

voces
1
1
sine institutione: ex institutione:
significantes significativae
I
r
vox certificans suum naturaliter expositione
prolatorem animal esse I i
latratus nomen

The impositio in this scheme is a convention, but the institutio is not a conven­
tion: it is rather a decision which precedes both the conventional meaningfulness
of human words and the natural meaningfulness of animal sounds. One can see
this “institution” as very close to an intention. Words are meaningful by virtue
of the institution of the human will, which orders them ad intellectum constituendum—
to the production of‘something’ in the mind of the hearer, perhaps, as Augustine
maintained, something less than a concept. The bark of the dog has equally some
meaning, even though a natural one, and the institution (the intentionality) of
his expression is provided by nature, or by God. In this sense the bark is as
significations as the human word, and in this sense it must be distinguished from
those phenomena which are only significantia or merely symptomatic: “ita non
omnia in actu significantia sunt significativa, sed ea sola quae ad significandum
sunt instituta” (“not all things actually signifying are significative, but only those
which are instituted for the purpose of signifying”). One and the same bark can
be considered as emitted ex institutione and therefore significations, or as heard from
afar allowing one to simply infer that “down there is a dog”.
It is clear that Abelard, in an Augustinian vein, is following the Stoic line
of thought by distinguishing between signs which function on the basis of an in­
ference (.significantia) and words or pseudo-natural words which function on the
basis of an intention of some sort {significativa). The same bark can act as a symp­
tom in the case where the intentionality belongs to the interpreter and the event
has not been instituted for the purpose of that interpretation, or as a naturally
signifying utterance by which the dog expresses himself in order to constituerc
:
!

LATRATUS CAN IS. OR: THE DOG'S BARKING 71

intellectum—to < ( get a point across”. This does not mean that the dog “wants
) j

77
to do what he is doing: his intention (institutio) is not his own, but rather a “natural
intention impressed by nature, so to speak, in the neural circuits of the whole
canine species. We are seeing here the curious proposal of a sort of Agent Will,
modelled upon the Agent Intellect of Avicenna. (An analogous suggestion ap­
pears later in the De Anima of Albert the Great [i. 1254-1257].) Thus the agent
of the dog’s bark is not individual, but it is yet intentional.

VIII. Roger Bacon

The provocation of Augustine shows up in yet another classification of signs
in the medieval period, that which can be extrapolated from the DeSignis of Roger
Bacon (1267). But the classification which can be extrapolated from De Signis is
highly syncretic and far from homogeneous in its principles:
signa
r 1
I. naturalia 2. ordinata ab anima e(
cx imcmione animae
I
r r 1
1.1 propter quod 1.2. propter 1.3. effccius 2.1. ad pla­ 2.2. naturaliter
aliud nccessarie vcl conformitatcm respectu citum ct cx sine dclibcracionc
probabilitcr infcriur torn unius suae proposito rationis ct sine
rci ad aliud causae cum dclibc- clectione volun­
r l i i rationc tatis ncc ad
praesens practeritum futurum itnaginus vestigium rationis ct placitum ncc ex
I signum proposito quodam
T picturac clcctionc
nccessarie organismi, voluntatis instinenaturae
1 fumus I
r l signum gemitus
gallum cantarc habere aurora signum ignis infirmorum,
signifies! lactis onus solis suspiria,
nobis horas signum vices brutorum
voces linguarum; res; circulus vini in taberna,
partus in mulicrc animalium
res cxpositac venditionis in fcncsiris venditorum
(latratus)
positac pro signis non solum ad
probabilitcr rcpracscntandum alia sed ctiam scipsas
:
r
esse matrem terram Rubcdo T
signum intcricctioncs
esse in vespere
cx deliberatione ves
dilcctionis, madidam signum
sine libcrationc
esse errabundum signum scrcnitatis
multum de pluviac in crastino
nocte signum practcritae
latronis

In this table, the natural signs seem to be those of Augustine emitted without
intention, but we could spend a lot of time trying to figure out the criteria followed
on this left side of the classification.2 For present purposes, our main interest is
in the signs of type 2., which are produced by an intention of the soul. Here we
find, as in Abelard, the distinction between a voluntary intention and a natural
one.3
It is definitely interesting to note that, once again, there is a difference be­
tween the crowing of the cock taken as symptom of the presence of a cock in an
area and that same crowing taken as a somewhat intentional sound emitted in
order to communicate. When it appears among the signs ordinata ab anima Bacon
calls it the cantus Galliy while when it appears among the signa naturalia he
 72 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

characterizes it by an infinitive construction, gall urn cantare—the fact that a cock

crows as proof of its presence in an area. This is, as the Stoics would have said,
an “incorporeal”, a symptomatic sequence of events. As such, it can be inter­
preted by human beings without any knowledge whatever of the intentionality
filling the cock’s soul and overflowing in its crow: “the crow of a cock signifies
nothing to us in its own right as a significative voice, but the fact of the cock s
crowing signifies to us a definite time of the day” (Bacon c.1250).
Bacon does not go as far as Augustine dared to—that is, he is not putting
the barking of dogs and the words of God within the same subheading. But neither
does he incline, as Abelard did, to reduce the voice uttered by the animal when
communicating by a natural impulse to the status of a mere symptom. His descrip­
tion of animal language is as sensitive in its own way as was that of Augustine.
Dogs, hens, and pigeons, in his examples, are not mere topoi but ‘real’ animals
observed with naturalistic—and not merely grammatical—interest in their usuaJ
behavior. In De Signis of 1267, Bacon implies with his twofold classification but
does not expressly ask for whom—its conspecifics or men—the cock crows; but
he had taken this up earlier in his Sumule Dialectices (c.1250), and made explicit
what his later classification implies: “A significative voice is that through which
every animal conveys something to every other or rather to each member of its
own species.” Thus a cock speaks to its hens differently in different circumstances,
and by careful observation and analysis we can come to understand this language
of poultry and of any species (“... ex industria et assuetudine possit aliquod animal
uti voce alterius”). In addition to these voces significativae naturaliier which signify
properly within a species and improperly to members of other species, there are
other voces—those significativae adplacitum—which are understood only by subgroups
of the same species (“Gallicus Gallico, Graecus Graeco, Latinus Latino”).
The Baconian classification in a sense mirrors a new attitude toward nature
and direct experience—new at least to us who are more used to prejudices when
it comes to the matter of understanding the Latins, for even in Albert the Great
and others both earlier and later there can be seen a preference for observation
over authority. Bacon has a sharp feeling for the relativity of human languages
(Gallicus Gallico, Anglicus Anglico) and also for the necessity of learning
languages. He has no doubt that cocks crow and dogs bark in order to communicate
with their conspecifics and sometimes with aliens. We may not understand their
language in the very sense in which a Greek does not understand a Latin and
vice versa, but the ass is understand by the ass, the lion by the lion, and the bee
by the bee. For man, it is enough to have a little training—or perhaps a good
deal of training—and, as Latins can come to understand Englishmen, and French­
men Greeks, so will it be possible to understand the languages of the beasts. Such
a conclusion, at least, is reached within almost less than a century by the pseudo-
n Marsilius 4 of Inghen (1495):

It is clear that the bark of the dog is also the sound of a voice. And when
it is argued that “yet a dog’s barking does not occur with an intention
i of signifying something”, response is made by denying what has been
assumed. Nor is it necessary that all should understand that barking, but
it is enough that those familiar with the breed and habits understand the
bark. For the bark of dogs signifies delight to one, anger to another.
i
 LATRATUS CANIS. OR: THE DOG'S BARKING 73

IX. Finale
The night of the Latin Ages seems to be haunted by a crowd of barking dogs
and wailing sick people: the landscape designed by so many theoretical and
theological pages cannot but suggest a more real landscape of stray dogs and vaga­
bonds roaming the streets of the medieval cities, while Christians, not yet com­
forted by aspirin, celebrated in an unending cycle of ritual the approach of the
Last Day.
In this landscape, hens and parrots scratch about but, as far as I have found,
no cats show up. They were probably reserved for more intimate sorcery parties
and could not be recognized as usual inhabitants of the official and orthodox city.
The Middle Ages did not develop in a rigorous sense what we call today a
“zoosemiotics , but they were sensitive to the problem of animal language—
even though they used it as a term of comparison in order to understand the nature
of the human one.
 7

THOMAS A. SEBEOK

The Notion of Zoosemiotics

' J. he term zoosemiotics—constructed in an exchange between Rulon Wells and

me—is proposed for the discipline, within which the science of signs intersects
with ethology, devoted to the scientific study of signalling behavior in and across
animal species. A survey of the vast and widely ramified literature of ethology,
supplemented by repeated spot checks of ongoing research projects, reveals that
the study of signaling behavior in animals has, by and large, been taxonomicallv
parochial: even Darwin’s great pioneer work, on The expression of the emotions in
man and animals (1872), dealt, in the main, with the domestic cat and dog. A great
variety of animals has since been more or less minutely scrutinized, both in the
natural environment (after J. S. Huxley and K. Lorenz) and in captivity (after
H. Lissman and N. Tinbergen), but usually in one particular species (or,
sometimes, in closely related forms, say, of the genus Apis) rather than guided
by overarching theoretical considerations relevant to problems of communication
in general, including especially speech. The task for the immediate future will
be to treat, comprehensively and exhaustively, the achievements of zoosemiotics
from Darwin through J. von Uexkiill to the present day; to arrange and display
the data in a format relevant to the study of language, that is, by matching logical
concepts derived from sociobiology with those developed in linguistics; and, using
each species, so to say, as a miniature paradigm which throws light upon language
observed as a peculiar combination of distinctive features, of which all or almost
all components, considered alone, have their separate evolutionary roots (cf.
Koehler 1956), to consolidate and build upon what has been established about
the protocultural foundations of human adaptation.
Whitney’s conception of language as a social institution, unfolded in necessary
antithesis to Schleicher’s simple-minded Darwinism, is now itself in need of revi­
sion as we recollect L. Bloomfield’s aphorism (1939): “Language creates and ex­
emplifies a twofold value of some human actions.” Language has, as he put it,
both a biophysical and a biosocial aspect. Speech is, of course, a biological
phenomenon in several related senses. Since all systems in science have a biological
component, the linguistic system observed includes the linguist-observer (cf. Simp­
son 1963). Speech, furthermore, is carried on by human beings, a species of animal;
it is not only a part of animal behavior but undoubtedly the principal means of
biological adaptation for man, an evolutionary specialization that arose from j
prehuman behavioral adaptation of which we seek to trace the paths as one ob- j
jective of zoosemiotics.
In 1936 (1.254) Jakobson asked, in Copenhagen: “Est-il besoin aujourd’hui
de rappeler que la linguistique appartient aux sciences sociales et non a l’histoire j
74 i

H
I
i
 THE NOTION OF ZOOSEMIOTICS 75

naturelle? N’est-ce pas un truisme evident?” [“Is it necessary today to recall that the
study of language pertains to the social sciences, and not to natural history? Is this not an
evident truism?’*) Twenty-five years later, he himself gave the answer as, in Helsinki
(1962), he called attention to the ‘‘direct homology between the logic of molecular
and phonemic codes”, implying a vision of new and startling dimensions: the
convergence of the science of genetics with the science of linguistics. A fundamental
unity of viewpoint has been provided by the discovery that the problem of heredity
lies, in effect, in the decipherment of a script, that genes are sections of the
molecular chains of DNA which contain messages coded in particular sequences
of nucleotide bases (Dobzhansky 1962: 39), in a manner persuasively reminis­
cent of the way in which bundles of binary features are linked into sequences of
phonemes. Genetics and linguistics thus emerge as autonomous yet sister disciplines
in the larger field of communication sciences, to which, on the molar level,
zoosemiotics also contributes.

:
I
i
 8

THOMAS A. SEBEOK

c c
Talking” with Animals:
Zoosemiotics Explained

Semiotics is, quite simply, the exchange of messages. A message consists of

a sign or a string of signs. “Zoosemiotics” is a term coined in 1963 to delimit
that segment of the field which focuses on messages given off and received by
animals, including important components of human nonverbal communication,
but excluding man’s language and his secondary, language-derived semiotic
systems, such as sign language or Morse code.
Biologists define life as a system capable of evolution by natural selection. This
genetic definition, which places great emphasis on the importance of replication,
is entirely compatible with the modern semiotic point of view, which asserts that
all communication is a manifestation of life, and that it is the capacity to com­
municate that distinguishes living beings from inanimate substances. Reproduc­
tion is itself a matter of communication, the molecular code being one of the two
master sign-systems on earth. The other one is the verbal code—our language.
The molecular code is apparently the same in all terrestrial organisms; the verbal
code is fundamentally the same—with superficial variations—in all the peoples
of the globe.
Scholars distinguish two varieties of animal communication: intraspecific and
interspecific. Intraspecific communication refers to all of those devices at the
disposal of an animal that link it to every other member of its own species, and
all others to it. Territory delineation, and the location of kin, competitors, and
prospective mates, are among these devices. Examples of intraspecific messages
are the bright flashes of light used in the dialogue among fireflies, an exchange
of coded information about species identity, sex and location. The flash code used
i varies from species to species within the family of beetles to which fireflies belong-
Certain fishes communicate with their own kind by broadcasting different pat­
terns of electric pulses to threaten, indicate submission, carry on courtship, or
even, by discharging a particular set of signs, to insure individual recognition
from a mate, a companion or rival, and thus to help promote cohesiveness within
its social group.
Although “flehmen”, or lip-curl, which involves the closure of nasal open­
i ings when the head is jerked back, is a widely distributed behavioral trait in mam­
mals, this facial expression has evolved into a particular sign in horses which elicits
particular responses on the part of other horses. A fearful rhesus monkey carries
its tail stuck stiffly out behind, while a baboon will convey the same emotion to
its fellows by holding its tail vertically.
:
76
 “TALKING” WITH ANIMALS: ZOOSEMIOTICS EXPLAINED 77

In brief, each kind of animal has at its command a repertoire of signs that
forms a system unique to it or is, in biological parlance, species-specific. Language
is a species-specific trait of man; it is therefore counterproductive and misleading
to ascribe language to any other animal, except, perhaps, metaphorically. Some
features of tail signaling, as of any other kind of communicative device, may vary
geographically; linguistic diversity in space may produce dialects, a term which
is also used in zoosemiotics to characterize behavioral differences in populations
of the same species occupying different areas. Thus langur monkeys in northern
India carry their tails up and arched over the back, while the same species in
the south carry them up and then looping backward to signify an individual’s
degree of “confidence”.
No species, however, can survive in isolation from other sorts of animals. Each
species must live in a vast ecosystem which requires its members to coexist with
a variety of neighbors on certain terms. In order to avoid predators, capture prey
or in other ways further the mutual advantage of two or more species, animals
must have additional code-switching capabilities, an interspecific communication
system. In parts of India, for example in Kanha Park, some half a dozen hoofed
animals occupy a range which they must share with the tiger and lesser carnivores,
like the leopard and jungle cat, sloth bear, striped hyena, jackal and an occa­
sional python—to say nothing of man. Each prey and each predator species must
communicate with every other within range to enhance the survival of its own kind.
A number of marine fishes specialize in eliminating parasites that plague
another species of fish. The “cleaner” fish entices its hosts by means of a sign—
the “cleaner dance” or nod swim—which the hosts acknowledge by permitting
themselves to be cleansed. The hosts, in turn, know how to invite the cleaners
to perform their lustral chores.
The saber-toothed blenny is, by contrast, a fake and a natural opportunist:
it mimics the communicative behavior of the harmless cleaner fish in order to
deceive the hosts, enabling the impostor to bite chunks off their fins and gills and
get away with it. Such deception by mimicry is a common perversion of in­
terspecific communicative processes throughout the animal kingdom.
A famous example of interspecific communication to mutual advantage is found
in the savannahs of Africa south of the Sahara, where a bird, called the honey
guide, indicates to man the location of beehives that the bird cannot open but
on whose honeycombs it likes to feed. This bird produces conspicuous beckoning
calls, followed by certain optical signs, until a willing human being finds the hive,
feeds the wax to the bird and consumes the honey himself.
How man and animals communicate with one another poses all sorts of in­
teresting problems which require a great deal more study. Man may encounter
animals under a wide variety of circumstances that make it necessary for each
party to learn—even if never entirely master—the essential elements of the other’s
code.
Here are some possibilities for contact:
1. Man is an animal’s despoiler (e.g., potential exterminator, such as of the star­
ling); or
2. Man is an animal’s victim (e.g., of our most devastating killer, the mosquito).
3. Man is an animal’s (unequal) partner or symbiont (say, a human host and
his household pet guest, like his goldfish or canary).
78 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

4. Man is a parasite on an animal (e.g., the reindeer) or the other way around
(e.g., the flea and the louse); or the two exist in a state of commensalism (like
seagulls following the plough or robins perched on a spade).
5. The animal accepts a human as its conspecific, even to the extent of attempt­
ing to mate (as a panda tried with her keeper in London, or a male dolphin with
his female trainer in St. Thomas).
6. The animal defines humans as inanimate objects (e.g., when men are in a
vehicle driving through a wildlife park).
7. Man subjects an animal to scientific testing and experimentation (apprentissage)
in the laboratory or to performing in exhibitons {dressage), as in the circus.
8. Man tames animals and continues to breed them selectively (domestication).
Each of these situations—and others—involves a crucial understanding on our
part of the animals’ biologically-given communicative capacity. The success of
processes like taming and training depends on our having mastered relevant
elements of animals’ codes. In order to flourish in our company, each animal
must be able to discern man’s verbal and/or nonverbal behavior.
All communication systems, especially those of animals, are studied under
six major rubrics. I have already mentioned that messages, or strings of signs,
are a chief focus of attention, but all messages have to be generated by an emit­
ting organism (source or addresser) and interpreted by one or more receiving
organisms (destination or addressee). The kind of messages emitted is dictated
by the biological makeup of the source, particularly its sensory apparatus, and
the environmental conditions, or context, to which the species has adapted. A
message can but rarely be transmitted directly in the shape in which it was
generated (quite probably, electrochemically). Messages have to be encoded in
a form that the channel connecting the communicants can accommodate. For the
message to have an impact the receiving animal must have the key for decoding
it back into such a shape (also electrochemical) that its biological makeup enables
it to interpret. This is the reason why messages appear in coded form, and why
the source and the destintion must (at least partially) share either an inherited
or a learned code, or, commonly, some mixture of both.
Picture, then, an organism which formulates a message—say, “I want
you!”—directed at another individual, a very special one, of the opposite sex within
its own species, as a gannet calling out to its mate after prolonged separation at
sea during the winter, so that each member of the pair can recognize the other
again as they both return to their nesting cliffs. This message is encoded in acoustic
form, and the sound waves travel through the medium of air from the vocal organs
of one gannet across to the auditory apparatus of the other. Contrast this with
the promiscuous scented advertisement of a flightless female silk moth to any male
flying by within a radius of a few miles: her glands emit a sex-attraction pheromone
(or message-bearing chemical released to the exterior) called bombykol, which
is then transported through the air surrounding her, eventually to be picked up
by certain receptor organs on the male antennae. Bombykol molecules are ab­
sorbed by the hair surface, diffuse to and through the pores and tubules into a
fluid, where they hit the membrane, eliciting a cell response which sets the male
off traveling to and, perhaps, mating with the stationary female. A single odor
molecule (or very few) can apparendy trigger an explosive series of events. Among
other things, this chain of happenings illustrates an important principle of animal

J
 “TALKING” WITH ANIMALS: ZOOSEMIOTICS EXPLAINED 79

communication: signing behavior often releases far more energy than is used for
the act of launching a message.
All messages are encoded to suit the medium and can, accordingly, be conven­
iently classified in terms of the channel, or combination of channels, employed
by the animal in question. Understandably, human beings, in whose daily lives
speech plays such a prominent part, tend to think of the vocal-auditory link as
the paramount channel. Actually, however, the use of sound in the wider scheme
of biological existence is rather uncommon: the overwhelming majority of animals
are both deaf and dumb. Of the dozen or so phyla of animals, only two contain
creatures that can hear and produce functional sound: the arthropods and the
chordates. Of the latter, the upper three and a half classes of vertebrates are unique
in having all their members capable of sound production as well as—excepting
only snakes—of hearing. The methods of sound production vary, of course enor-
mously from group to group. Not only does our own method seem to be unusual,
but, to all appearances, evolved only once in the stream of life. The vocal
mechanism that works by means of a current of air passing over the cords and
setting them into vibrations is confined to ourselves and, with distinctions, to our
nearest relatives, the other mammals—the birds, reptiles and amphibians.
(Although some fish use wind instruments as well, they do so without the reed
constituted by our vocal cords.) So far as we know, no true vocal performances
are found outside the land vertebrates or their marine descendants, the whales.
Acoustic communication may take place in air or in water and it varies in range.
The human ear can register only a narrow portion of that range. In that respect,
we are overshadowed by the smallest bat, by every dog, as well as by many rodents
and, no doubt, countless other animals hitherto not investigated.
Optical communication is, similarly, much more extensive than the limits of
the human eye might indicate. Our eyes can register only visible light, whereas
bees and some other insects are able to communicate in the ultraviolet range.
Nocturnal mammals, possessing a “tapetum lucidum” (an iridescent pigment
choroid coat causing reflected night eye-shine), are able to “see in the dark”,
a feat man can accomplish only with the aid of specially-constructed infrared equip­
ment. The sensitivity of our sense organs tends to vary from that of other species:
the auditory reaction time of the avian ear has been estimated, for instance, to
be ten times that of a human ear. African vultures were shown to be capable of
distinguishing, from a height of about 13,000 feet, whether a gazelle lying on the
ground is dead or only sleeping; we, even using field binoculars, are unable even
to identify the bird soaring at such a height.
Beside the acoustic and the optical channels, animals may rely on chemical
signs through their sense of smell, for example, as do many carnivores and ungu­
lates. The dog’s superior sense of smell is legendary. I have mentioned pheromones
previously; more and more of them are being isolated and analyzed. The
“flehmen” of horses, as well as that of bats and a variety of their predators and
prey, is also a specialized device for closing the nostrils to rechannel such olfac­
tory substances as female urine to the so-called vomeronasal organ, located on the
roof of the palate of the male, where the chemical message is decoded for ultimate
interpretation in the hypothalamus. In snakes and lizards, the vomeronasal organ
simply registers olfactory substances, but in such animals as antelopes it enables
bucks to know the state of a doe—whether, for example, she is in heat.
80 FRONTIERS IN SEMIO TICS

Advances are rapidly being made in our understanding of communication by

means of electrically coded messages in both marine and fresh water environments.
In certain animals, notably such reptiles as rattlesnakes and pit vipers, slight
changes in temperature can have significance. Tactile communication—by direct
contact or through physical conduits as different as the spider’s web and tracks
of silk or the slime trails of snails and slugs—is practiced in various corners of
the animal world.
The integration of a species may be achieved via a hierarchical combination
of channels: the social dynamics of a wolf pack depend, for example, on (a) visual
signs, especially the subtle repertoire of tail and body displays and facial expres­
sions; (b) vocal signs, including collective “singing”; (c) tactile signs, such as
grooming, nibbling, licking, or just lying together in rest and sleep; and (d) olfac­
tory signs, involving scent marking and rolling. These four channels are used either
in alternation, according to certain rules (for instance, when a member has lost
visual contact with the pack, he may continue to track, at high speed, following
a scent) or to reinforce one another. Such supplementation, called redundancy,
becomes necessary under certain unfavorable environmental conditions that in­
troduce noise—unwanted signs—into the stream of communication.
People who want to understand how animals communicate must abandon the
layman’s traditional notion of the “five senses.” Many more than five are al­
ready known to science, and many others undoubtedly remain to be discovered.
Equally important, humans tend to underestimate many animals’ sensorial ef­
ficiency. Such misestimates, based on ignorance, sometimes lead to ludicrous pro­
nouncements claiming “extrasensory perception” on the part of certain animals,
for example, horses. It has been known, however, since 1926, that horses are
capable of detecting movements in the human face of less than one-fifth of a
millimeter (one millimeter equals 0.0394 inch). A sign consisting of a movement
so minute simply escapes the ken of human onlookers. There are assuredly many
such phenomena that should be checked and checked repeatedly in every species
of animal.
Specialists in zoosemiotics concentrate on one topic, or a combination of topics,
among the following:

1. How does the source animal successively formulate and encode its messages?
Squids and octopuses, which are mollusks with a truly extraordinary control of
color and pattern, have, for instance, arranged their comportment so as to respect
the demands of gravity; to be able to achieve this, they have evolved parts which
by their physical structure symbolize gravity and movement. The English
anatomist, J. Z. Young, has shown in detail how these internal structures are,
as it were, miniature models of the universe, and how these features, among others,
guide these cephalopods—whose social existence is confined largely to combat and
copulation—in their communicative behaviors, or in other words, how the signs
they use signify some change in their inner or outer world or embody some in­
structions for action.
2. Once encoded, how is the message transmitted—through what channel(s),
operating under what conditions? If a multichannel system is involved, as with
wolves, what rules determine how channels are to be combined or when an animal
is to switch from one to another?
 “TALKING” WITH ANIMALS: ZOOSEMIOTICS EXPLAINED 81

3. How does the receiving animal successively decode and interpret the in­
coming message? What is its sensory capacity like, what are its limitations? Cicadas
are interesting in this respect. While calling to the female, the male abruptly turns
deaf to its own raucous song; the female, however, perceives pulses (which, to
us, sound like a mere rattle) from the time patterns of which she is able to sort
out her species and fly to the correct type of male.
4. What is the total message repertoire in a given species? (Some investigators
maintain that each species of birds and mammals has only from about fifteen to
forty-five display messages, classifiable into a dozen or so categories.) What form
does each sign take? How are signs arranged into strings and what does each con­
catenation signify—what information is embodied by each complex sign, and how
can this be decomposed into smaller meaningful units?
5. What are the properties of the code used by each species? (A code is a
transformation, or a set of rules, whereby messages are converted from one
representation to another; an animal either inherits or learns its code, or both.)
Thus, insects, which do not have a constant temperature, face a problem created
by fluctuations in the environment: male grasshoppers are known to double their
rates of singing for every 10°C rise in outside temperature, which means that,
if the female recognizes the species solely on the basis of the number of pulses
per unit of time, which she does, the code, inherent in her nervous system, must
allow for temperature differences to enable her to locate the male. Such must in­
deed be the case, for females at 25 degrees Centigrade, for example, fail to res­
pond to calls of males at 15 degrees Centigrade.
6. An animal always interprets messages it receives in the light of two dif­
ferent variables: the incoming signal itself; and the specific qualities of the con­
text in which the message was delivered—such as whether the water was quiet
or turbulent, whether the display was performed in the emitter’s territory or the
receiver’s, near a cover or in the open, or whether, during the act of com­
municating, the animals were approaching one another, withdrawing or still. Every
previous message, moreover, provides contextual information for the interpreta­
tion of every succeeding message. Very little is known about how animals or in­
deed, people, utilize contextual information, but there is no doubt as to its critical
importance in every communicative transaction.

There are two fields of complex research that space will not permit me to more
than touch upon in this brief survey. One focuses on the question: how have sign
systems evolved—that is, changed into communicatory devices from some segment
of behavior that previously fulfilled a different function—in one species or another
(the study of what ethologists refer to as “ realization”)? For instance, the evolu­
tion of human laughter, which also occurs in monkeys and the chimpanzee as
the “relaxed open-mouth display’’, interpreted as a friendly sign of play, has been
traced back to a movement that was originally associated, as far back as primitive
insectivores, with grooming and respiration.
The other field attempts to deal with the development (or ontogeny) of sign sys­
tems in the life of a given individual, from its birth or hatching to maturity. Much
fascinating and useful information has come to light, for example, from longitu­
dinal studies of the vocal development of a variety of songbirds, and the crystalliza­
tion—the reaching of the final adult pattern—of this manner of territorial assertion.
82 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

There are many reasons for encouraging the serious study of zoosemiotics.
Let me conclude by mentioning only two. We are as yet far from understanding
the pathways along which our own nonverbal and verbal communicative abilities
have evolved. Zoosemiotics searchingly illuminates both the commonalities and
distinctions between human and animal communication.
Second, we share our globe with a great many fellow-creatures but are totally
ignorant of—or worse, entertain childlike ideas about—most of them. Sentimen­
tal or outright mistaken notions must be replaced by sound knowledge. Therein
lies our only hope for establishing realistic, workable communication links with
the host of the speechless creatures that form a vital part of our environment.
 9

MARTIN KRAMPEN

Phytosemiotics

, J-'he proble
m of this essay is to establish phytosemiotics, i.e., the semiotics
of plants, as an area of inquiry into sign processes, parallel and on an equal footing
with anthroposemiotics, the study of human communication, and zoosemiotics
(Sebeok 1963, 1972), the study of sign processes occurring within and between
species of animals, the three areas forming together the discipline of “biosemio­
tics”.

The problem and its background

Subjective interest. For three years, I have been working, in my capacity as a
psychologist and semiotician, in an interdisciplinary team together with a designer,
a gardener, and a physician in an experiment in living and working among plants.
The designer from this team moved, four years ago, into a normal commerical
greenhouse that was empty at the time. After a preliminary failure with “laissez-
faire” gardening and tropical vegetation, he planted, with the help of the gardener,
a selection of subtropical plants around small platforms used for office work, sleep­
ing, cooking, and sitting. These plants remain green all year round—regardless
of the presence of snow and frost outside—if the greenhouse is moderately heated.
The designer had his office there and lived there, the doctor monitored his health,
and I observed the behavior of the designer, his employees, and his visitors (in­
cluding myself). In addition, oxygen and carbon dioxide measurements were taken
longitudinally under different weather conditions. A report on this experiment
has appeared (Logid 1981). On the basis of the result, the team is suggesting a
combination glass-and-stone house with a 50% surface for plants as an alternative
architectural solution in the face of fading oil resources (the sunheat caught in
the glasshouse can be stored), in the face of air pollution (the oxygen content in
the glasshouse is, due to the plants, above the normal level of any room with open
windows), and in the face of decreasing environmental quality in our cities. In
contrast, the quality of life in this environment is rated very highly by the par­
ticipants in this experiment (because of the colors of blossoms and leaves, the smells,
and the constant change of space resulting from plant growth and seasonal cycles).
This advantage must be paid for by way of an average of one hour per day spent
on plant care.
I had, however, one problem with the experiment that I could not resolve
at the beginning—the problem of its semiotic interpretation. For quite some time
I thought that the semiotic content of this enterprise was negative only. This island
of green represented, in my estimation, an escape from daily routine with its signs
of human communication in bureaucracy and mass media. Plants, unlike letters,
83
84 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

punched cards, and tapes, are not malleable. One cannot do with them as one
pleases. They require care and grow according to their own plan.
Problem relevance and the semiotic approach. There is little doubt that the problem
of new alternative forms of working and living is highly relevant if one consid­
ers the crisis of energy, environmental pollution, and the general loss of quality
in daily life. This is at least true in western industrialized countries, where we
witness mass tourism, suburban sprawl, and growing so-called “green poli-
tical movements. A project like the one described above seems to give a direct
and practical answer to the problems mentioned. There seems to be little room
for theoretical questions of semiotics. But the lack of a theory to back up a prac­
tice has always made me suspicious. I also find the escapist tendencies in mass
tourism, urban sprawl, and “green” politics unsatisfactory. I therefore began
to amplify my semiotic interests by searching for a solution to my “cognitive dis­
sonance”.
Jakob von XJexkulVs biosemiotics. I had read Jakob von UexkiiH’s “Bedeutungslehre”
(“theory of meaning”, 1940) a long time ago. I had discussed the semiotic im­
portance of the work of this unorthodox German biologist, forerunner of ethology,
many times with his son, Thure von Uexkiill, who is attempting to develop fur­
ther the semiotic aspects of his father’s work with “biology as a science of mean­
ing in nature”. These discussions were often very heated and controversial because
I could not cope with what I thought to be a hermeneutic approach to natural
science. It took the publication ofJakob von Uexkiill’s selected writings (1899-1940)
by his son Thure von Uexkiill (1980), and a careful rereading of the
“Bedeutungslehre”, to convince me that a basis for a semiotics of plants could
be found in Jakob von Uexkiill’s work. The basic premises of Jakob von Uex-
kiill’s theory of meaning in nature may be summarized as follows:
(1) Living beings, from the cell to the most complex organism, are “autonomous”.
They do not react in a causal and mechanical way to impingements of objects
or other living beings as material objects do. Living beings react in a way that
is meaningful in terms of their own needs, i.e., they process information accord­
ing to their specific receptors, nervous systems, and effectors and according to
their own code. Therefore, biology can utilize causal and mechanical explana­
tions only to a very limited degree. The main task of the biologist is to reconstruct
the meaning of a living being’s behavior. This implies finding out exactly which
sign processes underly behavior. In other words, biology is biosemiotics (a term
not used by Jakob von Uexkiill).
(2) There is a structural correspondence between each living being as an
autonomous subject and its own “Umwelt”. The term “Umwelt” is difficult to
translate into English. It means the subjective world of what is meaningful im­
pingement for the living being in terms of its own information processing equip­
ment, sign systems, and codes. Since “Umwelt” is not to be confused with “en­
vironment”, the original term will be maintained. The structure of connection
between a living being and its “Umwelt” is mediated by sign processes.
(3) There is a meaningful structural correspondence between the Urn welts of dif­
ferent living beings within a species and those of living beings of different species,
according to a “general plan of nature”.
(4) The ultimate task of the biologist is to reconstruct piece by piece, in keeping
 PHYTOSEMIOTICS 85

with, and on the basis of, experimental evidence, the hypothesized general plan
of nature.

Jakob von Uexkull *s anthroposemiotics and zoosemiotics. In order to describe in somewhat

more detail the biosemiotic theory ofJakob von Uexkull, one must start with his
anthroposemiotics. While this term, again, is not used by him, the meaning of
the relationship between each human subject and his Umwelt, as well as the mean­
ingful correlation between the Umwelts of different human beings, is of special
importance in Jakob von Uexkull’s biosemiotics. He gives many examples as
evidence of different kinds of Umwelts.
One example is a walk through a town. The tailor’s shop contains the con­
cave counterforms of human bodies specialized for different activities in their lives.
The clocks in the watchmaker’s shop have replaced—according to abstract human
time measures—the natural one of the sun, which used to regulate human lives
by the presence or absence of its light. The book shop contains messages between
cardboard covers that are of great importance for communication from human
Umwelt to human Umwelt. The butcher’s shop contains the carcasses of animals,
each of which was, at one time, an organism with an Umwelt of its own, etc.
Everything witnessed during a walk through town is geared to human needs. The
height of the buildings and of doors and windows is related to the size of the human
body. Stairs accommodate ascending legs, bannisters the arms. Each object is
given its form and its meaning by some function of human life. In every case,
some human affordance is backed up by a counteraffordance of an object. In fact,
the meaning of an object to human lives literally consists of its counteraffordance
to human affordance.
But the key role of anthroposemiotics in Jakob von Uexkull’s conception arises
from the fact that the scientist himself, the biologist, is a human subject surrounded
by his Umwelt as if by a transparent bubble, on the surface of which appear his
scientific observations in keeping with his own sign systems and codes. Jakob von
Uexkull likes to quote, in this respect, the British astronomer and physicist Sir
Arthur Stanley Eddington, who said he had two desks, the one he used for writing
on, and the other a physical desk consisting of an immeasureably large number
of particles (Jakob von Uexkull 1940). For that matter, a biologist would investigate
a different desk from a physicist (Jakob von Uexkull 1935). Therefore, the scien­
tific and especially the biosemiotic investigator must use a special method in order
to arrive at a careful reconstruction of the Umwelt of the observed living being
in his own Umwelt and on his own terms—a method that would now be called
participant observation.
The structural correspondence between each living human organism and its
Umwelt is described by Jakob von Uexkull as a “function cycle’’. The subject
literally “grasps” an object, in a doublepronged attack, either directly with his
receptors (e.g., eyes) and effectors (e.g., hands), or indirectly with amplifications
of his receptors (e.g., microscope) and his effectors (e.g., a tool or a machine).
There is a constant feedback of signals from the effectors to the receptors, which
is modified by the encounter with the object. The nervous system within the
organism mediates between receptors and effectors according to the needs of that
organism (e.g., hunger, defense, sexual drive, and the medium in which it lives).
According to Jakob von Uexkull, the receptors receive afferent signals from
86 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

the object and the effectors are steered by efferent signals to carry out an action
upon the object. Both kinds of signals are charged with meaning by the code con-
stituted by the subject’s needs. An object may thus be sensed differently and acted
upon differently, depending on the actual need. The two faces of the object as
a sign are the afferent signals as the signifier, and the induced efferent signals
as the signified. The semiosis proceeds on the basis that the afferent signals are
constantly cancelled by the efferent signals, either in terms of the consumption
of the object, or in terms of a different “perspective”, or in terms of a code­
switching to another need. The sum of the object signals received and their cor-
responding action signals constitutes the Umwelt of the organism, which is mir­
rored by signs as an “inner” counterworld.
The task of the biologist is to study the code according to which a living being,
be it human or animal, imparts meaning to its Umwelt, by studying the physical
structure of receptors and effectors and by observing, through experimental varia­
tion, which signals are processed on each side, i.e., which signs are in the code
of the living subject. The study of the Umwelt of human beings is thus, clearly,
anthroposemiotic.
The role played by those particular objects in the Umwelt of human beings
that are called signs has been studied by Thure von Uexkiill (1980). The specific
characteristic of the human Umwelt is that it is structured according to the species’
framework of space and time; that, by reafferent feedback processes, the
phenomenon of “consciousness” (or self-awareness) exists; and that by transmis­
sion of sign-objects, particularly of linguistic signs, a common social reality is
established.
Following the suggestion of Marx (1857: 636) that it is scientifically more cor­
rect to explain apes by using knowledge about men than to explain men in terms
of apes, the zoosemiotics of Jakob von Uexkiill can now be sketched “by
subtraction”.
Returning to the example of Eddington’s desk, this object becomes, in the
Umwelt of a fly, a mere horizontal walking surface and is, in that respect, no
different from the seat of the chair or the top of a cupboard. In fact, all objects
in a human room are reduced, in the Umwelt of a fly, to objects to walk on, ob­
jects to feed on, and objects, a lamp for instance, to fly around in a kind of play
activity. As Jakob von Uexkiill cogently observes, the number of objects pertain­
ing to the Umwelt of an animal corresponds exactly to the number of actions ex­
ecuted by it. But each animal, be it an amoeba, a fly, or a lion, behaves mean­
ingfully on the basis of sign processes with a functional cycle forming signs from
afferent signals as signifiers and corresponding efferent signals as signifieds.

The phytosemiotic hypothesis

It is the hypothesis of this study that, while plants are automomous living beings (in
the sense ofJakob von Uexkiill), their semiosis is different from that of human and
animal subjects in such a way that it merits its own semiotic analysis. This semiotic
analysis may well form the positive scientific basis lacking so far in the conservation­
ist activities that have, until now, largely been based on negation and ideology.
The method by which the specificity of plant semiosis can be shown is that of
opposition, well known in semiotic inquiry. It would thus be necessary to show by
which distinctive features phytosemiotic processes differ from anthropo- and zoo-
 PHYTOSEMIOTICS 87

semiotic processes, and at the same time, what their common biosemiotic basis
is.

Distinctive features of phytosemiotics

Fixation versus mobility. Jakob von Uexkiill (1922) characterizes the most obvious
difference between animals and plants as that of movement and quietness:
The confusing aspect offered by the thousands of animal worlds is due to
the impossibility of finding a moment of rest anywhere. Everything is con­
stantly in the process of breathtaking movement. . . . Again and again
the animal must exercise its organs to respond to the requirements of the
Umwelt. Sometimes the animal is the persecutor and sometimes the
persecuted. But it is always active and thus burns the materials which its
digestive cells have extracted in painstaking labor from the nourishment
which it has acquired in such a hard way.
The aspect of the reign of plants is quite different. Hectic haste is re­
placed by comfortable calm. Not that work ceases for a moment, as long
as the plant is alive. An uninterrupted stream of liquids enters by the roots,
rises along the stem and branches out in all directions to the leaves where
it evaporates again in a well-controlled fashion. This stream transports the
nourishing salts gained from the earth into all those tissues of the plant
which transform them into material of the plant’s body. In the laboratory
of the leafgreen, the important building block of carbon is produced with
the help of the sun. Everything is handled by the fine detail work of living
cells which remain autonomous subjects as do those in the bodies of animals.
They work in union, according to a plan, by transmitting stimuli and
material.
This quotation certainly should not be misunderstood in the sense that plants do
not move. There is, for one thing, the phenomenon of phototropism (e.g., Presti
et al. 1977), implying relatively slow movement of plants toward light sources.
And there is, of course, very visible adaptive movement of plants in response to
the pressure of air (wind) or water (stream).
Absence of effectors and receptors. The “comfortable calm” of the reign of plants is
due to the fact that plants have no specific effector organs—no feet to run with,
no arms to gesticulate with, etc.—and, correspondingly, no specific receptor
organs—no eyes to look around with, no ears to hear with, etc. Consequently,
there is no nervous system mediating between effectors and receptors.
This assertion appears to be in contradiction to an increasing—and quite
“fashionable”—body of literature concerned with “plant receptors”. For instance,
so-called photoreceptors have been studied in different strains of Phycomyces,
a species of fungus (Delbriick et al. 1977; Delbriick et al. 1976; Presti et al. 1977).
It was found, in one study, that “the Phycomyces sporangiophore is a single cell
and responds phototropically, adapting to various light levels. . . . The authors
have analyzed the kinetics of this adaptation, using a tracking machine for greater
precision. Dark adaptation is exponential . . . i.e., the threshold falls exponen­
tially in the dark, in contrast to scotopic vision where the logarithm of threshold
falls exponentially in the dark”. In the other studies, the chemical functioning
88 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

of these photoreceptors was analyzed, with the result that “the bluelight recep­
tor” of Phycomyces is not carotene (as in animals), but riboflavin.
A similar topic in the literature is the search for a functional “plant hormone
receptor” (e.g., Dodds and Hall 1980, a review on the problem with a bibliography
of 65 titles). Animal hormone receptors are defined as follows:
Animal hormones are synthesized in clearly defined organs and are then
translocated to equally clearly defined “target” tissues organs . . . where
they control specific biochemical processes . . . the sites with which they in­
teract must have a very high affinity for the hormone. Equally, the sites
must show very high specificity for the hormone. These sites, or rather the
whole molecule of which they are part, are termed “hormone receptors”.
All such receptors which have been isolated so far have proved to be
proteins.
In contrast to a large number of hormones found in animals (more than 40
have by now been identified), only five groups of plant hormones are known so
far. These plant hormones have a much simpler structure than animal hormones.
According to Dodds and Hall (1980), “The very term hormone is called into ques­
tion in plants since the site of synthesis is not usually restricted to a specialized
organ or tissue . . . most if not all plant cells have had the capacity for hormone
synthesis at some time in their development and many retain this capacity, even
if to a limited extent”. In addition, “there is usually no one distinct target for
a given hormone since at any one time many different tissues and organs in the
plant are capable of responding to it—often in a different way”. Obviously, it
is this “totipotency of plant cells”, a principle formulated already by Haberland
(1902), that differentiates so-called photo- and hormone-receptors of plants from
those in animals. This does not mean that there is no “differentiation e.g.,
“division of labor”, between plant cells during the development of plants.
It is typical for the modern conception of “plant receptors” in botany to refer
to chemical “binding” processes that are treated, according to information theory,
as processes between chemical “messengers” and “target substances”, rather than
referring to specialized cell compounds or receptor organs as these are present
in animals. Moreover, the useful distinction between “exteroceptors” (e.g.,
photoreceptors) and “interoceptors” (e.g., hormone receptors) is neglected by
botanical terminology. I would, therefore, like to maintain Jakob von UexkulFs
conception denying plants the capacity of specialized receptor organs, and rather
apply to what are called receptors in the above cited literature the term “sen­
sors”, according to the parlance of cybernetics with respect to feedback cycles.

Absence of the functional cycle. For the same terminological reason, I would agree
with Jakob von Uexkull in maintaining that plants do not have a “functional cycle”
connecting receptor organs via a nervous system to effector organs. What plants
have is a feedback cycle between sensors and regulators. In the absence of a func­
tional cycle in plants, there is no way by which afferent signals can be Fitted together
with efferent signals to form the signifiers and signifieds of “objects”.

Casing versus Umwell. Given the absence of a functional cycle, plants cannot have an
Umwelt. Asjakob von Uexkull (1940) points out: “The plant does not possess Um-
 PHYTOSEMIOTICS 89

welt-organs, it is directly immersed into its habitat. The relationships of the plant to
its habitat are quite different from those of the animal to its Umwelt”. While hu­
mans and animals each have their own Umwelt, plants are confined to their casing.

Meaning factor versus meaning carrier. Due to the absence of effectors, nervous system,
and receptors and the consequent lack of the functional cycle and the resulting
Umwelt, plants have no objects that may become the sources or “carriers” of
meaning for them. Meaning is mediated for plants by what Jakob von Uexkiill
calls “meaning factors”. Meaning factors are those stimuli among the stream
of impingements pressing upon the plants from all sides that are relevant to their
life. The plant does not counter external impingements with the double-pronged
operation of receptors and effectors, but uses the living sheet of cells of its casing
to filter out relevant impingements. These relevant impingements are the mean­
ing factors, i.e., the semiotic factors, for the living plant.
Using the example of the leaves of an oak tree, Jakob von Uexkiill shows how
phytosemiosis functions. One of the meaning factors, as far as oak leaves are con­
cerned, is the rain. Falling raindrops follow precise physical laws governing the
behavior of liquids upon striking a leaf. In this case, according to Jakob von Uex-
kiill, the leaf is the “receiver of meaning”, coupled with the meaning factor “rain”
by a “meaning rule”. The form of the leaves is such that it accommodates the
physical laws governing the behavior of liquids. The leaves work together by form­
ing cascades in all directions in order to distribute the rain water on the ground
for optimal use by the roots. To put it in more common semiotic terminology,
the leaf s form is the signifier and the physical behavior of a raindrop is the
signified. The code coupling leaf and raindrop is the oak tree’s need of liquid
for the transport of nourishing salts into its cells.
Utilization of meaning byform versus utilization of meaning byfunction cycle. The difference
between plant and animal is that the plant utilizes meaning by means of its form
built up according to a “plan of nature”, enabling the leaf to fit into the physical
behavior of liquids, while humans and animals utilize meaning through their func­
tion cycle. The code of a plant’s need is a superordinate rule coupling two subor­
dinate rules, the physical laws governing the forming and flowing of drops and
the biological formation rules according to which the leaves of a particular species
of plants grow in its typical habitat. The code of an animal’s need couples rele­
vant objects or animals to the receptors and effectors of the receiving animal. The
superordinate rule of the living being’s needs may be considered a code to which
subordinate rules relate as subcodes.
Predominance of indexicality versus iconicity and symbolicity. The classical trichotomy
of possible relationships between the material aspect of the sign and the object
it stands for is, in Peirce, reflected by degees of iconicity, indexicality, and sym­
bolicity (and in the Saussurean tradition by degrees of motivation, indexicality,
and arbitrariness). If one wants to extend this trichotomy to plants on the one
hand, versus animals and humans on the other, the absence of the function cycle
would suggest that, in plants, indexicality certainly predominates over iconicity.
In animals, however, iconicity seems to predominate over symbolicity, since the
double-pronged action of receptors and effectors models the object almost as a
concave negative image of the two actions. Finally, symbolicity predominates over
90 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

iconicity in humans because of their widespread social use of language and other
arbitrary sign systems.
There are three levels of meaningful cycles corresponding to predominance
of indexicality, iconicity, and symbolicity, each higher process including also the
lower. Indexicality, on the vegetative level, corresponds to the sensing and
regulating, in a feedback cycle, of meaningful stimulation directly contiguous to
the form of the plant. Iconicity, on the animal level, is produced by the function
cycle, with receptor and effector activity representing, in a nervous system, the
“image” of objects. Symbolicity, on the human level, is produced by perception
and action in human society.

Communalities between phytosemiosis and zoosemiosis

Selection of impingements. While there are distinct differences between the sign pro­
cesses in plants and animals or humans, there are also important communalities
among them. One is that they all filter out a specific selection of all those im­
pingements surrounding them. As living beings, they are all capable of drawing
a borderline between “self’ and “nonself’, utilizing only those impingements
that are meaningful to their needs.
Suffering the imposition of meaning. Plants, animals, and humans not only utilize im­
pingements meaningfully, but also suffer the imposition of meaning. Jakob von
Uexkiill (1940) shows this with the example of the different roles a wild flower
in a meadow may play as a meaningful object in different function cycles: It may
be picked by a human for a bouquet of flowers, it is utilized as a walkway and
plant-louse farm by ants, the larva of the cicada may bore its nest into its stem,
and the cow may eat it together with a bunch of grass. Suffering the imposition
of meaning is analogously applicable to animals and humans, as is proved by the
roles of prey and predator between animals and between animals and humans,
and by the suppression of humans by humans. In the “plan of nature”, the mean­
ing of suffering the imposition of meaning may range from the reduction of ex­
cess individuals in the interest of their own species to reduction in the interest
of a whole ecological system, whereas social oppression among humans seems to
be dictated by historical and dialectical laws.
Rules of correspondence between the Umwelts of humans, animals, and plants—the method
of “counterpoint’*. With the example of oak leaf and raindrop, it was shown that
meaning in nature is based on rules of correspondence bracketing subordinate
formation rules and physical rules. The favorite example of Jakob von Uexkull
for explaining the lawfulness of these meaningful correspondences or—as one would
say in semiotics—codes is that of a musical composition of which “nature” is
the composer. This whole composition, of which the biologist tries to write the
score, i.e., to study the syntagmatic rules, is based on the technique of counter­
point. The method is to find the counterpoint to each note of the composition
by following the motto: Wherever there is a point, its corresponding counterpoint
can be found. The physical behavior of raindrops is the counterpoint correspond­
ing to the point of the leaf s form, the soft skin of mammals corresponds to the
tick’s bite, the path corresponds to man’s feet, nourishment to his mouth, an enemy
to his weapon, as Jakob von Uexkiill has pointed out.
There is one fundamental rule of correspondence between humans and animals

j
 PHYTOSEMIOTICS 91

on the one hand and plants on the other, this being of critical importance for life:
Plants produce the oxygen all humans and animals breathe. In other words, the
life of plants corresponds as a counterpoint to the breathing lungs of humans and
other animals as a point. As Jakob von Uexkiill (1940) paraphrased Goethe’s verse

War’ nicht das Auge sonnenhaft

If the eye were not sun-like,
die Sonne konnt’ es nie erblicken.
it could ne’er behold the sun.
by postulating
War’ nicht die Sonne augenhaft
If the sun were not eye-like,
an keinem Himmel konnte sie erstrahlen.
It could not shine in any sky.
we might say
War nicht die Lunge pflanzenhaft.
If the lung were not plant-like,
das Atmen konnte nicht gelingen.
breathing could not comply.
and
War nicht die Pflanze lungenhaft
If the plant were not lung-like,
gab’s keinen Atemzug auf Erden.
respiration would pass earth by.

Three forms of life and their common semiotic aspect1 The vegetative world, for all of
its differences from the world of animals and humans, is nevertheless structured
according to a base semiotics which cuts across all living beings, plants, animals,
and humans alike.
As Thomas A. Sebeok and Thure von Uexkiill have pointed out, many life pro­
cesses within the animal and human organisms function according to the princi­
ple of the vegetative world, i.e., according to the principle of phytosemiotics. This
field of semiotic inquiry had been labeled endosemiotics by them (Sebeok 1976,
Thure von Uexkiill 1980). As soon as a functional cycle is constituted by the
presence of effectors and receptors, through the mediation of a “vegetative” ner­
vous system, the phenomenon of Umwelt arises in animals and humans alike.
The semiotic aspects of the Umwelt have been called “exosemiotics” (Thure von
Uexkiill 1980). Whereas endosemiotics is pertinent to all three forms of life, plants,
animals, and humans, and thus pertinent to phytosemiotics, zoosemiotics, and
anthroposemiotics, exosemiotics is pertinent to zoosemiotics and anthroposemiotics
only. As Thure von Uexkiill (1980) suggests, the age-old problem of the dualism
of body and soul might thus find a biosemiotic answer. Plants would therefore
exhibit predominantly indexical sign systems; in animals, both indexical and iconic
signs would appear; whereas human sign processes would display the whole range
of the trichotomy, from indexicality via iconicity to symbolicity.
92 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Meaningful interactions between plants and animals. Thus far, only differences and com-
munalities between the sign processes in plants, animals, and humans have been
accounted for. Some examples of semiotic interactions between these living beings
will now be presented.
It is well known that plants have chemical defenses against the attacks of herbi­
vore animals such as insects. There are two classes of such defenses. Either chemical
deterrents are already present before the attack occurs or such a deterrent is mobil­
ized in response to such an attack. The latter defense is known as “induced resis­
tance”. It is practiced frequently in higher plants against infections by micro­
organisms. Induced resistance sometimes occurs, however, as a counterattack by
the plant against the attack of an herbivore insect enemy. As far as this insect-
induced resistance in plants is concerned, it is interesting to study the time plants
need for mobilization. Most of the observed cases of this type of resistance have
long response times, ranging from 12 hours to as much as several years. But there
are examples of relatively rapidly induced resistance. I am grateful to Thomas A.
Sebeok for drawing my attention to such an example published recently (Carroll
and Hoffman 1980). It shows a complex sequence of animal attack on the plant,
rapid counterattack by the plant, and adaptive countermeasures against this
defense of the plant on the part of the animal. The crookneck squash is attacked
by a beetle species labeled Epilachna tredicimnotata (Coleoptera: Coccinelidae). This
bug first uses its specially formed apical teeth to cut a circular trench in the crook-
neck squash leaf and then feeds only on the cut-out disk. The trenching takes about
ten minutes, obviously time enough to isolate a part of the leaf from the chemical
deterrent that the plant mobilizes against the attack. The response time of the plant
and some further circumstances connected with this interaction between “prey”
md “predator” have been investigated experimentally by Carroll and Hoffman.
They used the circumstance that the deterrent mobilized by the crookneck
squash against Epilachna is a feeding stimulant for another beetle (Acalymma). The
latter refuses, for instance, to feed on crookneck squash leaves that have been
recently removed from the plant and, therefore, cannot yet have been reached
by the deterrent (unless it has been locally synthesized). The response time of
Epilachna attacks on the crookneck squash can now be experimentally “chrono-
metrized” by damaging crookneck squash leaves and varying the time between
damaging and cutting a part of the leaf as food for the two kinds of beetles. The
first kind should refuse, the second kind start feeding from the moment at which
the deterrent has arrived at the damaged area of the leaf. Carroll and Hoffman
found that it takes the crookneck squash about 40 minutes to mobilize the deter­
rent and to send it to the attacked area. Epilachna is faster, however, and takes
only ten minutes to cut out an area from the leaf before the deterrent can reach
it! (Or is it content to eat only what it can cut in ten minutes, the plant, in turn,
tolerating this minor damage?) After reviewing some similiar cases of plant-animal
interaction reported in the literature, Carroll and Hoffman suggest that the fact
that herbivores often move from one plant to another before having finished feeding
might be an adaptive response geared to avoiding the arrival of defensive deter­
rents at the feeding point.

Meaningful interactions between plants and men: (1) The “green thumb ” theory. As far
as the interaction between humans and plants is concerned, there is a widespread
 PHYTOSEMIOTICS 93

conviction that some people have “green thumbs”: Whatever seed they put into
the earth will grow and mature nicely. Others, not gifted with this magic capa­
city, can do whatever they like—the plants will die for them. I have heard people
explain this phenomenon by the alleged radiation of an aura that is particularly
“congenial” to plants. But even admitting that living beings possess their own
“aura” of radiation (for instance, warm-blooded animals radiate heat), I would
suggest that “green thumbs” is a phenomenon analogous to that of “Clever Hans”
of which Sebeok (1977, 1978) has repeatedly warned us. The “magic”, in this
case, lies in the fact that some people have a different attitude toward plants, know
more about them and, consequently, take better care of them. It is no wonder
if plants react positively to this treatment.

(2) Caring for plants. Another concept of meaningful interaction between plants
and humans could be based on the differentiation of “meaning” into two classes:
There are objects that are “indirectly” meaningful to us, such as words or other
communicative signs. But there are also objects that may acquire “direct” mean­
ing. This is, for instance, the case with “cherished” possessions, which may
become receptacles of personal memories, e.g., a gift from a friend, or tokens
of attitudinal justification, e.g., a “status symbol” or a trophy. Plants, for in­
stance, are generally present in the “object ecology” of a typical middle class
home and tend to carry a special meaning for one or more members of the fam­
ily. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1978) and Rochberg-Halton (1979)
have shown in their studies on the meaning of “cherished household possessions”
that, for children, parents, and grandparents, quite different objects acquire mean­
ing for quite different purposes. The younger generation names, as its preferred
possessions, objects that require active manipulation—e.g., stereo units, musical
instruments, pets, etc. The grandparents, on the contrary, prefer objects of passive
contemplation, such as family photographs, books, paintings, crockery, etc. The
middle generation, the parents, take an intermediate position between their
children and their own parents as far as the “motivation” of cherished objects
is concerned. Their preference ranges from paintings and books to musical instru­
ments, plants, and stereos (in that order). The middle rank of objects for the three
generations shows a decrease in life characteristics: children prefer pets, parents
plants, grandparents crockery. Also, the same objects may obtain different ranks,
depending on whether they are ranked according to one or another of three dif­
ferent meaning dimensions: first, reference to self versus reference to other; se­
cond, current experience versus memory of the past, and third, personal values.
The latter dimension of meaning reflects objects as models of the self or templates
of self-development. It is in this dimension that plants, together with books, rank
first, i.e., above all other objects. By analyzing the rank order of parents separately,
i.e., women versus men, one finds plants only in the rank order of the former,
whereas the latter have tools and trophies in their preference list as objects mean­
ingful only to men. Obviously, in these choices, differences in the conception of
self are involved that are due to stereotypes of sexual roles. As Csikszentmihalyi
and Rochberg-Halton (1978: 12) put it: “The meaning system built by men is
different from that of women partly because they learn to use different things to
objectify experience. The feelings and thoughts one has in caring for a plant are
bound to be different from the ones a person has when using a camera . . . We
94 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

are assuming that a plant produces, in its (characteristic) caretaker, feelings of

nurturance while a trophy is more likely to invoke a feeling of pride in one’s past
accomplishment. ’ *
This phenomenon of plants evoking the nurturance instinct in humans is nicely
demonstrated in a report by Newman (1979) on a particular type of interaction
with plants, exhibited by a woman who served as a subject in a study on a pier-
son’s relation to objects. By eliciting accounts of this woman’s most highly valued
activities, Newman found that she focused her main interests on collecting, repair-
ing, and nurturing. Her main collector items were valuable Indian prints, as well
as stones she picked up. She repaired her own car and other objects around the
house, being directly prompted to do so by her feminist orientation, prescribing
that one has to learn to take care of oneself. The nurturing aspect of her activities
was clearly visible by the mass of plants in her house. But this aspect was brought
out even more by the fact that she used to go to supermarkets and plant stores
every so often to buy plants that were dying. “Then she would nurse them back
to health, propagate them and give them to friends who would be good to them.
Thus, she said, she “worries a lot’ about them’’ (Newman 1979: 4a). Apparent­
ly, her interaction with plants excluded aesthetic contemplation. Caring for plants
was a very active form of “rescuing” in the women’s life.
This example shows, in a psychological way, how important plants may become
for humans. The study of the psychological relationships between men and plants
is still in its very early stages. One of the tasks ahead lies in the development of
an attitude-toward-plants-test, which could complement other “environmental
inventories”, e.g., the Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) of McKechnie
(1977), already used in environmental decision making, planning, and aptitude
testing.

r3) Learningfrom plants. Plants not only evoke nurturance behavior but often become
something like “teachers” when we interact with them. The “comfortable calm”
they radiate has already been mentioned (Jakob von Uexkull 1922). But they may
also become “living examples” of “passive resistance”. As Jakob von Uexkull
(1940) says: “A plant solves its main task by passive surrender to the effects of
the Umwelt into which it is slotted. Since the plant is not mobile, it has to face
all those external effects which are present in its surroundings. The most efficient
means of an animal’s self-preservation—escape—is not available to the plant.’*
In addition, the example of the plant’s life rhythm can be very instructive to
humans. Some plants certainly possess, in their genotype, the capacity to predict,
independently from weather conditions, the change of seasons. And Jakob von
Uexkull (1940) observes, in this respect:
Since plants are not dead cases, but are constantly forced to defend their
lives, we recognize in them a life rhythm paralleling the change of the
seasons. Our deciduous trees lose their leaves in autumn and change into
plants, independent of water, in order to survive the effects of dehydra­
tion imposed on them by frost and frozen ground. The inner rhythm of
plants, however, is adapted even more intimately to the changes of the
year because it has been shown that our fruits grow best in hot houses,
if one exposes the trees to the drop in temperature normal during their
blossoming period.
 PHYTOSEMIOTICS 95

Finally, plants impress us not only with the biotechnical solutions they find to
their problems but also with their “wisdom” in architecture: “The houses of men
are immobile and immediately betray their locality in their external habitus: Roofs
and windows must be built differently, depending on whether snow, rain, storm
or heat from the sun menaces the house. Plants, likewise, demonstrate through
their form whether they must defend themselves against drought or water, against
an excess or a lack of light.” (Jakob von Uexkiill 1940).
Generally, human aesthetic experience is heightened in symbiosis with plants,
since the plant’s foremost “receiver of meaning” is its form, linked with physical
“meaning factors” that generally follow physical laws. Thus, plants not only adapt
indexically to their environment but also iconically portray the forces of their en­
vironment through their meaningful form. A study of literature and poetry, of
painting, religion, and other human endeavors should convince us that plants
have served as meaningful signs, indexical, iconic, and symbolic, in many cultures
because they are living beings possessing features that evoke the attribution of
meaning to a very considerable degree.

Discussion and some conclusions

Jakob von Uexkiill’s approach to biology as a science of life is a holistic one: The
whole is not explained by the functioning of its parts, but the meaning of the parts
is explained according to the plan of the whole, a principle that is not unlike the
fundamental proposition of Gestalt theory. Admittedly, with his postulate of a
“general plan of nature”, one reaches the borderline of the operational. But if
the “general plan of nature” is taken as a hypothesis, guiding, step by step, the
experimental verification of “rules of correspondence”, it loses its pseudo-
explanatory character.
It may also become a guideline for ecological research and, indirectly, for the
political conclusions based upon it. The ideological veneration of greenery and
its attendant blind search for alternatives can be replaced by the detailed study
of the symbiosis between humans, animals, and plants, and ecologically sound
solutions to contemporary problems can be deduced from it. Despite the impres­
sion of progress raised by the constant introduction of new and sophisticated tools
between human effectors or receptors and the human Umwelt, the human
organism cannot escape the basic vegetative rules of endosemiotics and remains
locked together with plants by a mutual rule of correspondence: If men cease to
care for plants, i.e., cease to understand their meaning factors and the meaning
rules at the basis of their formation rules, they will asphyxiate themselves. As
Thure von Uexkiill (1980) has put it: “Man is led, from his extravagant position
as the observer positioned outside nature and as its unscrupulous exploiter, back
into nature, in which he must arrange himself for better or worse.” Phytosemiotics
can help to improve this arrangement.
 10

JOHN DEELY

On the Notion of Phytosemiotics

The action oj a sign generally takes place between two parties, the
uttcrcr and the interpreter. They need not be persons, jor a
chameleon and many kinds of insects and even plants make their
livings by uttering signs, and lying signs, at that. Who is the
ulterer of signs of the weather . . . ? However, every sign certainly
conveys something of the general nature of thought, if not from
a mind, yet from some repository of ideas, or significant forms, end
if not to a person, yet to something capable of somehow
"catching on”, . . . that is, of receiving not merely a physical,
nor even merely a psychical dose of energy, but a significant
meaning. In that modified, and as yet very misty, sense, then, ue
may continue to use the italicized words . . .
—Peirce c.1907: AIS 318, 205-206—

. . . physical science ... no less than biological science appears to

manifest teleology ....
—Henderson 1913: 305—

Writing in 1978, I criticized sharply the following view of Thomas A. Sebeok,

considering it excessive and pregnant with the kind of imperialism likely to discredit
the semiotics movement in the eyes not just of detractors, but even of traditional
academicians neutral but open-minded about whatever possibilities semiotics might
prove to offer:
In the early 1960s, I called attention to a vision of new and startling dimen­
sions: the convergence of the science of genetics with the science of linguis­
tics, remarking that both are emerging “as autonomous yet sister disciplines
in the larger field of communication sciences. . . It is amply clear . . .
that the genetic code must be regarded as the most fundamental of all
semiotic networks and therefore as the prototype for all other signaling
systems used by animals, including man. From this point of view, molecules
that are quantum systems, acting as stable physical information carriers,
zoosemiotic systems, and, finally, cultural systems, comprehending
language, constitute a natural sequel of stages of ever more complex energy
levels in a single universal evolution. It is possible, therefore, to describe
language as well as living systems from a unified cybernetic standpoint
... A mutual appreciation of genetics, animal communication studies,
and linguistics may lead to a full understanding of the dynamics of semiosis,
and this may, in the last analysis, turn out to be no less than the definition
of life (Sebeok 1968a: 627, as reprinted in Sebeok 1976: 69).
Today, almost five years later, I find myself again turning to the contempla­
tion of Dr. Sebeok’s singularly large view of semiotics, without repudiating my
earlier reservations about his stand from the strict perspective in which they were
conceived (the origins of full semiosis in cognition), but at the same time feeling
96
 ON THE NOTION OF PHYTOSEMIOTICS 97

compelled to make some broad-gauge adjustments in that earlier perspective which

have the effect, in effect, of subjecting Dr. Sebeok to yet another round of criticism
for being—in this same grand vision—perhaps not grand enough! In discussing
with my friend and colleague Dr. Russell the subject of today’s discussion—
phytosemiosis, whatever it may be—he repeatedly embarrassed me by noting that
it sounded like “a clear case of Deely vs. Deely”.
Be that as it may, I was led to reassess at once Dr. Sebeok’s and my own
views of semiotics by the appearance of a remarkable article by Martin Krampen
in Semiotica 36-3/4 (1981) titled, simply enough, “Phytosemiotics”, i.e., the
semiotics of plants. Familiar with the opinion all too prevalent beyond semiotic
circles proper that semiotics is a forum where nonsense abounds, I anticipated
Krampen’s article with much less than a positive frame of mind. Careful reading
of his actual text nonetheless astounded me, and I believe it to Krampen’s credit
that his text achieved the rare effect of converting a hostile reader into a favorable
admirer of his views, and perhaps of his daring even more.
For, as I was soon to learn, phytosemiotics is not a subject one who values
social admiration broaches lightly. Privileged again to attend the Toronto ver­
sion of ISISSS in 1982, and a confirmed admirer of the work of Donald Preziosi
and others in the area of architectural semiotics, I particularly looked forward
to the June 18-20 ISISSS Colloquium on Urban Semiotics”, and to the oppor-
tunity to follow in person the further development of Professor Krampen’s novel
perspective in his talk, “ ‘Green Arks’—Living in an Environment with More
than 50% Plants”, scheduled for the evening ofjune 19. Apprised of Krampen’s
contention (1981; 192) that “this semiotic analysis may well form the positive
scientific basis lacking so far in the conservationist activities that have, until now,
largely been based on negation and ideology”, I looked forward to his presenta­
tion as a probable development of this particular feature of his phytosemiotics.
I was not disappointed. He presented a fascinating and experimentally grounded
discussion of the role and use of plants in helping to control the oxygen content
and general purity of atmosphere in the human habitat. Plants, heretofore taken
for granted in the physical environment and introduced into our dwellings large­
ly for decorative and aesthetic purposes, Krampen proposed considering as be­
ing made integral parts of the interior of buildings, not for mere secondary pur­
poses, but as primary components of the interior of dwellings helping to control and
maintain the quality of air, in addition to their psychological benefits and so far
largely subliminal and unexamined effects on the human psyche. In line with this,
and in view of the substantially deteriorating atmosphere and physical environ­
ment of “post-industrial man” (a particularly fitting consideration in the coun­
try first experiencing on a large scale in its lakes and rivers the deadly impact
of the singularly American-engendered “acid rains” which are sadly destined to
become, in all probability, a planet-wide phenomenon), Krampen concluded his
presentation with some proposals and considerations toward a city expressly con­
ceived and designed to include plants not as mere outdoor growths to beautify
the landscape, but as indoor growths contributing to the quality and regulation
of the air we breathe as well as the sights we see.
From an architectural point of view, clearly, such a proposal is both novel
and rich with possibilities. Krampen proceeded to describe an experimental com­
munity whose southward exposure enclosed large quantities of plant life. I thought
98 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

too of the energy utilization possibilities of such structures. Imagine then my

astonishment when the commentator, a professional architect, after making the
usual comments about his pleasure and honor at being on this program, etc.,
announced that, that being said, he had nothing further to say, nor could he im­
agine any possible relevance of anything Professor Krampen had to say to any
possible conception of semiotics.
With that inauspicious beginning, the matter was turned over to the floor for
questions. Matters were not helped by the opening “questioner”, a well-known
but here unnamed Polish semiotician, who further disgraced a thoughtful and
careful presentation by a purely ad hominem and thoroughly unworthy attack on
Jakob von Uexkiill, Krampen’s avowed mentor on the subject of plants and bio-
semiosis generally:
Using the example of the leaves of an oak tree, Jakob von Uexkiill shows
how phytosemiosis functions. One of the meaning factors, as far as oak
leaves are concerned, is the rain. Falling raindrops follow precise physical
laws governing the behavior of liquids upon striking a leaf. In this case,
according to Jakob von Uexkiill, the leaf is the “receiver of m”, coupled
with the m factor “rain” by a “meaning rule”. The form of the leaves
is such that it accommodates the physical laws governing the behavior of
liquids. The leaves work together by forming cascades in all directions in
order to distribute the rain water on the ground for optimal use by the
roots. To put it in more common semiotic terminology, the leaf s form
is the signifier and the physical behavior of the raindrop is the signified.
The code coupling leaf and raindrop is the oak tree’s need of liquid for
the transport of nourishing salts into its cells (Krampen 1981: 195).
So amazed was I by the contrast between Dr. Krampen’s thoughtful presen­
tation and the consternation—not to say hostility—with which it was met, that
I left the session troubled for many hours—then and since—by trying to under­
stand what had “really” gone on in the semiosis of the occasion. In what follows,
I want to sketch out the general considerations that gradually clarified in these
reflections.
First of all, in thinking about plants and in trying to engage others in discus­
sions about them, I found them to be perhaps the factor most taken for granted
in the human world. They simply are not considered seriously in their own right,
despite their absolutely crucial evolutionary role first in bringing about an oxidizing
atmosphere (about a billion years ago) and then in sustaining ever afterward the
basic matrix required for the development and continuance of all animal life, as
Krampen noted (1981: 197):
There is one fundamental rule of correspondence between humans and
animals on the one hand and plants on the other, this being of critical im­
portance for life: Plants produce the oxygen all humans and animals
breathe. In other words, the life of plants corresponds as a counterpoint
to the breathing lungs of humans and animals as a point.
There is more to be considered here than a merely external correspondence
and exploitive dependency, and I do not mean to suggest that Dr. Krampen is
unaware of this. Consider the following text, singularly uncharacteristic of die
 ON THE NOTION OF PHYTOSEMIOTICS 99

mainstream of modern philosophy, as it waxes increasingly glottocentric in con­

temporary times—a text I choose in part for its fortuitous extension of the
phytosemiotic image of the oak tree cited above from Krampen on the basis of
von UexkuH’s work. The text is from the 19th century idealist philosopher, Jules
Lachelier (1933: XVI1I-XIX):

It seems to me, when I am at Fontainebleau, that I sympathize in all my

energies with the powerful vitality of the trees which surround me. I am
too encrusted in my own form to be able to reproduce their form; yet,
on well considering the matter, it does not seem unreasonable to hold that
all forms of being sleep more or less deeply buried in the ground of every
being. Under the sharp contours of my human form any careful observer
could see the vaguer contours of “animality”, which veils in turn the even
more fluid and incomplete form of simple organic life. Now one of the
possible determinations of organic life is tree, which engenders in turn the
oak tree. So the “being of an oak tree” is somewhere hidden in the foun­
dations of my being, and may even strive sometimes to emerge and appear
in its turn dias in luminis oras [on the beautiful shores of light]—but humanity,
which has gotten ahead of it, prevents it from doing so and blocks its
way.1

This text strikes one in our cultural milieu as something idiosyncratic, or even
bizarre. Yet in truth it is no more than a faithful echo of the older traditions of
the Western philosophical mainstream, if we recall the reflections in this area com­
mon to Greek and Latin thought, before the unique development of modern
philosophy entirely shifted concern away from natural being to the universe of
human discourse in such ways as effectively to close the range of philosophy within
the conventionalized realms of human culture. According to this older, broader
mainstream, the life of the plant exists within the animal itself precisely as base
and part of its proper life. That is to say, the life principle is the First principle
of all planetary life as such. I quote from a typical medieval commentary (Aquinas
c.1266-1272) on Aristotle’s original conception (c.330BCa) of “psychology” as
the science of living things:
Aristotle defines the primary principle of life, which is called the vegetative
psyche or soul; in plants this is the entire soul, while in animals it is only
a part of the soul ... To understand his definition, it must be seen that
there is a definite order among the three operations of the plant soul. For
its first activity is taking food, through which the living thing preserves
its existence. The second and more perfect activity is growth, by which
the living thing develops both in size and vital energy. But the third, most
perfect, and fulfilling activity is reproduction, through which something
already as it were existing perfected in its own right, transmits being and
perfection to another. For anything achieves its greatest perfection, as
Aristode observes in Book IV of his Meteorology (c.335-334BCa: ch. 1, 4-18),
when it is able to make another such as it itself is. Since therefore things
are appropriately defined and named by their outcome, whereas the fulfill­
ment of the activity of plant life is the generation of another living being,
it follows that it will be a proper definition of the first principle of life,
100 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

that is to say, of the plant soul, if we define it as what is generative of another

like itself on the plan of being alive.2

, Is anci^nt way °^concePtualizing the nature and essence of life in generaJ—

an o p ant l e in particular coincides squarely, in contemporary terms, with
our un erstan ing of the genetic code. It places a wholly unexpected weight of
ltion on t e side of Sebeok s contention that, if indeed the genetic code is
a semiotic system, such that genetics and linguistics, as codes, subtend the upper
ana lower reaches of semiosis, then indeed in the full perspective of Western
p 1 °S0P 1C tradition, a full understanding of the dynamics of semiosis” would,
m the last analysis, “turn out to be no less than the definition of life”.
<. 1S kr°LC l m th!S PersPective how the proposal of Krampcn (1981: 187)
o esta is p ytosemiotics, i.e., the semiotics of plants, as an area of inquiry
into sign processes, parallel and on an equal footing with anthroposemiotics, the
s u y o uman communication, and zoosemiotics, the study of sign processes
Cl\r.nr!g Wlt an<^ between species of animals, the three areas forming together
e iscip me o biosemiotics * however much consternation this proposal may
cause to t ose w o remain under the sway of modern glottocentrism even in their
conception o semiotics is nonetheless an inevitable consequence of the ‘‘vision
oi new and startling dimensions” to which Sebeok pointed in the early 1960s
speci ic y, m 1963). From the point of view of the analogy between linguistics
and genetics, and within the dialectic of concepts set up thereby, the establish-
°. P Wuucs alongside anthroposemiotics and zoosemiotics completes
tryptich. Within this analogy, phytosemiotics has already a right to existence,
>Tlar C °llt,^n ac*vance- What is surprising, really, is not therefore
, t' PCn r FT*' bu.* fatber the fact that almost twenty years elapsed between
ime ° e eo(c or^S*nai proposal and Krampen’s concrete taking up, ad- -
hrinaH^k’ ^ 6 *0,[at^on lt under the rubric of phytosemiotics. Far from
nninf If blZarre T* aberrant proposal it seems to be when viewed from a stand- i
o more or ess explicit glottocentrism, from an integrally semiotic view-
point, Krampen’s work appears rather as an important and daring step in the j
dialectical maturation of the doctrine of signs.
This is not to say that the notion is without difficulties, or that its final status
vis-a-vis anthroposemiosis and zoosemiosis is assured. In fact, even in Krampen s
original proposal, two quite distinct possibilities for the definition of phytosemiotics
are outlined. The first and explicit scheme is for a relatively autonomous area
of inquiry, ‘‘on an equal footing with anthroposemiotics and zoosemiotics”, as
Krampen puts it, using opposition as ‘‘the method by which the specificity of plant
semiosis can be shown” (p. 192). By the use of this method, Krampen is able
to show, as the ancient philosophers also argued, that (p. 203) “many life pro-
cesses within the animal and human organisms function according to the princi­
ple of the vegetative world, i.e., according to the principle of phytosemiotics’ . :
Rich as are the results of this method in Krampen’s hands, nonetheless, I am $
not wholly convinced that they succeed in establishing phytosemiotics on an
autonomous footing. Or, to put it another way, I am not convinced that the com- i
munication between plants and the physical environment, and the communica- i
tion between plants and animals, is, on the side of the plants themselves, truly a process
of semiosis, such as it certainly is on the side of the animals.
 ON THE NOTION OF PHYTOSEMIOTICS 101

My hesitations here can be exhibited in the form of a distinction between com­

munication and signification. The two are often confused or treated as identical, owing
to their common nature as thoroughly relational states of affairs, in addition to which
all conscious communication, within or between organisms, is by means of signi­
fication. But, while it is true that all relational phenomena are communicative,
it is not conversely true that all communicative events involve signification. All
relation involves signification potentially, but this becomes actual only through
the intervention of cognition.
With these distinctions in mind, the situation of semiosis in the context of com­
munication phenomena (relations) can be outlined thus:

Intellectual
SEMIOSIC
Cognitive- - PHENOMENA
(involving thirdness
Sensory intrinsically)
Macroscopic-

Vegetative: Endoscmiotic
Organic — (physiological and tropic,
_etc.)

Microscopic: Genetic Code

(Pure)
RELATIONAL
PHENOMENA
(Communication
Events) - PRE-SEMIOSIC
PHENOMENA
(cxtrinsically semiotic,
i.e., able to become
Macroscopic semiotic through
involvement in
cognitive life)
Inorganic —

Microscopic

In this scheme, the dynamics of semiosis in the strict, intrinsic sense are co­
extensive with the dynamics of cognitive life rather than with the dynamics of
life itself. This was my original objection to Sebeok’s proposal that the genetic
code is already a semiotic network. And yet, it is unquestionable that the genetic
code is a communicative network, and a communicative network whereby the
present shapes the future which is not yet. Through the genetic code the limitless
possibilities of organic life, including semiosis, are opened up, just as through
the linguistic code the infinity of cognitive life is rendered possible in
anthroposemiosis—which is, after all, “le coeur de 1’analogie”, as Sebeok pointed
out.3
What should be stressed, therefore, is not the presemiosic character of plant
life, or still more that of the process of formation of star and planetary systems
in the first place, but rather the remarkable ordering whereby, thanks to the in­
organic processes of planetary formation and the organic processes of vegetable
102 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

life, semiosis first becomes sustained in its proper possibilities, then grows both
in size and vitality, and finally transforms into itself (at least by tendency arid
right of domination) all that preceded and once lay outside its sphere. As Hender­
son remarked (1913: 312):
The properties of matter and the course of cosmic evolution are now seen
to be intimately related to the structure of the living being and its activities;
they become, therefore, far more important in biology than has been
previously suspected. For the whole evolutionary process, both cosmic and
organic, is one, and the biologist may now rightly regard the universe in
its very essence as biocentric.
If'it is true that “things are appropriately defined and named by their out­
come”, the scmioticist may with even greater right regard the universe in its very
essence as “scmioccntric”. The “new and startling vision of the sixties, which
at first seemed loo grand, proves rather not grand enough. Even the restriction
of semiosis to the cognitive order (because of the type of thirdness it involves,
which is not “dynamical” in the Peircean sense) ends by bringing everything
under the rubric of semiotics, specifically, inasmuch as all things are in principle
knowablc. Anything can become an object of awareness, and any object of
awareness can come to function as a sign. Anything can be a source of significa­
tion; all things are potentially signs. The point of the restriction is simply that
only cognition can render something actually signifying this way or that way here
and now.
In the post-modern era that semiotics introduces, no longer ontocentric as were
classical and Latin times, neither anthropocentric as the Renaissance nor glotto-
ccntric as the moderns, but scmioccntric, we can complete and complement the
once-farnous maxim of Aristotle, “anima cst quoddammodo omnia (“the soul
in a certain way is all things”), by adding: “in a certain way, all things are
semiotic” (“omnia sunt quodammodo semiotica”)—in a certain way (quodam-
rnodo), that is, inasmuch as they enter into knowledge. Anything can signify
through cognition, but only through cognition can anything signify. Phenomena
not in themselves semiosic, thus, nonetheless become semiotic once an awareness
of them is acquired. Indeed, few if any are the things that can form part of con­
scious awareness without, willy-nilly, yielding signification. Semiosis is above all
an organic process, assimilative, for it is a form of life, and dominative, for it
is life's highest form. It is the process whereby phenomena originating anywhere
in the universe become significant through the intervention of cognition.
'This brings me to the second of the two possibilities for the definition of
phytosemiotics I see outlined in Krampen's work, namely, the study of plants
from the point of view of their symbiosis with animals. From this point of view,
phytosemiotics would be defined as the study of the peculiar dependencies of animal
upon plant life, and of the benefits to human life in particular that could be derived
from such a study. The method of opposition used so skillfully by Krampen would
necessarily form a substantial part and lay the foundations for this study. And
yet, viewed in this way, phytosemiotics would be, to borrow an older terminology,
a study subalternate to rather than on an equal footing with zoosemiotics and
AiilhropoHcmiotics.
•Since this definition in my opinion is unquestionably valid as an important
 ON THE NOTION OF PHYTOSEMIOTICS 103

and new semiotic perspective or field of inquiry, since further it includes the
methods and results of the alternative definition, I might summarize by saying
that from Krampen’s work I am convinced of phytosemiotics, but not of phyto-
semiosis. In either event, from the point of view of an anthroposemiosis that has
become transparent to itself and grounded in principle, forever free of the charac­
teristically modern glottocentric bias so evident in the reaction of the Toronto
audience to Krampen’s ideas, it remains that “the vegetative world is nevertheless
structured according to a base semiotics which cuts across all living beings, plants,
animals, and humans alike’’ (Krampen 1981: 203). I would conclude then by
giving the last words to this pioneer worker who has opened a new area impor­
tant even to those who cannot yet recognize it (Krampen 1981: 208):
Despite the impression of progress raised by the constant introduction of
new and sophisticated tools between human effectors or receptors and the
human Umwelt, the human organism cannot escape the basic vegetative
rules of endosemiotics and remains locked together with plants by a mutual
rule of correspondence: If men cease to care for plants, i.e., cease to under­
stand their meaning factors and the meaning rules at the basis of their for­
mation rules, they will asphyxiate themselves. As Thure von Uexkiill has
put it: “Man is led, from his extravagant position as the observer posi­
tioned outside nature and as its unscrupulous exploiter, back into nature,
in which he must arrange himself for better or worse.” Phytosemiotics can
help to improve this arrangement.
 Ill

Developing Themes
 11

T. L. SHORT

Life Among the Legisigns

Let us journey into darkest semeiotica. I refer, of course, to Peirce’s system

for the classification of signs: immense, obscure, crabbed with dense tangles, and
never before traversed. Previous explorers have touched upon its fringes or have
mapped it from the air, at an altitude from which its general outline could be
discerned. Of the multitude of tribes which dwell in this region, the legisigns are
the most sophisticated yet treacherous and their folkways deserve particularly
careful study. This expedition has been suggested, or rather required, by an earlier
essay (Short 1981), in which I argued that Peirce’s theory of signs can be fairly
judged only by examining its detailed development and divers applications. His
system of classification is the place where that development and those applica­
tions are to be found, so far as Peirce himself developed and applied his semeiotic.

I.
To prepare for our later adventures it will be best to review what we already
know about the basic principles of Peirce’s theory. A sign is one element of an
indivisible triad: object, sign, and interpretant. Nothing is an object which is not
signifiable; nothing is a sign that is not interpretable as signifying some object;
and nothing is an interpretant that does not interpret something as signifying an
object. An object need not be signified and a sign need not be interpreted; but
they are what they are in virtue of potential signs and potential interpretants,
respectively. These potentialities are more than mere possibilities. Something is
a sign in virtue of a ground—or relation of sign to object—that would jusliiy a
particular interpretation of it. Significance, then, is grounded interpretability. But
an interpretant can only be grounded or justified in relation to some goal of inter­
pretation. Therefore, corresponding to each ground and to each sign there is an
actual or possible goal of interpretation. It follows that the basic concept of semeiotic
is not that of sign but is that of semeiosis, the process of sign-interpretation; and
it follows, further, that semiosis is essentially teleological. However, it does not
follow that semeiosis involves consciousness; for the goal of a teleological process
need not be a purpose consciously held. Indeed, since the human mind, accord­
ing to Peirce, is constituted by semeiotic processes of a special type, it should be
possible to use the concept of semeiosis to analyze consciousness, and that precludes
using the concept of consciousness to analyze semeiosis.
In ways that I cannot repeat here [the reference is to Short 1981a, 1983, q.v.],
the teleological structure of semeiosis accounts not only for the significance of signs
and the intentionality of consciousness but also for the fact that we can distinguish
two objects and three types of interpretant for each sign. The immediate interpretant
105
106 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

is the potential interpretant that constitutes the grounded interpretability or

significance of the sign. Thefinal interpretant is also potential and is the best inter­
pretant of the sign relative to the goal of interpretation. The dynamic interpretant
is an actual interpretant of the sign, if any. The dynamic interpretant must in
some manner actualize the immediate interpretant, but it may add to, refine, cor-
rect, or negate this interpretant. All that is required to form the immediate inter­
pretant is acquaintance with the sign and its ground. Additional observation, “col­
lateral” to the given sign, is required to form a dynamic interpretant that cor­
rects, refines, or supplements the immediate interpretant. In some cases, suffi­
cient collateral experience will result in a dynamic interpretant in which the final
interpretant is achieved; in other cases the final interpretant can be approached
but not attained. In some cases there may be many dynamic interpretants of the
same sign; in other cases at most one. In the immediate interpretant the immediate
object of a sign is grasped: this is the world, or some part of it, as the sign represents
it to be. The world, or this portion of the world, as it really is—that is, as it is
independently of what it is represented to be—is the dynamic object of the sign.
The dynamic object is what would be fully and accurately apprehended in the
final interpretant.
Each thing is as many signs as there are grounds for distinct interpretations.
It follows that there are many more signs than are currently recognized. Progress
in science, in scholarship, and perhaps in the other liberal arts, and in the fine
arts as well, is the discovery of new signs. Since goals can often be obtained only
by taking risks, there will be some fallible grounds of interpretation. This makes
it possible for there to be false or misleading signs. These have significance or
grounded interpretability, yet what they signify is not. That is, their immediate
objects form no part of their dynamic objects. A sign is inaccurate when its
immediate does not fit its dynamic object precisely enough, relative to the goal
of interpretation. A sign will be true and accurate but incomplete or inadequate
when, relative to the goal of interpretation, it does not convey enough about its
dynamic object; in this case the immediate is an aspect of the dynamic object.
We can thus discriminate several different types of mistaken interpretation. One
is where there is no ground that justifies the interpretation: something is taken
to be a sign which it is not. Another is where a false or inaccurate sign is taken
at face value. In that case the significance of the sign is properly apprehended,
but the sign itself ought to be corrected. A third is where an inadequacy goes
unrecognized.
Object, sign, and interpretant are essentially triadic, since each is what it is
only in relation to each of the others. But it is possible for any one of these to
be less than triadic as it is in itself, that is, apart from its being an object or a
sign or an interpretant. Employing Peirce’s three categories (with which I assume
the reader is familiar), an object may be either monadic, such as a quality or feeling
or mere possibility, dyadic, such as an effort or resistance or any event or existent
qua occurring or existing, or triadic, such as a process of inference by which a
conclusion is made to follow from premisses or such as any instance of continui­
ty, combination of parts to form a whole, lawfulness, or anything qua lawful, con­
tinuous, or compound in nature. Anything of any of these categories may be
signified, though not all in the same way. And, as we will see in more detail below,
anything of any category may be a sign or, often, many different signs at once,
 LIFE AMONG THE LEGISIGNS 107

though qua signs they are all triadic. Similarly, an interpretant, whether immediate,
dynamic, or final, may be a mere feeling—that is, an actual feeling or a potential
feeling—and that is what Peirce called an emotional interpretant. Or an interpretant
may be an action—whether an action which remains potential or one that is ac­
tually performed—and that is what Peirce called an energetic interpretant. Or an in­
terpretant may be a habit of action (including such rarefied actions
as that of expectation)—whether it is a habit that would be formed or one that
had been or is being formed—and that is a logical interpretant.
The interpretant of a sign may also be another sign and, in his early semeiotic
writings, Peirce held that each interpretant is another sign of the object signified
by the sign it interprets. But later he argued that for each interpretant that is
such in virtue of being a sign, there must be another interpretant, potentially,
that is not such in virtue of being a sign. These are what he called ultimate
interpretants—ultimate, because they do not require interpretation in turn. I have
described emotional, energetic, and logical interpretants in their ultimate forms.
Non-ultimate logical interpretants are verbal signs, including thoughts (which
Peirce conceived of as internalized verbalization). Peirce’s pragmatism, in its later
or semeiotic formulation, consists in identifying habit as the ultimate logical in­
terpretant. Notice that ultimate interpretants need not be final. Ultimateness per­
tains to meaning and finality to truth.
Peirce’s conception of the interpretant underwent continued revision until the
end of his career; everything I have said about interpretants in the preceding
paragraphs is contradicted at one place or another in his writings (critics can save
themselves much labor by writing the author for a list of passages which con-
tradict his interpretation). However, I believe that the preceding is the best
reconstruction of Peirce’s theory that can be made and I believe that it is very
close to, if not identical with, Peirce’s latest views, of 1908 and thereafter.1

II.
Partly in consequence of the changes he made in his conception of the inter­
pretant, Peirce’s classification of signs was also in constant flux. It is convenient
to pick out two attempts at classification, one from c. 1903 (2.233-2.268) and the
other from 1908 (8.343-8.376), though an examination of Peirce’s “Logic
Notebooks” (1865-1909: MS 339) and some of his other manuscripts reveals in­
termediate versions. The first version based ten classes of signs on three trichtomous
divisions of signs and the second, sixty-six classes on ten trichotomies. The set
of ten trichotomies, unlike the set of three, depends upon Peirce’s divisions of
objects into immediate and dynamic and of interpretants into immediate, dynamic,
and final. The earlier is more fully described than is the later system and, therefore,
I will make it the focus of my discussion and will refer to the later only to clarify,
correct, or add to the earlier system. In the present section we will consider only
the first two of the original three trichotomies. These are based, first, on what
a sign is in itself and, second, on the relation of a sign to its object. In the next,
and last, section we will look at the third trichotomy, which is based on the rela­
tion of a sign to its interpretant.
According to what it is in itself, a sign is either a qualisign, a sinsign, or a legisign
(Peirce 1903: 2.243-246). A qualisign is a quality that is a sign; a sinsign is an
existing individual thing or an occurrence that is a sign; and a legisign is a general
108 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

type that is a sign. Of course, a quality in itself is a mere possibility. Therefore,

no qualisign can actually signify except as it is embodied in some individual object
or event. Still, an embodied quality remains a quality and, as significant, it is
a qualisign.2 Similarly, a legisign, being general, can signify only through its in­
dividual instances, called replicas. The legisign defines the characteristics (shape,
sound) essential to any of its replicas, and determines how these replicas are to
be interpreted (which is not always the same thing as determining what their in­
terpretation is: vide infra). A replica is a sinsign, but it is one of a special type,
since its significance (as a replica) depends not only on the unique features of
its occurence but also on its being the replica of a legisign. The distinction be­
tween a legisign and its replicas is more usually known as the type/token distinc­
tion. Examples of these kinds of signs will be found anon, as we wend our way
deeper into this thicket.
A sign in relation to its dynamic object—that is, with respect to its ground
is either an icon, an index, or a symbol (Peirce 1903: 2.247-249; 1906: 4.536).
An icon exhibits its object in its own character: its object is the quality or other
possibility that it exemplifies. An index is existentially related to its object, either
as its effect or its cause, or at least by some spatio-temporal relation. Thus, smoke
is a sign of fire, as its probable cause, while an outstretched finger, by its orienta­
tion in space, signifies a direction. A symbol is related to its object by a rule that
specifies what its interpretant is to be. One might object that signs of every type
are interpretable by rule. For example, to regard smoke as a sign of fire one must
know the rule relating fire to smoke. But such a rule either formulates or is based
on a causal relation, and it is that causal relation which is the real ground of
significance. Such a rule only recognizes the ground, whereas the rule which makes
something a symbol is itself the ground of that symbol’s significance: it deter­
mines a potential interpretant that would not otherwise exist. The grounds of iconic
and indexical significance are not intrinsically semeiotical, while that of symbolic
significance is. The obvious examples of symbols are the parts of speech that signify
by convention, but, as we will see later, on Peirce’s view not all symbols are
conventional.3
It is clear that a qualisign could never be anything more than an icon. For
a quality, as such, can stand in no existential relation to anything and, thus, it
cannot be an index; and since it is not a type, it cannot be a symbol. A sinsign
can be an index, since singular things and events always stand in existential rela­
tions to other singular things and events. It will also be any number of iconic
signs, both in virtue of embodied qualisigns and by exemplifying possibilities in
other ways. In using a sinsign as an example of singularity—or as an example
of sinsigns—we are using it as an icon for that of which no mere qualisign could
be an icon. But sinsigns cannot be symbols. The significance of a symbol is
established by a general rule. Such a rule cannot refer to an individual thing,
but only to a type. Therefore, every symbol is a legisign. Legisigns, however,
may be indexical or iconic instead of symbolic. We will encounter examples of
iconic and indexical legisigns around the next twist in the trail.
These relations between the two trichotomies of signs, by which they yield
not nine but only six classes of signs, follow rigorously from two principles which
Peirce stated. The first of these is that the dynamic object of a sign determines
the sign and the sign determines its interpretant (1908: 8.343). (By “determines”
 LIFE AMONG THE LEGISIGNS 109

Peirce means “delimits the possible” rather than “causes” (p. 1903: 8.177). The
nature of an object delimits what can be a sign of it, and a sign delimits the class
of its possible interpretants.) The second principle is that nothing of a higher
category can determine anything of a lower category. Hence, no object can be
represented by a sign of lower category nor can any sign be interpreted by an
interpretant of lower category (1903: 2.235-237). By extending the first principle
to cover other factors of the sign situation, the second principle restricts the possi­
ble combinations of Peirce’s various trichotomies of signs. Thus, his 1908 list of
ten trichotomies yields only sixty-six instead of 310 or 59,049 classes of signs.4
An example Peirce gives of a qualisign is “a feeling of ‘red’” (1903: 2.254).
Of course, this must be embodied and the result of that—say, a red patch of
cloth—is an iconic sinsign (or, as Peirce sometimes called it, a hypoicon). Another
example of an iconic sinsign is an individual instance of a geometrical diagram
(ibid.: 2.255), which, qua diagram, represents the set of relationships which it
exhibits among its own parts.
Indexical sinsigns do not exhibit their objects but, rather, point to them or
in analogous ways “pick them out”. Thus, a spontaneous cry (1903: 2.256) so
affects our instinctual or conditioned reflexes as to draw our attention to its source.
Similarly, a weathercock (ibid.: 2.257) indicates the direction of the wind to anyone
who considers it in light of the fact that its direction is determined by the wind’s
direction, when there is a wind. Clearly, the weathercock must involve an icon
of the wind’s direction, viz. in the direction of its own longest horizontal dimen­
sion. But it is the actual direction of the wind that is signified, and not a merely
possible direction. Therefore, the icon which it involves is part of a more com­
plex sign. The whole is an index of the wind’s actual direction, because it is the
actual direction of the wind which determines the actual direction to which the
weathercock turns. “. . . it is not the mere resemblance of its Object, even in
these respects, which makes it a sign, but it is the actual modification of it by
the Object” (ibid.: 2.248).
As we see in our two examples of indexical sinsigns, they will be properly in­
terpreted only by individuals prepared, either by instinct or by training, to inter­
pret them. And in the second, interest is also required; for one who knows how
to read weathervanes but is not at the moment interested in determining the wind’s
direction might see a weathervane without any thought of what it indicates. The
same applies more emphatically to hypoicons. Since every individual object and
event exhibits any number of possibilities, each is many distinct icons at once.
These icons will go unnoticed except when attention is drawn to them, either by
one’s interest or by a second sign that directs attention to a particular icon. Thus,
one who is thinking about what color to paint a wall may be made to think of
a particular shade by chancing to see it somewhere; another person might present
a piece of cloth to a clerk, saying, “I want some material of that color.” Using
something as a sample of x is different from its being an icon of x, though nothing
can be used to exemplify what it does not already exemplify.
In a well-known remark on ostensive definition, Wittgenstein shows that
pointing does not suffice by itself to isolate an intended referent. But that is because
the referent in question is one that is intended. Pointing alone does signify the
actual direction defined by the finger (or stick or other pointer) in its actual spatial
orientation. To signify some particular object lying in that direction, one must
no FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

join other signs to the pointing. In that case, the pointing still signifies a direction
only, but it occurs as part of a more complex sign which, as a whole, signifies
something other than a direction. This is quite different from adding signs to point­
ing in order to direct attention to the pointing, as when someone says, “Look
where I’m pointing.”5
There is no similar problem of drawing attention to the replicas of legisigns.
For legisigns only exist in order to be used6—that is, to signify through replica­
tion—and that presupposes the existence of creatures prone to interpret those
replicas according to the rules associated with the legisigns replicated. Converse­
ly, the interpretation of something as the replica of a legisign presupposes that
it was produced in order to be interpreted as a replica of that legisign. Think of
the difference between a pile of stones that just happen to be at one side of a fork­
ing path and that same pile placed there with the intention of marking a trail:
the latter indicates which path to take, while the former has no such significance.
In interpreting a pile of stones as a cairn marking a trail, we presume its having
been placed there for the purpose of being so interpreted. In this respect, then,
legisigns and their replicas differ essentially from signs of other kinds. Other signs
may be used to signify, as a piece of cloth may be used as a sample of its color,
but, normally, they do not exist in order to be so used, and their significance
does not depend upon the fact that they are so used.
It follows that the creation and replication of legisigns is goal-directed. In no
other case is sign-production necessarily teleological even though sign-
interpretation always is. But the great tribe of legisigns fall into two distinct groups,
depending upon whether they are conventional and their replication intentional,
or natural and their replication not intentional though still goal-directed. We will
examine conventional legisigns first. The general principles of legisigns presented
above, when applied to conventional legisigns specifically, can be expressed in
this way: a person who wishes to convey a meaning intends to produce a par­
ticular sort of interpretant in the thought, the behavior, or the emotions of a per­
son he is addressing,7 and he intends to do this by replicating a legisign with
which he assumes the person addressed is familiar. But in order to succeed in
this the person addressed must recognize that such were the intentions of the
speaker. Hence, the speaker must also intend that these intentions of his be
recognized. Normally, there is no difficulty in this since legisigns are not usually
replicated except with such intentions and since it is usually quite unlikely that
the same sounds or shapes would be produced by sheer accident. If an auditor
believes that the speaker is babbling insanely or is practicing elocution or is a
parrot or otherwise “does not mean what he says”, then he will not interpret
the sounds heard as signifying what they would signify if meant. (Notice that a
person can mean what he says and be lying.)
This is, in part, the same point which the contemporary philosopher, H. P-
Grice, is best known for having made. Grice (1968: 1-18) distinguishes between
hearer’s meaning, word and sentence meaning, and utterer’s meaning, and he
holds that utterer’s meaning is basic. In one place he writes (1957: 45), ‘“A meant
something by x’ is roughly equivalent to ‘A uttered x with the intention of induc­
ing a belief [or some other effect] by means of the [hearer’s] recognition of this
intention’.” This analysis has been criticized by John Searle (1965: 45) for its
having failed “to account for the extent to which meaning can be a matter of
 LIFE AMONG THE LEGISIGNS Ill

rules or conventions”. Searle also points out that Grice makes a related error of
not distinguishing, among the effects which the utterer intends to produce in the
hearer, between those which are a part of what is said and those that are not.
This corresponds toj. L. Austin’s distinction (1962: passim) between illocutionary
force and perlocutionary force. The illocutionary force of a speech act is deter­
mined by the conventions governing the words used, while perlocutionary force
is a further effect that may be intended or expected to be produced by that speech
act in the given situation but which is not a function of linguistic convention.
Peirce’s semeiotic not only embraces Grice’s insight as a special case of more
general principles, but it also anticipates Searle’s corrections and forestalls his
objections. On Peirce’s view, the speaker can intend his intentions to be recognized
by the auditor only because he is employing conventional legisigns with which
he presumes the auditor is familiar. For the conventions which determine the mean­
ings of these legisigns determine what the intended significance of their replicas
may be. At the same time, any further purpose the speaker may have will not
be delimited by these conventions and belongs, therefore, to the perlocutionary
effect. The intended illocutionary effect is, in Peirce’s terms, the immediate in-
terpretant of the utterance. The intended perlocutionary effect may or might not
be part of the dynamic interpretant, if any, and it may or might not be part of
the final interpretant, depending upon whether the hearer’s purposes agree, in
that respect, with the speaker’s.8
Legisigns can be iconic, indexical, or symbolic. Peirce’s example(1903: 2.258)
of an iconic legisign is ‘‘a diagram, apart from its factual individuality”. The
idea appears to be that a diagram (qua general) is a type of icon, replicas of which
are readily recognized to be intended to be iconic, and not only iconic, but iconic
in a specific way, viz., in respect to the spatial relations of their parts. The
usefulness of such legisigns is that when they are used, attention is thereby directed
to a specific iconic significance. Anyone educated in our society who sees certain
types of lines, curves, etc. on a sheet of paper recognizes them to be diagrams
of one sort or another.
There are several types of indexical legisigns, but each is a “general type or
law, however established, which requires each instance of it to be really affected
by its Object” (1903: 2.259, 2.260). “The demonstrative pronouns, ‘this’ and
‘that’ are indices. For they call upon the hearer to use his powers of observation,
and so establish a real connection between his mind and the object; . . . The relative
pronouns, who and which, demand observational activity in much the same way,
only with them the observation has to be directed to the words that have gone
on before” (Peirce 1893: 2.287). “Some indices are more or less detailed direc­
tions for what the hearer is to do in order to place himself in direct experiential
or other connection with the thing meant” (ibid.: 2.288); the example Peirce gives
involves a designation of latitude and longitude. Notice that such directions must
make indexical reference, either by demonstrative pronouns or names (vide infra),
to other individual objects, such as the Earth’s equator and poles. Without the
use of indices no set of directions would enable us to locate its referent in the actual
world; for it would remain perfectly general. Again, indefinite pronouns or quan­
tifying words, such as “any”, “every”, “some”, “at least one”, and “none”,
are indexical “because they inform the hearer how he is to pick out one of the
objects intended” (ibid.: 2.289).

:
s
112 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

No indexical legisign of any of the preceding types signifies an individual; for

different replicas of any of these will signify different things. But there are other
indexical legisigns whose replicas always signify the same individual thing, class,
or stuff, except when the legisign suffers from ambiguity. Ambiguity arises because
a legisign is comprised of two sets of rules—one specifying how its replicas are
to look or sound and the other specifying how they are to be interpreted. When
there are two sets of rules of the latter type conjoined with one of the former type,
we have an ambiguous legisign. Putting ambiguity aside, we can say that each
replica of the same proper name, e.g., “Napoleon Bonaparte”, signifies whatever
earlier replicas signified, going back to its original replicas, assigned, by an act
of naming—in this case, to a baby that had its hand stuck in its blouse. This ac­
count of how proper names signify is drawn from 1906: 4.544, where Peirce said
that they “should probably be regarded as Indices, since the actual connection
... of Instances of the same typical words with the same Objects, alone causes
them to be interpreted as denoting those Objects.” A similiar account of naming
is presupposed in Saul Kripke’s view of names as “rigid designators”—a view
he extends to names for natural kinds, substances, etc. Kripke’s rigid designators
are a special type of indexical legisign, of which proper names are a paradigm.9
The difference between symbolic and other legisigns is that the rules for in­
dexical or iconic legisigns refer interpreters to indexical or iconic grounds, whereas
the rules for symbolic legisigns are themselves grounds of significance (see Peirce
1903: 2.261).10 When we see a diagram we know that we are to attend to the
spatial relations of its parts; when we hear someone say, “There!” we know that
he means us to look where he is looking or pointing; but when we see or hear
a replica of the word “red” we know, without further ado, what it is that the
sign-utterer wishes to convey, namely, the thought of the color red (except in special
circumstances, where a different, but equally immediate effect is intended, e.g.,
a clerk’s grabbing a red one off the shelf). This thought, as it occurs in the mind
of the sign utterer and again in the mind of the interpreter, is the symbol itself,
each of its occurrences being distinct replicas of it. One replica is interpreted by
another of the same symbol or by the ultimate interpretant of that symbol. Each
replica is an index of the symbol replicated, since it causes interpreters to replicate
that same symbol or to form its ultimate interpretant. In ordinary parlance, the
word calls the thought to mind.
Examples of conventional symbols are some words—such as some common
nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs—statements, and arguments. Discussion
of these examples is better postponed until the next section of this paper. Let us
now leave the conventional legisigns and turn to their ruder brethren, the natural
legisigns. Few explorers of semeiotica have noticed that Peirce explicitly admits
the existence of natural legisigns of all kinds, including symbols. Yet in many
places Peirce wrote much as he did in 1902, at 2.307, where he defined “sym­
bol as a sign “which is constituted a sign merely or mainly by the fact that it
is used and understood as such, whether the habit is natural or conventional (my em­
phasis). It is easy to see why such passages have failed to register with readers
of Peirce. For how can a legisign be used except intentionally, by one conscious
of what he is doing? And how can the use or replication of a legisign be inter­
preted as such except by one who has a consciousness of legisigns and their use
which answers to that of the user?
 LIFE AMONG THE LEGISIGNS 113

Yet we often speak of uses and of using without implying that there is any
conscious purpose or intention involved. Infants and dumb brutes use their eyes
to see with, a mother marsupial uses her pouch to carry her young, a clever chim­
panzee uses a sharp twig to prick out succulent grubs, and so on. We speak of
“use” where an artifact has been created or an object selected to do something
or where a feature of an organism has been retained in the course of evolution
because it has contributed in some way to the survival of the species. And we
speak of “using” where that artifact or that organic feature performs its function
through the action of some individual.11 Similarly, we say that the use of the
bright colors of male birds is to attract the attention of the females of the same
species. But this is a semeiotic phenomenon. The function of these colors is fulfilled
only through the response they elicit from the female of the species. The colors
have a significance consisting in their potential interpretation by the behavior of
female birds. They signify that their bearer is a young man of the right sort—that
is the object signified—and this object is grasped in the interpretative response
of the female when she acts towards the bearer of those colors as if he were indeed
a young man of the right sort. Some male birds indulge also in mating displays.
This is their way of saying, “O! What a lusty young fellow am I!”
These colors and antics replicate legisigns. For they would not have their sexual
significance except for instincts in the female for so interpreting any such instance
of the same pattern. As with the conventional legisigns of human speech, the
legisigns of sexual display among male birds developed simultaneously with the
disposition to use them (i.e., in actual displays) and with the disposition to inter­
pret them. But, unlike the legisigns of human speech, there is with respect to these
legisigns a dichotomy between users and interpreters. The male displays, the female
reacts appropriately (sometimes).
These legisigns of sexual identity and display are indexical in part. For the
attention of the female is directed to that individual bird which actually is so colored
or which actually is prancing about, spreading its tail, and so on. However, such
legisigns are primarily symbolic. For the attention they elicit from the female is
specifically sexual, answering to the sexual nature and readiness of the male bird.
And this specifically sexual nature of the interpretant is determined directly by
the female’s instinctual rule for interpreting the color and behavior of the male.
The individual instance of this color or display is an indexical sinsign of the sym­
bolic legisign it replicates, since it acts directly on the observant female to react
as she would react to any instance of that same legisign. But this symbolic legisign
includes an indexical component, since the female is to react not only sexually
but toward a specific object, viz., the lucky male who provoked that reac­
tion.
Having informed the reader about birds, it is time for a lesson on bees. The
dance of the honeybee is another good example of the use and interpretation of
natural legisigns. Workers coming back to a hive move about and twiddle in
various ways, in response to which departing workers buzz off in definite direc­
tions to where the returning workers had found but not exhausted supplies of
5 nectar-laden blossoms. The steps of the dance mean what they do only because
of the way in which other bees are programmed to interpret them. The steps are
indexical legisigns so far as their replicas indicate definite directions in space, but
they are symbolic insofar as they determine departing workers to go in those direc­
 114 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

tions. The interpretant is energetic, not logical. It involves no thought of nectar,

yet it is a goal-directed response grounded in the nature of bees.
Consciousness and intentionality are not essential to the existence, replica­
tion, or interpretation of legisigns. What is essential is a purpose or goal, whether
consciously entertained or not, that is shared by sign-replicator and replica-inter­
preters.12 For it is of the essence of legisigns that interpreters would not inter­
pret replicas as they do if legisigns were not replicated in order to elicit those specific
interpretations. Replicator and interpreter each presuppose the other and the legi-
sign, and the existence of a legisign presupposes both replicators and interpreters.
That is why the whole ensemble of legisign, its user, and its interpreter must come
into existence simultaneously, even if gradually.
My purpose in these last paragraphs has not been to argue that animals and
plants communicate in the way that humans do. Of course human speech is
unique: it consists in the ability to replicate legisigns in ever new patterns, as well
as in the ability to create new legisigns, not by the slow process of evolution, but
within the lifetimes of individuals, and by their own volition. The point, rather,
is that the distinctive power of human speech is not a supernatural gift but is a
remarkable development of basic principles found elsewhere in nature. Peirce did
not tell us something new and amazing about what animals and plants can do.
Instead, he classified familiar phenomena in new and perhaps surprising ways,
with the result that we now see connections hitherto obscure and understand much
hitherto mysterious. There are signs throughout nature, but there are legisigns
only where there is life, and legisigns always exist in order to serve the purposes
of living things. Conventional legisigns, created and manipulated by individuals
in ways that constantly produce new meanings, are distinctive—perhaps consti­
tutive—of the form of consciousness found in human life.
The distinctive properties of human speech, and the bearing of these on the
nature of human consciousness, have not yet been explored in light of Peirce’s
semeiotic. To do so may result in important contributions to the philosophy of
mind. In many places Peirce made suggestions along such lines. I will quote just
one of those passages (1906: 4.531):

A Symbol incorporates a habit, and is indispensable to the application of

any intellectual habit, at least. Moreover, Symbols afford the means of think­
ing about thoughts in ways in which we could not otherwise think of them.
They enable us, for example, to create Abstractions, without which we
should lack a great engine of discovery. These enable us to count; they
teach us that collections are individuals (individual = individual object),
and in many respects they are the very warp of reason.

III.
The third division of signs corresponds to the familiar triad, term/proposi­
tion/argument, but is of considerably broader scope (1904: 8.337). Peirce
sometimes referred to the three types of sign that make up this trichotomy as rhemes,
dicisigns, and arguments, and sometimes as semes, phemes, and delomes, respectively.
His characterizations of these types of sign varied greatly. In 1908, when this third
trichotomy had become the ninth of ten, Peirce presented it in this way (1908:
8.373):' “IX. As to the Nature of the Influence of the Sign: Semes, like a simple
 LIFE AMONG THE LEGISIGNS 115

sign: Phemes, with antecedent and consequent; Delome, with antecedent, conse­
quent, and principle of sequence”. Yet, in 1906, Peirce argued that while terms,
propositions, and arguments are traditionally distinguished by degrees of com­
plexity, their distinction from one another ‘‘is by no means a difference of com­
plexity, and does not so much consist in structure as in the services they are several­
ly intended to perform” (1906: 4.572). These two passages can be reconciled only
if we suppose that the structural differences referred to in 1908 pertain to the ‘‘ser­
vices they are severally intended to perform” rather than to the signs themselves;
that is, the structural differences are not syntactic. This interpretation is supported
by the rubric under which Peirce presented the structural distinctions: ‘‘As to
the nature of the Influence of the Sign” (my emphasis). Presumably, the reason
why Peirce thought that signs of these types do not differ from one another by
syntax, is that syntax is so wonderfully flexible and varied. In some contexts a
single word can take the place of a proposition or even of an argument. Still, it
is not obvious how these structural differences pertain to the services signs are
intended to perform or the influence of signs.
In 1903 Peirce wrote that ‘‘A Rheme is a sign which, for its Interpretant,
is a sign of qualitative Possibility . . .” (1903: 2.250); “A Diceni Sign is a Sign
which, for its Interpretant, is a Sign of actual existence” (2.251); ‘‘An Argument
is a Sign which, for its interpretant, is a Sign of law” (2.252). But a law could
be asserted in a proposition or dicisign or named by a term or rheme. Similarly,
a possibility can be asserted or argued for, and an existent can be either named
or made the subject of argumentation. What, then, does Peirce mean to be getting
at in this passage? The key, I believe, lies in the obscure qualification, ‘‘for its
interpretant”, which echoes the notions of influence and service. The emphasis
is not on what is signified but is on how the sign “appeals” to its interpretant:
Peirce makes this clear in the paper of 1906 (“An Apology for Pragmaticism”,
4.572) already referred to: “. . . when an Argument is brought before us”, Peirce
wrote, “there is brought to our notice ... a process whereby the Premisses bring
forth the Conclusion . . . this Process of Transformation is no more built out of
Propositions than a Motion is built out of positions. The logical relation of the
Conclusion to the Premisses might be asserted; but that would not be an Argu­
ment. . The assertion of the logical relation would be but one more proposi­
tion and not something by which several propositions are bound into one argu­
ment (as Lewis Carroll showed in his version of the Achilles and the Tortoise
paradox). Whereas a proposition merely informs, an argument “appeals” to one
(ibid.) “in virtue of the logical habit which would bring any logical Interpreter
to assent to it”. The differences in manner of influence are best stated by Peirce
in this same year (1906: 4.538): “By a Seme I shall mean anything which serves
for any purpose as a substitute for an object ...” “By a Pheme I mean a Sign
. . . intended to have some sort of compulsive effect on the interpreter of it.”
“[A Delome] is a Sign which has the Form of tending to act upon the Interpreter
through his own self-control, representing a process of change in thoughts and
signs, as if to induce this change in the Interpreter.”
A seme does not inform, since it does not compel belief. It serves merely to
call something to one’s attention. Even if this object is an actuality, that actuality
is brought to mind only and, therefore, it is present to mind only as a possibility.
If being present to mind does not serve to distinguish possibility from actuality,
116 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

how is that distinction made? Peirce’s answer is that actuality or other facts are
represented qua facts in the forcefulness of their presentness to mind (see, e.g.,
c.1895: 2.337). A pheme signifies existence or fact through its own compulsiveness
on the interpreter. Existence, for Peirce, consists in dyadic relations of action and
reaction, and it is attested to or signified by a corresponding compulsiveness. And
law, as that in accordance to which reactions occur, is known through our cor­
responding habits of self-control. These habits can be practical or purely intellec­
tual; in the latter case they are the “principles of sequence” by which our in­
ferences are governed. In an argument or delome, such laws are presupposed on
the part of the interpreter, as that which the interpreter is asked to apply to the
premisses he is given, to see for himself whether the suggested conclusion follows.
The peculiar syntax or other marks by which we know an argument to be one,
signify only through the appeal they make to the interpreter to go through a process
of inference himself.13
It seems to me that this conception of the differences among semes, phemes,
and delomes is of great importance. In the first place, it shows that what is signified
cannot be separated from the manner in which the sign addresses potential inter­
preters of it. In the second place, this notion of a correspondence of relation to
object and relation to interpretant revives in a new and more acceptable form
the old Greek idea that like is known by like. Possibility is known through the
passive content of experience, actuality is known through the compulsiveness of
experience, and laws are known by the habits of self-control in which they are
mirrored. Our knowledge of actuality and of necessity cannot be passive, but is
one with strenuous existence and deliberate conduct. Yet it does not follow that
knowledge, however inseparable it is from practice, cannot be pursued for its own
sake. In the third and last place, this fresh view of how signs relate us to the world
presents us with many new questions and with new aspects of old questions. For
example, in the broad category of delomes, other principles of self-control than
the strictly intellectual might be appealed to. Thus, it is for good reason, we now
see, that Aristotle discussed the “practical syllogism” in his ethics rather than
in his logic; for the principle of sequence to which it appeals is a habit of action
rather than a habit of thought.14
Despite the virtues of his way of formulating the third trichotomy, there are
problems with it which Peirce seems not to have seen and did not resolve. These
problems center around Peirce’s conceptions of the proposition and of assertion.
Before we can formulate these problems we need to see how the third trichotomy
relates to the First two.
Any icon must, of course, be a rheme, and so, therefore, must every qualisign.
Indices can be either rhemes or dicisigns. “A Rhematic Indexical Sinsign is any
object of direct experience so far as it directs attention to an Object by which
its presence is caused” (Peirce 1903: 2.256). “A Rhematic Indexical Legisign
is any general type or law . . . which requires each instance of it to be really af­
fected by its Object in such a manner as merely to draw attention to that Object”
(ibid.: 2.259). In both cases we see the typical function of a rheme: that is, merely
to bring something to one’s attention. Peirce’s example of the First is a spontaneous
cry, and of the second, a demonstrative pronoun. “A dicent Sinsign”, by con­
trast, not only draws attention to its object, but “affords information concerning
[it]” (2.257).
 LIFE AMONG THE LEGISIGNS 117

Peirce’s example of a dicent sinsign is a weathercock. The weathercock is by

no means a proposition or assertion in the usual sense, and yet it does act com­
pulsively on interpreters of it, causing them to form an opinion about the wind’s
direction. Not that interpreters are not free to deny what the weathercock indicates,
if they have some reason to believe that it is not functioning properly. But in the
absenc£ °f grounded doubt, a person who knows how to interpret weathercocks
cannot help but be influenced by one if he sees it whilst pondering the wind’s
direction. The weathercock also shares the structural features of propositional
significance: it is an index of the wind and it embodies an icon of direction, and
the combination of these two signifies that that direction is the wind’s direction.
“Such a Sign must involve an Iconic Sinsign to indicate the Object to which the
information refers. But the mode of combination, or Syntax of those two must also
be significant’’ (1903: 2.257).
“A Dicent Indexical Legisign is any general type or law . . . which requires
each instance of it to be really affected by its Object in such a manner as to fur­
nish definite information concerning that Object” (1903: 2.260). Peirce’s example
is a street cry, that is, the typical cry of a vendor, replicas of which serve not
only to call attention to their utterer but to inform one of what it is he is selling.
Symbolic legisigns may be either rhemes, dicisigns, or arguments. All
arguments are symbolic legisigns. Terms, Peirce indicated, are rhematic sym­
bols (hence, legisigns, since all symbols are legisigns), and propositions are dicent
symbols (1903: 2.261-263). But here the trouble begins. The treacherous legisigns
at first resist the suggestion that any of them are dicisigns, and then it turns out
that even if some of them are dicisigns (of a peculiarly grudging sort), none of
them can be propositions anyway.
A legisign in itself is not compulsive. It can act compulsively only through
its replicas. But not all replicas, even of such a legisign as “The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!” are compulsive. Only those which assert the proposition they
express tend to compel belief. Other replicas of the same legisign might be pro­
duced non-assertively, e.g., as an hypothesis to ponder or as an exercise in
chirography. Therefore, the compulsiveness of such replicas as are compulsive
is due not to the legisign replicated but to the special characteristics of those replica­
tions. Hence, the legisign that is replicated in an assertion is not compulsive at
all. Therefore, it seems that no legisign can be a dicisign. Peirce admitted the
non-compulsiveness of any legisign when he wrote that the proposition or, as he
maintained that it was, the symbolic dicisign only “purports to intend to compel
. . . ” (c.1902: 2.321, my emphasis). And an argument, he said (ibid.: emphasis
added), only 11purports to intend not compulsion but action by means of comprehen­
sive generals . . . .”
But, then, in 1904 Peirce changed his definition of the dicisign. It became
this: that a dicisign is either compulsive (dicent sinsigns) or it is what can be com­
pulsively replicated (dicent legisigns). Thus, “A dicent is not an assertion, but
is a sign capable of being asserted. But an assertion is a dicent.” This requires
modification, since not all dicent sinsigns are assertions. Only those which replicate
dicent legisigns can be assertions. Other dicent sinsigns, like the weathercock,
neither are nor make assertions but are compulsive in some other way.
In c.1902: 2.315, Peirce wrote that “. . . an act of assertion supposes that,
a proposition being formulated, a person performs an act which renders him liable
 118 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

to the penalties of the social law (or, at any rate, of the moral law) in case it should
not be true, unless he has a definite and sufficient excuse; . In 1903: 2.235,
he made the complementary point that “The assertion consists in the furnishing
of evidence by the speaker to the listener that the speaker believes something,
that is, finds a certain idea to be definitely compulsory on a certain occasion”.
It is the speaker’s making himself liable to censure if what he says should prove
to be wrong which furnishes the evidence that he really believes it. And this, in
turn, is reason (not indefeasible) for his auditors to believe it, too. That someone
asserts something is, other things being equal, sufficient, indeed, compelling reason
to believe it.15
But what is it that is asserted in an assertion? Peirce spoke, very naturally,
of an assertion asserting the proposition which it expresses or formulates.16 How­
ever, a proposition in this sense cannot also be the dicent symbol which the asser­
tion replicates. It is declarative sentences, typically, which are replicated in asser­
tions, but sentences are not what are asserted. Different sentences can sometimes
be replicated to assert the same thing (e.g., when you say, ‘‘I ache”, and when
I say to you, “You ache”, or, again, when the same thing is said in different
languages). And some sentences are such that different assertive replications of
them assert different things (e.g., when you and I both utter the words, ‘‘I ache”).
Therefore, if a proposition is what is asserted, it cannot be the dicent symbol or
sentence which the assertion replicates.
There is an interesting way out of these difficulties, but it requires placing
oppositions, and also concepts and arguments, into a class which Peirce, so far
s I know, did not provide for in his classification of signs. A legisign, you will
;call, consists of a rule determining the sound or shape of its replicas; but this
ule must be associated with a second rule determining how those replicas are
to be interpreted. Ambiguity consists in a plurality of rules of interpretation for
the same legisign, and change of meaning consists in a change of these associated
rules. It follows that the identity of a legisign is fixed only by the rule defining
its replicas. Symbolic legisigns are words and sentences and combinations thereof.
Now, how shall we describe what happens when the same rule of interpretation
becomes associated with different symbolic legisigns? We could say, very natural­
ly, that these different legisigns express the same concept, the same proposition,
or the same argument (depending upon whether the legisigns are rhematic, dicent,
or of the form of an argument). It does not follow that concepts, propositions,
and arguments are separately existing entities—any more than legisigns exist
separately from their replicas. Just as we say that two replicas are replicas of the
same word when they both accord with the same rule defining replicas of that word,
so also can we say that two words express the same concept when their replicas are
to be interpreted by the same rule. Something similar holds for propositions, only
here we must recognize that some dicent symbols do not express just one propo­
sition, since various of their replicas are to be variously interpreted, albeit by the
same rule. How all of this can be made to fit into a convincing revision of Peirce’s
classification of signs is a question that remains to be answered.
We turn, now, to further problems which the third trichotomy presents. If
distinctions among rhemes, dicisigns, and arguments depend on a sign’s influence
on its interpretant, which interpretant is that—the immediate, the dynamic, or
the final? In 1904: 8.337-338, Peirce held that rhemes, dicisigns, and arguments
 LIFE AMONG THE LEGISIGNS 119

are distinguished by their relations to their “signified” (i.e., final) interpretants,

while their being presented for contemplation, urged or submitted depends on
their relations to their dynamic interpretants. (Arguments, only, can be submitted;
but they can also be urged or contemplated; dicisigns can be either urged or con­
templated; rhemes can only be contemplated.) (We see here, again, that Peirce
changed his conception of this trichotomy, from how it tends to affect interpreters,
to how it is capable of being used to affect interpreters. As we saw, this revision
applies, strictly speaking, only to legisigns.) But, given that dynamic interpretants
are formed through the influence of a sign and are steps on the way to the final
interpretant, can we really distinguish between the influence of a sign on its final
interpretant and its “appeal” (ibid.: 8.388) to its dynamic interpretant? In 1908b:
8.371, Peirce used the relation of a sign to its dynamic interpretant as a basis
for a quite different trichotomy: “Suggestive, Imperative, Indicative”. At that
time semes, phemes, and delomes were still being distinguished by “The Nature
of the Influence of the Sign” (ibid.: 8.344). Nevertheless, the same doubt arises:
can we separate the appeal of a sign to its dynamic interpretant from its influence?
These and many similar questions must be raised about Peirce’s later, ex­
panded classification of signs. He himself made it clear in 1908b: 8.345 that the
details of his division of signs according to ten trichotomies were tentative.
However, the 1908 division of signs contains important new suggestions, even
if they are not properly worked out. For example, imperatives had not earlier
found a place in the classification of signs, even though Peirce did discuss im­
perative utterances in some earlier passages (especially the c.1906 passage, 5.473).
Now an imperative seems to be a dicent symbol both in the structure of what
it signifies, consisting as it does in a predicate describing what is to be done and
a subject indicating who is to do it, and in the compulsiveness of its typical replica­
tions. We need to ask how these imperative dicisigns differ from indicative
dicisigns. If it is not by their relations to their dynamic interpretants, is it by the
nature of the immediate interpretant—energetic vs. logical—they are fit to elicit?
In 1908: 8.369 we can see how Peirce first thought this himself but then “with
great hesitation” changed his mind.
We are now at the heart of the wilderness. Our native bearers and guides have
disappeared into the surrounding darkness. We are left on our own resources.
We have followed Peirce’s words to this point, but further progress must be made,
if at all, on our own. I think we owe it to ourselves, if not to Charles Peirce, to
raise the questions he did not live to raise and to see whether the system he
originated can be developed to fruition.
 12

FLOYD MERRELL

Structuralism and Beyond:

A Critique of Presuppositions
The failure of past methods will force man to accept a new
conviction lest the old Adam destroy him.
—Lancelot Law Whyte 1944: 245

Structuralism, Robert Scholes tells us (1974: 3), embodies “a ‘scientific’ view

of the world as both real in itself and intelligible to man”. In order to achieve
objectivity and descriptive adequacy in the human sciences, structuralists have
generally adopted the linguistic model of Ferdinand de Saussure via Prague school
structural linguistics.1 The common assumption has it that structural linguistics,
given its method of abstracting language into an autonomous object for empirical
analysis, now constitutes itself as a true science, worthy of emulation by other
disciplines in the social sciences and in the humanities (see, for example, Levi-
Strauss 1958: 66-79). However, there has been sparse inquiry into the validity
of the general “scientific” foundations upon which the structuralist methodology
rests.2 In response to this critical deficiency the present commentary will aim:
(1) to subject the underlying presuppositions of structuralism to close scrutiny
in the light of past and present scientific paradigms, and (2) to suggest, as a con­
sequence of the first objective, that structuralism is based on premises which are
not consistent with current scientific and epistemological lines of reasoning.

All epistemologically sound analytical models must be constructed upon an in­

trinsically coherent set of presuppositions. On the surface it appears that struc­
turalism complies with this exigency. The structuralists generally put forth the
primary assumption that their field of study is analogous to a linguistic, or more
precisely a phonological, system. For instance, Claude Levi-Strauss (1958: 29-53)
considers that kinship is governed by rules analogous to those governing phonology.
Jacques Lacan (1966: 249-89), after postulating that the unconscious is structured
like a language, reinterprets the Freudian topology of the human mind in linguistic
terms. And Roland Barthes (1966; see also Kristeva 1967) proposes an analogy
between the sentence (microcosm), which constitutes the limits of traditional
linguistic study, and the literary text (macrocosm), which is the object of the critic’s
attention. It is further assumed, then, that the structuralist can study his corpus
by use of a heuristic device analogous to that used by the structural linguist.
Therefore, it follows that since the structuralist method is ultimately tied to a lin­
guistic model, consideration of structuralism’s underlying presuppositions entails
simultaneously a general statement on the presuppositions of structural linguistics
in so far as they overlap.
120
 STRUCTURALISM AND BEYOND: A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS 121

However, obvious pitfalls appear when attempting to generalize on the pre­

suppositions of a heuristic model which is employed, now methodically, now in­
discriminately, by a heterogeneous assemblage of analysts. An insect’s eye view
of all ad hoc analytical techniques formulated in the name of structuralism would
be impossible, an interminable Cartesian division into smaller and smaller parts.
Consequently, while certain facets of my statements on presuppositions may not
apply to all varieties of structuralism, I have attempted to pinpoint in broad terms
the general picture of the world which constitutes the epistemological foundations
of the movement. These presuppositions are as follows:3
(1) The corpus chosen for study is an object of “empirical” analysis. However,
since true reality “is never the most obvious of realities” (Levi-Strauss 1955: 61),
empirical observation of the entities making up this corpus is solely possible by
the use of models which have been constructed a priori. Neither deductive prin­
ciples nor empirical evidence can stand alone but they must complement and sup­
port one another.
(2) The corpus constitutes a closed, homogeneous system of signs which are
related in terms of resemblances and differences (Barthes 1964: 97-98). In this
system composed of interdependent terms, “the value of each term results solely
from the simultaneous presence of the others” (Saussure i. 1906-1911: 114). Such
an “instantaneous arrangement” of terms must be analyzed as a static state of
existence irrespective of time, for it is absolutely impossible to study simultaneously
relations in time and relations within the system (ibid.: 81). For instance, in the
case of language, the individual speaker is confronted with a system. As far as
he is concerned at the moment he emits an utterance, time has no bearing; it
is only a factor in the socio-historical context. His utterance exists instantaneous­
ly with all aspects of the linguistic system and past and future states are of no
consequence. In other words, “language is for him a perpetual present, with the
possibilities of meaning implicit in its every moment” (Jameson 1972: 6).
(3) The notion of a closed system implies an autonomous grouping of signs
(linguistic or extralinguistic) which move laterally within the system from term
to term rather than projecting outside the system from term to thing. This pro­
vides the system with an inner form where the concept of one sign becomes the
denotate (object) of another sign. The relation between signifier and signified (the
two elements making up the sign) is completely arbitrary since there are no physical
cause and effect relations between them (Saussure i. 1906-1911: 67-69).4
(4) The system must be methodically decomposed into a set of abstract parts
which are analyzed in terms of their mutual relations. This is accomplished by
constructing a taxonomic chart of all possible permutations between the elements
making up the system. Such a chart represents the underlying reality of the corpus
as opposed to its surface empirical phenomena, and its analysis involves a
reconstruction of the corpus during which time meaning is disclosed. Meaning,
therefore, is not derived directly from the content but by explicating the potential
and actual relations between all elements making up that content (see Barthes
1964: 58-88).
(5) It follows from the preceding presupposition that the isolated terms, or
elements, in the system are never absolute; they take on meaning only when in­
tegrated into the system. Gestalt psychology, an influence on both Levi-Strauss
and Jakobson, similarly focusses on patterns of mutual dependencies and indivisible
122 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

wholes rather than on isolated elements. Obviously in reaction against atomistic

empiricism, both Gestalt psychology and structuralism attempt to move toward
a “unified field” approach which is not without analogy to twentieth century
theories in the physical sciences. Just as in the sciences doubt has recently arisen
concerning the substantive quality of the atom, so the structuralist approach posits
that content is in reality form, and analysis of this unobservable form calls for
a model which reveals to the observer that which is unavailable to immediate
perception (see Nutini 1970: 70-107).
(6) The system lies behind a general process. System is characterized as conser­
vatism, stability, crystallization, process as a chaos of contingency, fortuitous links,
and accidental encounters. Hence synchrony and diachrony (system and process)
must be maintained in rigid opposition.5 For instance, Saussure (i. 1906-1911:
19) strictly distinguishes between langue, the social product which “exists in the
form of a sum of impressions deposited in the brain of each member of a com­
munity”, and parole, a conscious individual act. System, which can be analyzed
objectively, must take precedence over process, which lends itself solely to sub­
jective interpretation. By logical extrapolation of this postulate, it becomes possible
to analyze the underlying reality of social phenomena and move from conscious
phenomena to the study of unconscious infrastructure (Levi-Strauss 1967: 31).
(7) Change, with respect to the system, is unintelligible. It is only understood
as the passage from one state to another, as a series of discontinuous shifts (Levi-
Strauss 1966: 269-70). The system can never be modified directly. Certain elements
replace others to throw the system out of equilibrium, but this disequilibrium will
call for the establishment of new grounds of solidarity which bind all the elements
to the whole. Although in this scheme linear cause and effect is of no consequence,
a form of “structural causality” prevails wherein the system determines not only
the nature of systematic equilibrium at a given moment, but immanently con­
tains vestiges of all past equilibriums and the seeds of all future states of affairs.
The underlying system is simultaneously mutable and immutable: mutable as a
collective though intangible entity undergoing “structural changes” in time (Jakob-
son 1931: 334), and immutable since, in language for example, the utterances
of the individual speaker represent mere “accidents” in time and are totally in­
capable of changing the linguistic system (Saussure i. 1906-1911: 78).
(8) Man himself is excluded as an object of study. The subject and the situa­
tion cannot be considered since man (subject), his cultural products (object), and
his socio-historical context (situation), are not susceptible to the same analytical
model. Man is looked upon as the instrument through which cultural phenomena
(i.e., language, myth, religion, art, etc.) manifest themselves, and he consequently
< < disappears”, as a concrete being toward which inquiry is directed, to become
an idealized abstraction. For instance, while existentialism and phenomenology
attempt to know man through personal identity between analyst and analyzed,
the structuralist, as a detached observer devoid of moral or metaphysical pretenses,
considers not man nor his situation but the products of his mental activity. The
first may be conceived as an attempt to understand Being “in relation to oneself’,
while the second is an attempt to understand “Being in relation to itself’ (Levi-
Strauss 1955: 62).6
(9) The eighth presupposition implies a relatively uninvolved spectator who
organizes his data in accordance with a priori assumptions as well as by means
 STRUCTURALISM AND BEYOND: A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS 123

of empirical observation. It follows, then, that if (a) the structures of the observed
phenomena are organized by the preconceiving mind of the spectator, and ( )
the corpus is studied in so far as it is the product of human mental processes, then
(c) the true object of study is not substantive but mental; that is, a reciprocal ex­
change between the absent mind of the producer of cultural artifacts and the min
of the contemplator of those artifacts.7 At the same time the structuralist, in con­
trast to the phenomenologist and the existentialist, purports to analyze the corpus
from outside rather then relive the historical situation surrounding the phenomena.
As a result, the structuralist perspective is doubly an abstraction. It abstracts y
removing the observed data from its historical context (and hence the danger o
falling into the “formalist fallacy”). And it abstracts in as much as man is remove
from his cultural products (and the structuralists’ “disappearance of man
threatens to become a reality). (See Krader 1974: 336-61.)
The epistemological roots of structuralism go deep. Embodied in the move
ment is a reaction against atomistic and mechanistic ways of thinking. Atomists
conceive reality as an aggregate of individual elements while mechanists place
their faith in a linear, materialistic cause and effect explanation of all phenomena.
Structuralism, purportedly holistic, non-material, acausal, and non-linear, none­
theless discloses at the level of its root presuppositions, an incapacity to gain tota
emancipation from those very scientific conventions against which it is rebelling.
It now becomes necessary to expound on those scientific conventions in order to
determine the constraints preventing structuralism from constituting a truly novel
approach to the study of man.

The scientific world view up to and including the nineteenth century was iden­
tified primarily with the names of Galileo, Descartes, and Newton. Classical physics
conceived the cosmos as a “giant machine”, a homogeneous universe of perfec
symmetry and clockwork precision; and God was precisely the guardian of th<
key with which to wind that clock. The dream of this new science which could
transform and perfect man by making him a manipulable working part in this
“great machine” was brought to its most sublime expression by Laplace. At the
end of the eighteenth century, he euphorically proclaimed that a superhuman In­
telligence could know at any given instant the exact positions of all cosmic bodies
and the forces between them, and could derive from this configuration a predic­
tion of their positions at any future time. Nothing would be uncertain. The future,
like the past, would be simultaneously present to the eyes of this omniscient
observer (Matson 1966: 11).
Laplace’s superintelligence became the paradigm to be emulated by science.
Natural phenomena, it was assumed, consisted of an aggregate of objects entire­
ly detached from, and independent of, the observer-scientist. This assumption
logically led to the notion of a “common-sense” view of nature where there existed
no discrepancy between appearance (the sense-data reaching the observer) and
reality (the actual world of things). Such a belief constituted a philosophical creed
in itself. No attempt was made to justify it by abstract argument; so long as it
worked satisfactorily none seemed to be needed, the success of the science based
upon it providing a sufficient justification Qeans 1959: 1-2).
Moreover, according to classical physics, Euclidean space was regarded as
a homogeneous, immutable medium whose existence was logically prior to the
124 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

material objects contained within it. The binary opposition, “full: empty”, became
a fundamental scientific metaphor. Space, it was assumed, constituted a void
(emptiness) in contrast to matter, which was defined as a plenum. Since space was
a neutral container totally independent of its material content, changes could be
perceived solely in the positions of the bodies in space but none in space itself
since it was, ipso facto, unchangeable. Time, like space, was considered indepen­
dent with respect to its content. Just as matter “filled” portions of space, so changes
“filled” segments of time, and just as space was a receptacle for all matter, so
time was a neutral container for all changes. The difference rested in that while
spatial relations were defined as juxtaposition, temporal relations were conceived
in terms of succession, or contiguity. Consequently, the uniformity of space became
counterpart to temporal uniformity, or more expressively designated, to uniform
fluidity. Material bodies in space changed in time, but time itself could not undergo
a change for it was considered, like space, a homogeneous medium. Hence the
homogeneity of space demanded temporal homogeneity (Capek 1961: 7-53).
The upshot of the above formulations was finally that both space and time
must be instantaneous (de Broglie 1937: 14-15). Matter consisted of discrete, discon­
tinuous corpuscles existing in empty, homogeneous space and time. The configura­
tion described by the sum of these corpuscles was defined as a cross-section of
simultaneous spatio-temporal entities. In this manner the universe was considered
a succession of instantaneous configurations of matter, a static, closed, predeter­
mined and forever determinable system. A moment of time became nothing but
a “knife edge”, as William James describes it, an instantaneous flash which
photographs the simultaneous positions of matter partially filling up the void. At
given instant, the resultant configuration represented the predetermined effect
jf all past configurations and simultaneously implied all future configurations.
Hence the universe was presented as a mathematical series of contiguous states,
each constituting an instantaneous configuration of discrete corpuscles—quasi-
infinite in number—with definite mass, position, and velocity. A transition from
one state to another was no more than a variation in this configuration due to
the physical interactions (mechanical cause and effect) between these corpuscles.
As they were displaced in space a new configuration would ensue such that there
could be no change in the inherent nature of the content (corpuscles) nor altera­
tion in the attributes of the containers (space and time), but only in the positions
of the elements composing that content. Matter thus became indifferent to the
lapse of time, and time became a mere accident, a succession of instants totally
independent of material attributes. Hence this quantitative and qualitative im­
mutability of matter was counterpart to the homogeneous, but unrelated, flow
of time (Whitehead 1948: 41-56).
In such a scheme of things, time became superficial, a dispensable entity
delegated to secondary categories, while space, as the container in which material
corpuscles must react, acquired paramount importance. This tendency to
< < spatialize time” may actually be traced to the dawn of Western thought, when
Parmenides and the Eleatics attempted to reduce becoming to being, process to
state, content to form (Capek 1961: 136).8 According to the Eleatic conception
of the universe the directional flow of time loses its objective meaning and the
hoary image of Nietzsche’s “eternal return” becomes not merely a romantic illu­
sion but a mathematical possibility, for:
 STRUCTURALISM AND BEYOND: A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS 125

In infinity, at some moment or other, every possible combination must

once have been realized; not only this, but it must have been realized an
infinite number of times. And inasmuch as between every one of these
combinations and its next recurrence every other possible combination
would necessarily have been undergone, and since every one of these com­
binations would determine the whole series in the same order, a circular
movement of absolutely identical series is thus demonstrated: the universe
is thus shown to be a circular movement which has already repeated itself
an infinite number of times, and which plays its game for all eternity
(Nietzsche 1883-1888: 126).

The image of man suffers in this classical picture of the world for it ultimately
implies: (1) the elimination of all notion of purpose from the universe, since changes
and future states are described simply as the inevitable consequences of prior con­
ditions (Bohr 1958: 95), and (2) the removal of man, as a subjective feeling be­
ing, from the center of a universe mathematically defined in terms of primary
qualities (that which is not observable by the senses but which can be qualitative­
ly measured). Hence, a “mathematical finality” was imposed on the physical as
well as the human sciences (Bronowski 1955: 46).

It was mentioned above that structuralism generally adopts the linguistic model.
For instance, Jakobson posits (1963: 157-62)9 the existence of a hierarchy of ever-
widening linguistic systems (i.e., phonemes ( morphemes < sememes, et al.). These
systems are “isomorphic”; that is to say, rules governing a lower system will also
govern a higher system. By extrapolation, what is true of the hierarchy of linguistic
systems must also be true of semiological systems in general. Therefore, the
linguistic model, one semiological system in the hierarchy, becomes analogous
to patterns of exchange and “primitive” myth (Levi-Strauss’ kinship and Mythologi-
ques), foods (the “culinary triangle” of Levi-Strauss), clothing styles (Barthes’
Syst'eme de la mode), bourgeois “myths” (Barthes’ Mythologies), literary structures
(Barthes, Tzvetan Todorov, A. J. Greimas, et. al.), the topology of the mind
(Lacan), economic intrastructures (Althusser), and even the myth of Superman
(Umberto Eco).10
Structuralism, then, appears to be guided by a “law of relative magnitudes”,
the notion that as one proceeds from the infinitesimal to the infinite, he will en­
counter worlds within worlds, each “isomorphic” to the world enclosing it. What
is true of the phoneme must obviously be true also for the morpheme, the sentence,
discourse, myths, literature, kinship, culture, ad infinitum. This line of reasoning
is analogous to the nature of Lilliput, that miniature world in Gulliver's Travels
constructed as a scale model for our own world. Such “Chinese box” models have
been posited time and time again as hypostats with which to interpret reality, but
in general they have proved fallacious. For example, the “Lilliputian fallacy” was
disclosed in the physical sciences when it was demonstrated that the assumed analo­
gy between the atom and our solar system was false. Such fundamental errors
in science may be construed as manifest proof that the tendency of the mind to
move along pathways of least resistance does not necessarily lead to truth.11 In
reality, “macrosystems” do not always abide by the same rules nor do they inex­
tricably manifest the same structures as the “microsystems” contained within
126 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

them. On the contrary, while the phonemic system operates on a level of higher
“logical typing” (i.e., greater simplicity and order) larger cultural systems manifest
higher levels of organizational complexity whose “logical typing” is by nature
highly differentiated, allowing for less order but more vagueness and ambiguity.12
The problematic involved in ad hoc models constructed on the basis of what
is known to be “common sense” knowledge has become apparent. In addition
to the potential falsity of the models, a greater danger rests in what Arthur Ed­
dington (1958: 109, 112) terms the “Procrustean treatment”, that is, the habit
of forcing the data at hand into a preconceived mold. It will be recalled that Pro­
crustes cut down or stretched his guests to fit the bed he had constructed, and
then wrote a scholarly paper “On the Uniformity of Stature of Travellers”. Un­
fortunately in a world which rewards him who is consistently “right”—even though
many who have contributed most to the history of thought have in the long run
been wrong—to expose the falsity of one’s model is anathema. The more “respec­
table” alternative is to alter things a bit so as to assert the model’s validity.
To reiterate conclusions derived from the second section of this article, the
classical conception of an instantaneous universe presupposes space as a
homogeneous “container” to be “filled” by material objects, and time as a
chronically homogeneous “container” to be “filled” with a series of infinitesimal
instants. Structuralism is founded upon presuppositions strikingly similar to those
of Newtonian physics. An instantaneous configuration of structures is presumed
to exist within an isolated system where the seeds of all future conditions of struc­
ture are contained within the present configuration which in turn is the logical
culmination of all past states.
Furthermore, a form of “causality” is assumed possible in a system composed
of a continuous series of instantaneous states, each being represented by a com­
plex configuration of simultaneous, atomistic entities with sharply defined struc­
tures and boundaries. A given configuration is implied in all past configurations
(since the structural changes consist of displacements of elements in the struc­
tures) and in turn implies all future ones. The root structural models (i.e., the
li
actantial” model ofGreimas, the “triadic” model of Bremond, the “homolog­
ical” model of Levi-Strauss, the “generative-transformational” model ofTodorov,
the “Schemes” of Lacan, etc.) assume structures composed of homogeneously
organized elements existing in space and time. The flow of time, however, has
nothing to do with the nature of the structures. One structure is replaced by another
in a reversible, atemporal scheme devoid of traditional considerations of physical
cause and effect. It is nonetheless causal: a form of “structural causality”. Accord­
ing to this conception of things, a given instant of time is independent of all other
instants. The passage of time becomes mere illusion since structure and its laws
of commutation, permutation, transformation, etc., are identical whether con­
sidered diachronically in time or “spatially” across cultures at a given instant
of time.13 Therefore, history, or the chronological flow of time, becomes a mere
“myth” created by Western thought to perpetuate the bourgeois idea of progress
(see “History and Dialectic”, in Levi-Strauss 1962a: 245-69).
<i
Structural causality”, in the final analysis, implies that from one particular
instantaneous state of the universe (past, present, or future) all other states can
be derived, a mechanistic scheme whose terminology is remarkably compatible
with the Newtonian corpuscular-kinetic picture of the world. Spatial configura-
 STRUCTURALISM AND BEYOND: A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS 127

tions of immutable structures determine the distinctions to be found in all suc­

cessive configurations while the content of those structures is of little consequence.
In such a timeless scheme, the universe becomes a conglomerate of subsyte ms
which set up constraints and limit man to certain predetermined paths. Ultimately
the end product is a static state not unlike the second law of thermodynamics;
that is, the entrophy principle, another convention of nineteenth century physics.
This picture of the world is evoked by Saussure’s monstrous chess game analogy
to language. On the chessboard an aggregate of “objects” can be rearranged in
a calculable but quasi-infinite number of possible combinations. Saussure’s analogy
automatically implies a closed universe, a Laplacean system par excellence, in which
linguistic constraints are equally as immutable as the structures they determine.
In such a universe the structuralist method of viewing man and his cultural pro­
ducts in terms of homogeneity, relations of similarity, opposition, reciprocity, etc.,
appears to be the line of least resistance.
The instantaneous arrangement structuralism posits is nowhere more explicit
than in Levi-Strauss’ analogy (1964: 14-30) between music and myth. The
“melody” (diachronic aspect) of the myth may be read as one reads any other
story, but to derive meaning from the myth it must be read in terms of its har­
mony” (synchronic aspect). This constitutes a timeless reading of “instantaneous
chords” through space. Such a synchronic reading of the myth breaks it up into
discontinuous (timeless) entities which are determined by their spatial relations
rather than by their content. The subsequent system of relations must by nature
be static, a hermetic chamber containing a finite number of elements continually
displacing one another. Hence to base the study of myths, as does Levi-Strauss,
on a linguistic model implies automatic reduction of all myths to their discon­
tinuous rudiments. The observation that the phonemic aspect of language con-
sists primarily of discontinuous signs, oppositions, and static binaries is well taken
and perhaps correct. However, explication of myths and other mental constructs
in terms of these same discontinuous categories is undoubtedly tenuous. The prob­
lem hearkens back to Heraclitus. Oppositions such as night and day, this Greek
philosopher says, are illusions, since there is always a continuum of gradations
between each element of the binary. Man unconsciously confers upon a dynamic
reality those static linguistic categories which distort rather than fully explicate.
Hence although our awareness of reality may be, as Michael Polanyi tells us (1969
123-80), a form of “tacit knowledge”, that reality must inexorably remain, due
to our linguistic limitations, ineffable.14
As a result of the posited “instantaneous arrangement” of the corpus, struc­
tural analysis usually entails construction of static taxonomic systems. Taxonomy
presumes a structured (dead) corpus as well as a closed system. It may appear
at the outset that a rough analogy can be established between the present classi-
ficatory state of many structuralist studies and the state of botany under Linnaeus.
Species and genera were, for Linnaeus, fixed forms, rather than stages in an on­
going theory of evolution.15 This analogy, however, disintegrates upon realiza­
tion that while the natural sciences progressed from static classificatory systems
to the notion of evolution, for the human sciences the situation was reversed. The
evolutionary concept derived from within the natural sciences was dumped on
the human sciences when in their infant stage. This evolutionary vision of reality
consequently abetted the idea that Western societies represent a superior, more
128 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

highly evolved form of civilization. Structuralism, especially that of Levi-Strauss,

can be conceived as a reaction against such ethnocentrism, a reaction well taken.
But the consequent reversion to a static science of taxonomy is fraught with dif­
ficulties, chief of which is the structuralist movement’s discontinuous view of reality
(see Culler 1973: 20-36). It is interesting to note that structuralism has been termed
a “predialectics” (Seve 1969: 108-50). This label attests to the static quality of
the structuralist method while placing it historically prior to the birth of modem
sociology, anthropology, economics, and other human sciences. In the final
analysis, rather than looking beyond, the structuralist movement gives in to a
conservative tendency, propagating images of static equilibrium, enclosure, time­
lessness, and spatialization.16 This conservative element becomes more evident
when observing that structuralism has been influenced by mathematics only in
so far as closure can be maintained. For instance, the cybernetic model adopted
by Piaget and Levi-Strauss is, strictly speaking, the earlier closed-system
cybernetics entailing a static form of equilibration (homeostasis) developed by
Wiener and others during the 1950’s (Wilden 1972: 230-73, 302-50). Group theory,
which has contributed much to structuralist methodology, implies a closed system
of permutations wherein the “eternal return” is an ongoing reality, a system akin
to the “cosmic cycle” of the Greeks (Keyser 1956: pp. 1538-1557). And informa­
tion theory is adopted only in as much as it will not go beyond the hermetic
enclosure established by structuralism (Wilden 1972: 351-94).
Therefore, the structuralist “rage” is in reality the stepchild of the classical
model of the universe. Although Democritean atomism is presumably discarded,
structuralism remains in essence “macroatomistic”. That is to say, while the
elements within a given system are not considered as atoms qua atoms, but
“real” only in so far as they fit into a combinatorial system, that system is never­
theless effectively isolated from all other systems to become a < C macroatom. ”17
A few structuralists, such as Jakobson, voice vague speculations concerning an
integrative “system of systems”, but make little or no attempt to establish a
rigorous intersystemic model. On the other hand, it has been proposed that
“homologies can be established between systems, but only a few, notably Lu­
cien Goldmann, have attempted such a study.18
In short, the Newtonian model “spatializes” time whereas the structuralist
model “synchronizes” process. Space, according to the classical notion of the
universe, is the eternal and immutable medium providing for perpetuation of a
clockwork universe. Similarly, structure gives order to an otherwise chaotic
universe which consists of an incessant flow of meaningless sense perceptions.
Whether the system behind randomness is conceived as space (the eternal void
to be filled with neutral material) or structure (the neutral emptiness which pro­
vides for eternal orderliness), man in either case is displaced from the “center’ *
to become a passive object, acted upon by opposing material objects or existing
as a mere instrument by means of which the system discloses itself.19

Consider for a moment that in the classical view of the universe and in the struc­
turalist system, the “spatialization” of time and the “synchronization” of pro­
cess derive from a tacit avoidance of history, a non-conscious effort to halt the
threat of continually generated novelty. The Newtonian model was founded upon
a faith in indefinite and inevitable progress. This convention, fortified by nine-
 STRUCTURALISM AND BEYOND: A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS 129

teenth century utopian philosophy, was predicated upon a “doctrine” whose

underlying structure revealed a fundamental antinomy: the inherently static,
cyclical nature of the explanatory model which was finally revealed by Nietzsche
and others. In contrast, the structuralist conceptual framework rejects faith in
the inevitable progress of human culture. Does this indicate that no comparable
anomaly exists at the roots of the structuralist world view? An answer must be
voiced in the negative. For on further observation it is ascertained that, implicit­
ly in structuralism and explicitly in existentialism (the philosophical movement
it was to displace), there is a preoccupation with non-Being, or nothingness. This
preoccupation goes back to the philosophy of Pascal, whose angst stems from the
realization of man’s finitude, in a Newtonian world, between the infinite vastness
of an empty universe and the infinitesimal minuteness of atomic substance. In
this classical view of the universe, space becomes paramount. Space is defined
as non-Bcing (void) in opposition to Being, and it simultaneously takes on the
attributes of the Deity, since by its very nature it must precede matter.20 In a
similiar manner, structuralism tacitly assumes that the “holes”, or empty “slots”
to be filled, precede the content. It is not as if Carroll’s Cheshire Cat were erased to
leave only the smile (structure). The smile is the “emptiness” which demands to be
filled. It exists prior to the Cat and requires that the Cat be “structured” to fit.
The structuralist notion of “emptiness” is perhaps best illustrated by Lacan’s
“lack of being” (manque d’etre) which is an attempt to conceptualize that persis­
tent human yearning for the absent origin. The primordial “lack” is a sort of
<4
hole” in the system, a basic fault whose fulfillment is prompted by the subject’s
desire.
It is the “movement” of language, an incessant play of signifiers taking place
in a linguistic “space”, which potentially fills the emptiness. Modern man, unlike
the “primitive” described by Levi-Strauss, enjoys no stable ontological “center”.
He has before him only the yawning void since the origin has been cut off from
him. Consequently through language, desire attempts to symbolically fill up the
“hole” and restore man’s primordial “lack” to its full status as being (Lacan 1966).
A similiar notion is found in the analyses of Levi-Strauss where the structures
embody an intrinsic “free play” without any external fixed point of reference.
Levi-Strauss chooses a “reference myth” to function as a prototype, an auton­
omous point about which his study of other myths can revolve. But this reference
myth itself holds no privileged position; it is simply employed as a handle by means
of which reality can be grasped (see Derrida 1970). Hence Levi-Strauss’ reference
myth temporarily occupies the elusive center, and the myths he studies are situated
in a sort of complex mosaic where, as in Baroque style, the “empty spaces” are
conveniently filled. However, this system is still “a sort of Newtonian universe
without any God to wind it up” (Wilden 1968: 218). While Lacan’s “emptiness”
is potentially Filled by the desiring subject, Levi-Strauss’ “empty slot” is tem­
porarily Filled—albeit at the expense of a stable point of reference—and the
“center” becomes illusory, an “unmoved mover” which is neither God, nor man,
but system. Through a series of myths which are not spoken by man but speak
themselves through man, this system is revealed.

Although it is generally assumed that structuralism and existentialism are

diametrically opposed, they remain on common grounds in so far as: (1) they re-
 130 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

ject conventional atomism, empiricism, and the Newtonian world, and (2) they
have been unable to gain total emancipation from the earlier epistemological tradi­
tion. As was concluded above, according to the structuralist picture of the world,
time is “accidental”, structure (space) is paramount, and “emptiness” (noth­
ingness in existentialist terminology) precedes substance. In contrast, the ex­
istentialist Martin Heidegger asks the fundamental question: Why is there some­
thing rather than nothing? Here the existence of “things” appears to be acci­
dental, a situation brought about by the whims of contingency. Heidegger also
contradicts structuralism’s “synchronization” of process, contending that man
is defined in and through time, and actively projects his temporality onto
nothingness. However, contrary to Heidegger, who says that nothingness negates
itself, Jean Paul Sartre claims that nothingness cannot negate itself but must be
negated by an outside force: consciousness. In contrast to the structuralist view,
then, man is defined by his consciousness rather than by motivations the nature
of which he is unaware. This conscious being which brings nothingness into the
world is its own nothingness; or in Sartre’s words (1943: 21), “Nothingness lies
coiled in the heart of being, like a worm”. Therefore, according to the existen­
tialist, nothingness comes into the world through being, which is its own nothing­
ness. This conception is analogous to that of the classical thinker. Imbued with
the Newtonian picture of the world, he postulates that space is the emptiness in
which material objects exist, and those material objects contain their own
emptiness: that is, the emptiness which remains when they are displaced. The
'ascalian fear of “empty spaces”, as they are conceived from within the New-
onian cosmological framework, becomes a variant of the existentialist dread of
nothingness. Emptiness is necessary for the existence of materialness and material
objects give rise to the need for emptiness, a complementary (dialectical in the
terminology of Sartre) relationship where the annihilation of one brings forth the
creation of the other.
Existentialist praxis constitutes an attempt to come to grips with the void and
with the contingency of beingness and death, since the existence of nothingness
is dependent on consciousness of being. Structuraliism on the other hand, aims
at the unconscious in human culture. An invariant topology of the mind becomes
the paradigm for all structures (predominantly binary) which provide the “slots”
to be filled with content. However, structure, Levi-Strauss tells us (cited in Caws
1970: 197-215), is content; it lies at the very heart of substantiality as the conditio
sine qua non of the content’s existence. Hence, the following schema of “structural
permutations” between the classical, existentialist, and structuralist world views
can be constructed.21
Structure “structurally” displaces space (the void) and nothingness in the first
two cosmologies. This not only reveals the underlying import of the notion of
non-Being but also further discloses the structural movement’s incapacity totally
to abolish past conventions. The structuralist paradigm represents in reality
nothing more than a “permutation” of concepts rather than the replacement of
one model by a new model. The above schema is analogous to the Weltanschauung
approach to the philosophy of science which has become respectable in recent years.
It behooves us to look into this approach in order to comprehend more adequate­
ly the structuralist movement.22 According to Stephen Toulmin, a new scientific
Weltanschauung is developed by a restatement of various laws, ideals, and
 STRUCTURALISM AND BEYOND: A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS 131

CLASSICAL WORLD EXISTENTIAL WORLD STRUCTURAL WORLD

VIEW: VIEW: VIEW:

SPACE NOTHINGNESS STRUCTURE

SPATIALIZATION TEMPORALITY SYNCHRONIZATION

OF TIME OF OF PROCESS
BEINGNESS

DETERMINACY OF INDETERMINACY OF DETERMINACY OF

A MUTABLE A MUTABLE AN IMMUTABLE
BEING (THROUGH BEING (THROUGH ------— BEING (THROUGH
ACTIONS IN SPACE) CHOICE IN TIME) STRUCTURAL
TRANSFORMATIONS)

SPACE PRECEDES CONSCIOUS BEING STRUCTURE

MATERIAL OBJECTS CREATES NOTHING­ PRECEDES
NESS (SARTRE) CONTENT

hypotheses using terms borrowed from earlier scientific formulations. However,

as the terms are transported from one Weltanschauung to another, their meanings
are invariably altered. This incorporation of traditional terms into new explanatory
models such that the meaning of the terms is changed constitutes what Toulmin
calls a language shift (1953: 13-16, 159-170; 1961: 62-98). The meanings of seman­
tically transmuted terms occurring in scientific theories are theory dependent, and,
when taken out of the context of their scientific Weltanschauung, the semantic fullness
of these terms is inevitably destroyed.
Thomas S. Kuhn (1962: 52-91), in contrast to Toulmin, is concerned with
the “structural” analysis of scientific thought. Both epistemologists view science
as operating from within particular world views which govern the perspectives
by means of which phenomena are observed and regulate the criteria of theory
formulation. However, while Toulmin maintains that science undergoes an evolu­
tionary development by assimilating new concepts to the existing Weltanschauung,
Kuhnian scientific thought is fundamentally discontinuous and revolutionary. All
great scientific theories, Kuhn argues, have developed out of the general accep­
tance of a new pattern of thought, or a “paradigm”, which leads to the construc­
tion of a particular view of reality. The acceptance of revolutionary paradigms
such as the Copernican, Newtonian, and Einsteinian models of the universe, entails
the construction of an entirely new map which is then used as a basis for further
scientific theory making. However, “anomalies” gradually appear in a given scien­
tific view of the world as it is subjected to successive refinement. The established
B
paradigm is used to explain away the anomalies by auxiliary appendages. Gradual
multiplication of these appendages leads to increased disenchantment within the
scientific community until finally the model is rejected and another takes its place.
Kuhn’s “structural” interpretation contradicts the idea of progress inherent in
Toulmin’s conception of the history of science. Progress is only relative, for it
is measured from within a given world of ideas that are conditioned by a choice
of one from among a number of possible, but equally valid, models of the universe.

■
132 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

The general approaches of Toulmin and Kuhn are based on three assump­
tions: (1) perception is Weltanschauung-bound, since a given picture of the world
determines to a large degree one’s perception and consequent interpretation of
reality, (2) meanings are perception-bound, since, if the Weltanschauung governs
one’s view of reality, the meaning conveyed to him by that reality will be incor­
porated into his mental scheme in a manner different from that of another person
who possesses a distinct picture of the world, and (3) language does not imprison
man’s cognitive capacities, as the orthodox structuralists would have it, but it
is used as an instrument by means of which man draws from the vast untapped
pool of potential knowledge. Thus both epistemological hypotheses attempt to
discover the underlying nature of scientific theories “through an examination of
their linguistic formulatons, and on occasion even seem to assume that the theory
is its linguistic formulation” (Suppe 1974: 221).23
The problem with Kuhn’s revolutions and Toulmin’s language shifts is thai
i •
they do not readily go to completion. Rather than one paradigm “structurally
replacing another or one meaning being replaced by another, generations are re­
quired for a community to adjust to a new way of thinking (Bridgman 1950: 103).
For instance, Capek asserts (1961: 264) that centuries of conditioning have in­
tegrated the Newtonian paradigm into our “intellectual subconscious”. Conse­
quently, “we fail to realize that the very terms ‘motion’ and ‘displacement’ are
thoroughly inadequate because they are tinged with misleading classical associa­
tions. The continued use of these terms . . . indicates the reluctance of our New­
tonian subconscious to depart from traditional habits of thought.” This < t seman-
tic inertia” is responsible for numerous incidents in the history of science where
obstinate terminology reflecting conservative underlying mental habits prevents
novel ideas from emerging in their fullness. Similarly, Anthony Wilden demon­
strates (1972: 230) how Piaget, Lacan, and Levi-Strauss use “scientific termin­
ology” in such a way as to depict a world view which is not compatible with con­
temporary scientific thought nor with what they are actually trying to say.24
In short, according to the Weltanschauung approach, cognition takes precedence
over language. The latter does not rule over the former although it might appear
that way given the conservative tendency to follow the line of least resistance and
yield to “semantic inertia”.

Let us consider further the structuralist movement in light of the twentieth cen­
tury “Einsteinian paradigm”. It is now commonplace in the physical sciences
that the notion of a detached observer is illusory. The mind cannot be excluded
from the world since it is an integral part of that world, and mental processes,
both conscious and unconscious, must be included in that which is observed. The
scientist cannot know anything about anything without getting involved, either
directly or indirectly, with the object of observation. Thus “no knowledge of any
physical property or even mere existence is possible without interaction”
(Bridgman 1950: 95). In this context a scientific theory becomes a picture of man’s
relationship with nature, and as this relationship changes, the theory also must
undergo alteration (Heisenberg 1967: 27-29). It is significant, then, that Eddington
(1958: 16-27) calls contemporary scientific theory “a priori knowledge”, an
epistemological stance he justifies on the grounds that the universe described by
the scientist is not wholly objective but partially subjective.
 STRUCTURALISM AND BEYOND: A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS 133

Leading structuralists often voice platitudes concerning the synthesis of the

Cartesian subject-object dichotomy. Nevertheless, in actual practice the struc­
turalist method generally presupposes an objective, uninvolved observer who
discloses the structure of either the corpus or, especially in the case of Levi-Strauss,
the mind that created the corpus (Krader 1974: 352).25 It is an ironical turn of
events that while the physical sciences have been hard at work to liberate themselves
from the “myth” of objectivity, predictability, and in general, the tyranny of
method, in the human sciences the trend has been toward more rigidly defined
methodologies. Models at times are taken at face value as a priori truths and rela­
tionships are usually considered to be invariant.
It is evident from the foregoing that structuralism’s underlying presupposi­
tions stubbornly reveal vestiges of archaic epistemological conventions. Just as
the special and general theories of relativity were unable in the first decades to
replace effectively the Newtonian primacy of space with a genuine relativistic space-
time fusion (Capek 1961: 157-87), so structuralism has apparently been incapable
of emancipation from an earlier dogmatic epistemology. For instance, the New­
tonian timelessness of space is founded upon an assumed dichotomy and categorical
separation between matter and space. Relativity theory dissolves this dichotomy,
and space can no longer be considered merely a static, neutral container. Instead
of matter partially Filling the emptiness of space, “it would be more accurate to
speak of space being fused with its changing and dynamic physical content” (ibid.).
However, the classical distinction between “fullness” and “emptiness” was car­
ried over into the early “unified field” theories of Einstein, Eddington,
Schrodinger, and others, a notion that actually goes back to a Laplacean universe
(Monod 1970: 43). Nevertheless, in spite of this inevitable tendency toward
“linguistic conservatism”, some of the great minds of the present century have
brought forth a new image of the world which goes far beyond their original in­
tent. The Newtonian image of empty space can now be looked upon as simply
an artifact of our thinking (Bridgman 1959: 197-98). Recent theories more right­
ly postulate that space does not exist prior to matter nor is it a neutral homo­
geneous container. The very existence of space comes into being in simultaneity
with the appearance of matter at a given stage in the space-time continuum.
Equally, we can postulate that the “full: empty” distinction is invalid with
respect to structuralism. The universe, be it in the physical or the mental sense,
does not consist of a system of invariant structures persisting through time and
existing in space. Nor are structures simply empty containers, slots to be filled,
prior to and independent of content. Structure comes into existence only as it
is defined by content. It assumes a reality by virtue of the content’s existence;
and the content is a part of reality in so far as it is “structured”. A qualitative
change in the content leads to a warp, or distortion, in the structure which then,
rather than reverting back to a static state of equilibrium according to Saussure’s
formulation, moves forward toward a higher, more complex system (the open
world). Hence, content and structure are modifications of the notion of the
diachronic-synchronic continuum, since the system is susceptible to changes in
time and time is defined by those systemic changes. This suggests a priority of
process rather than of structure, a transformation in human thinking not unlike
that of twentieth century physics which ultimately abolished the classical notion
of instantaneous states.
 134 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

It may well be that the concept of process will dominate in the decades to come
(Bertalanffy 1967: part II). This trend began in the sciences themselves during
the present century. Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy, to cite only one
instance, stands in stark contrast to the mechanistic determinism of classical
physics. His indeterminacy principle denies the exact prediction and simultaneous
measurement of both the position and velocity of subatomic entities in space and
time. Consequently, since neither position nor velocity can be defined together,
the exact state of the system cannot be precisely known. Heisenberg himself sug­
gests (1962: 180-81) that matter manifests to the physicist not a static state but
“potentia” in the sense of Aristotelian philosophy. In fact, he believes that
( c
language actually used by physicists when they speak about atomic events pro­
duces in their minds similiar notions as the concept ‘potentia’”. However, “seman­
tic inertia” often prevents this concept from effectively revealing itself.

The task now at hand is to “dynamize” the general structuralist interdisciplinary'

methodology, as Paul Ricoeur (1968: 114-29) believes Chomskyan linguistics is
striving to dynamize structural linguistics in particular. How can the static
categories of structuralism be transformed into historical, dynamic categories?
In search for an answer let us refer back to the analogy of the physical sciences.
It is now generally conceded that: (1) the Newtonian primacy of absolute space
is invalid, (2) the notion of separateness of space and time is a mathematical
abstraction, a fundamental axiom upon which the Newtonian system was deduced,
and (3) homogeneous and instantaneous states in time and space are imaginative
logical constructs by means of which Newtonian mechanics could operate.
The current view has it that space and time are fused together in nature to
produce a four-dimensional continuum. In the words of James Jeans (1959:
104-05), our “human spectacles” have created that spurious differentiation be­
tween space and time. When these spectacles are removed, “we see that an event
no longer occurs at a point of the continuum, this point identifying both the time
and place of its occurrence; we discover that the primary ingredients of nature
are not objects existing in space and time, but events in the continuum.” Time,
which must now be considered heterogeneous since events are not evenly spaced
in the continuum, can no longer be separated from its own content. Moreover,
content is merged into space while simultaneously space is fused with time. Time
does not exist as an empty homogeneous flow prior to material content; its reason
for existence is dependent upon that content. Hence, the “traditional distinction
between time and concrete physical processes must be seen to be as artificial as
that between space and its material content” (Capek 1961: 212). The physicist, then,
observes not particles in time and space but spatio-temporal events in an ongoing
transformational process. This is a radical departure from the notion of a discon­
tinuous series of instantaneous states. Whereas it was once assumed that an indi­
vidual particle could be observed in terms of its position during successive in­
stants, now we realize that the same event can never be observed twice
(Schrodinger 1945: 175). Cognizant of this new image, Capek proposes (1961:
328-29) a change in scientific terminology from “displacement” in space to
< i
change” through time-space and from “particles” to “events”. Therefore, the
impossibility, in light of relativity physics, of an instantaneous configuration
of independent, homogeneous, and empty time and space, of a universe of
 STRUCTURALISM AND BEYOND: A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS 135

mechanistic determinism which, if logically extended, produces the image of a

state of permanency, has been slowly eliminated. The static universe of classical
physics has been superseded by an “open world” (Weyl 1932). This reassertion
of a dynamic world of becoming supports the “philosophers of process” (James,
Bergson, Whitehead, and more recently, Whyte), and in a different vein, the pro­
ponents of “general systems theory” (von Bertalanffy, Laszlo, et al.).
In this view of things, the mind is a creator, not a passive observer, a “great
thought” rather than a “great machine” (Jeans 1958: 181). Mental creativity
does not act on a static machinelike universe; it unfolds itself in conjunction with
the universe to reveal higher, more complex cognitive constructs which are con­
comitant with what Whitehead terms the “creative advance of nature”. Hence,
the general epistemological transition I am proposing here is from configuration
to process, static state to “potentia”, surface relations to underlying reality, and
certainty to indeterminism. The first term of each of these binaries terminates
inevitably in a state of chaos (the entropy principle); the second implies evolution
toward higher, more complex levels of organization. For the first the unreal is
always an impossible world and vice versa, while for the second, potentia is, though
for the moment unreal, not ultimately impossible. Norbert Wiener (1967: 19)
remarks that indeterminancy, the idea of the possible, is a sort of parallel to Freud’s
irrationalism. In reality, indeterminacy is irrational only in a universe conceived
of in static Newtonian terms founded upon the fundamental algorithm of deter­
minism (Capek 1961: 337). Saussure himself alludes vaguely (i. 1906-1911: 133)
to a distinction between a destructive sort of “entropy principle” and an “order­
ing principle” which limits absolute arbitrariness:
The whole system of language is based on the irrational principle of the
arbitrariness of the sign, which would lead to the worst sort of complica­
tion if applied without restriction. But the mind contrives to introduce a
principle of order and regulation into certain parts of the mass of signs,
and this is the role of relative motivation. If the mechanism of language
were entirely rational, it could be studied independently. Since the
mechanism of language is but a partial correction of the system that is by
nature chaotic, however, we adopt the viewpoint imposed by the very
nature of language and study it as it limits arbitrariness.
Saussure pits the “unconscious” (irrational and arbitrary) against the “conscious”
(ordering and motivated) aspects of language. One is more lexical (phonological)
in nature while the other is more grammatical (syntactic). Saussure’s formula­
tion is understandably couched in mechanistic nineteenth century terminology
much as is Freud’s language. Nevertheless, the seeds of a philosophy of purpose,
or “motivation” in Saussure’s words, is present. If structuralism and the nine­
teenth century Newtonian world are generally devoid of the notion of purpose,
the twentieth century scientific paradigm revives this aspect of Aristotelian physics.
Purpose presupposes a universe where novelty rather than invariance is the rule.
There is nothing mysterious in the affirmation that the universe is somehow in­
complete. It is certainly less preposterous than to consider time a mere figment
of the imagination as do some structuralists. The notion of novelty, unlike what
Piaget designates (1968: 3-16) as “structureless genesis”, does not indicate a
chaotic, incoherent universe, nor does it, as the nineteenth century argument goes,
136 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

imply any sort of creation ex nihilo. On the contrary, novelty presupposes causal in­
fluence of the past due to principles of equifinality and multifinality (i.e., the same
result from different beginnings or different results from the same beginnings).
But there can be no casual factors between present and future. The future is poten­
tial, a probable state of affairs from among a quasi-infinite number of possibilities.
The structuralist might reject the concepts of potentiality and possibility as
absurd since, according to his heuristic model, the instantaneous state of a given
structure intrinsically possesses the character of all future constructions. Struc­
tures exist at present in the form of a sort of disguised reality which remains hid­
den from our present knowledge, but which can be discovered by the use of proper
models. Futurity is merely a label given to that part of the present state of things
which is unavailable to our immediate perception. Hence the temporal relation­
ship between present and future is meaningless since future is not novelty but
exists in the present and effectively loses its futurity on becoming actual.
In contrast to this orthodox structuralist view, according to the notion of pro­
cess, the present can only point toward a number of potential future states. Present-
ness contains within it the past, but, as Whitehead tells us, only “anticipation
of the future. This is to say that it would not have been “scientifically” possible
for Goethe to predict a Joycean novel, for Marx to predict modern day neo-
capitalism”, or for Laplace to predict Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy,
although in each case causal links leading up to the world views and works of
these three outstanding individuals might be established. Presentness stands on
the shoulders of pastness but is not bound by futurity.
To go beyond the limits of structuralism, therefore, we must consider “poten-
tia in terms of “space-time system”, in terms of structure not as a static entity (in
space) but as an entity defined by its combinatorial properties in so far as they are
being transformed in (and through) time. The search focusses on structuring pro-
cess . Whether or not a system is relatively static over a given period is not the only,
nor is it the chief concern. Analysis does not seek to disclose solely what a parti­
cular “configuration” is but, in addition, how it got that way and why it exists
as it does in its particular context. This does not imply that there is no room for
universals, for to state that all systems change is itself a universal. The objective
must be conscientiously to avoid a static classificatory schema of universals, and
to attempt in the future a formulation of universals of becoming rather than univer­
sals of being.

I believe that if structuralism is to survive the test of time, it must itself be an on-
going process, an evolution from the study of those intransigent antinomies of
human culture to an interpretation of the dynamic aspects of culture. This evolu­
tion demands the replacement of the notion of constraint by human choice and
selectivity, of the monolithic institutionalized system which uses and stultifies by in­
novation and human creativity, of closure by a system which opens out through the
use of a language continually referring to that which lies beyond itself. Ricoeur
(1968: 126) calls for a reappraisal of the word, the mediator between system and
event:

The sentence ... is an event: as such, its actuality is transitory, passing,

vanishing. But the word survives the sentence. As a displaceable entity,
 STRUCTURALISM AND BEYOND: A CRITIQUE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS 137

it survives the transitory instance of discourse and holds itself available for
new uses. Thus, heavy with a new use-value—as minute as this may be—it
returns to the system. And in returning to the system, it gives it a history.

Semiology involves analysis of the schema disclosing a system’s combinatorial prop­

erties. It assumes a clear-cut dichotomy between langue and parole. Focussing on
the taxonomic possibilities of langue, it denies parole the status of scientific corpus
due to its transitory, incoherent qualities. Semantics, in contrast, is identified with
usage: that which rests between and mediates langue and parole. Semantics focusses
on the word, which, transitory by its very nature and emerging for use in ever-
evolving contexts, projects synchrony into the diachronic axis. In an open system
change cannot be described simply as a permutation of the elements in a system.
Change implies a contextual transformation where the complex, more subtle rela­
tions between the elements in that system are radically altered. The system must
be in dynamic equilibrium with respect to adjacent systems in the total hierarchy,
which are themselves incessantly moving forward toward the undefined potentia.
Hence, the structuralist technique must involve more than a gathering of observed
structures to place them in a definite order, the nature of which is often decided
upon a priori. It must ask how one structure comes forth from another, and seek
an understanding of thought’s processes in bringing about these transitions.
Consider the notion that structures emerge by means of cognitive rather than
strictly defined linguistic processes. It has been generally concluded in the sciences
that Einsteinian space-time is the product of “thought” and exists in basic con­
flict with sense-perception, or “common sense” knowledge. Thought, contrary
to these structuralists who declare dogmatically that language “speaks itself’
through man, is not a slave to language. The unfolding of thought is not uncom­
promisingly determined by language, nor is there a rigid correspondence between
thought processes and discourse; their relation is organic. Thought without lan­
guage lacks the framework by means of which knowledge’s edifice is constructed.
At the same time, language without thought is no more than a defunct repertoire
of empty signs.26
Furthermore, language, as distinct from the contemporary positivist tradition,
is not a direct reflection of, nor is it, nor should it necessarily be, a faithful reference
to objective reality. The underlying, non-empirical reality postulated by modern
physics is expressible solely by means of mathematical conventions, natural
language being incapable of explicating these complex mental constructs (Edding­
ton 1958: 85). This underlying reality is not the equivalent of the structuralist’s
so-called “deep structure”, where the detached observer objectively, empirical­
ly, and consciously organizes, by the use of his model, the elements of a system
which are to represent the product of unconscious human activity. Although the
structuralist is correct in his assumption that true reality is never the most ob­
vious of realities, he errs when positing that mental reality is nondevelopmental,
or a closed system. Both thought and experience are ongoing dynamic processes.
The problem is that when these processes are described in natural language they
appear to be reduced to bits and pieces, binaries and static combinatory systems
(the “Eleatic urge” again). In the long run, this linguistic system, or any other
semiotic system, reveals a subject and object, matter and mind, motion and rest,
reality demanding Parmenidean stasis. On another level, however, with its in-
138 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

cessantly evolving connotations, this same natural language reveals word mean­
ings, indices, and referents: a world of becoming where analytical preciseness gives
way to synthesis although at the expense of inevitably introducing vagueness and
ambiguity.
At the outset it appears that vagueness and ambiguity are the inextricable result
of natural language’s incapacity to depict faithfully the world as modern man con­
ceives it, be he scientist, artist, or philosopher. Whereas natural language, it was
assumed, could quite effectively and precisely describe Newtonian principles, when
confronted with such products of the human mind as Bohr’s “complementarity’ ,
Heisenberg’s “indeterminacy”, Pauli’s “exclusion principle”, all of which can
be concisely described in mathematical terms, the inadequacies of traditional
Western languages becomes more apparent.27 However, vague and ambiguous
language has nothing to do with human error or inadequacy; it is something at
the very heart of physical reality as reflected in recent theories of microphysics.
Vagueness, ambiguity, and even paradox, move hand in hand with the principles
of indeterminacy and complementarity. There is thus a degree of truth to Witt­
genstein’s principle of ineffability in all languages. It is possible that in recent
decades thought has drastically forged ahead of language, which is, Saussure tells
us, the most conservative of social institutions. Obviously it is beyond our capacity
to “purify” language; that was the abortive task of the logical positivists. We
must learn to live with ambiguity and vagueness, aware that Cartesian “clear
and distinct ideas are impossible, at least given the present state of knowledge.
Ultimately the task will involve an arduous swim upstream, against the Eleatic
tradition, to abolish taxonomies, charts, and combinatory schemes, in favor of
emergent forms and structuring processes.
I do not wish to suggest in this paper that we submit the social sciences and
the humanities to methods created sui generis for the physical sciences. I do believe
that to tap more effectively the resources hidden at the underlying reality, the
structuralist method must undergo a “dynamization”, shaking off those epistemo­
logical conventions of the past and abolishing the priority of structured events.
This involves simultaneously a re-emphasis on man as agent of his creations, rather
than the victim of demonic structures which take on a life of their own and reveal
themselves through man. The alternative in a vast, incomprehensible and appar­
ently chaotic world is for the analyst to isolate himself, in the presumed autonomy
of those structures he intends to explicate, from which position he can do no more
than peer out either into the disorderly world of materialness or into the void of
nothingness, nostalgic for that long lost universe of total harmony.
 IV

Reshaping Traditional Spheres:

Some Regional Applications
 13

EUGEN BAER

The Medical Symptom

Denn darin gerade besteht das Leben, dass es nicht begnffen
werden kann. (For life consists precisely in this, that it
cannot be grasped in concepts.)
—Novalis 1798 222—

Difficultes insurmontables que presentent les nombres premiers

(The insurmountable difficulty that prime numbers present )
— Valery 1894: I, 1172 (in the margin}—

Et les dieux ont rtQCU de I’espril humain le don de crier, parce que
cet esprit elant periodique et abstrait, peut agrandir ce qu il
con fcoil jusqu’a ce qu'il ne le convolve plus. (And the gods haze
received the gift of creation from the human mind, because
this mind, being limited in its span of attention arji
abstract, can magnify what it conceives to a point beycn£
its comprehension )
— Valery 1894: 1, 1182 lines 611—

This essay sketches first a phenomenological approach to Peirce’s logic of

events and then applies this logic to the phylogeny and ontogeny of the medical
symptom. It appears from this application that the symptom figures in four
universes of experience, only one of which is rational. The semiotic approach,
as proposed here, can restore to the conception of symptoms its transrational,
prerational, and irrational dimensions and put the various strands of its rational
treatment (biomedical, sociological, psychological) on the common denominator
of the sign.
Moreover, since the logic of events used here is at the same time the logic
of evolution, the symptom can be shown to sit like a Russian doll within the isomor­
phic larger structure of life itself. This would restore to the medical vision, on
semiotic grounds, its traditional relation of microcosm to macrocosm.

Semiotic Symptomatology
Novalis saw in disease an invitation for individuation. Illness, for him, had the
purpose of initiating its bearer into the mysteries of the universe. The symptom
was a hieroglyph, a mark of the sacred, a sign in which nature and spirit came
together to celebrate an orphic wake. The symptom was the phenomenology of
the spirit, the supreme metaphor, the self in action.
This is admittedly an allusion to a romantic symptomatology but one which
probably was the original one. Sebeok’s often repeated claim that symptomatology
is the oldest branch on the semiotic tree, the oldest leg of the semiotic “tripod”
(Sebeok 1976), consisting of medicine, philosophy, and linguistics, has to be taken
beyond Hippocrates back to an era of mythical consciousness in which the symp­
tom inscribed itself in narrative systems of ontological equivalences and propor-
140
 THE MEDICAL SYMPTOM 141

tions which crossed the now separated realms of biology, sociology, and psychol-
°gy. The symptom “stood” for the whole order of world experience, it evoked the
sum total of human relations, it individuated the universe and its religious depth in
one concrete existential sign of the body: it was, in short, the concrete universal.
Today may be the time to restore to symptomatology its pluridimensional
plenitude. To be true, this plenitude always coexisted as an undercurrent with
official medical theory. One has only to think of the alchemists and Romantics
to be reminded of the necessary complementarity of reduction and amplification,
typical of the history of ideas. But it was not until Freud and his followers that
the mythical archaic past (re)turned from diachrony to synchrony, from forgot­
ten or repressed time to coexisting time, and restored to the symptom the semiotic
fullness of the rebus (Baer 1983: see gloss in References).
What remains to be done is to articulate this fullness by means of a general
theory of signs. This is all the more urgent as one of the protagonists of such a
theory, Charles S. Peirce, had one of the most reductive notions of the symptom,
one in which it is merely an indexical reaction to a stimulus, “without an utterer”.
The person who has or, rather, is the symptom is totally excluded from this con­
ception. This leads straight to a “disease-oriented” instead of a “person-oriented”
medical theory. A full or fuller theory, however, should assemble multiple orien­
tations or universes of discourse in one enveloping universe of discourse. This is
briefly attempted in this essay.

The Three Universes of Experience

While Peirce has a too narrow view of the symptom, his general theory of signs
is most useful to adumbrate a full symptomatology. His ideas about three ab­
solute universes of experience, firstness, secondness, and thirdness, disclose aspects
of the symptom which integrate its diachronic and synchronic Sphinxian nature
both on a phylogenetic and ontogenetic level. Since each of the three universes
is an absolute, the experience or type of experience which is characteristic for each
is absolute, too. We arrive thus at a conception of the symptom which
paradoxically—unites that which by definition cannot be united. This impossible
unity is the sign which can be explained only post factum or post hoc, that is, only
once an instance of firstness and an instance of secondness have happened. Third­
ness, the only one of the three universes which is in any way rational, is a late­
comer, an epi-genetic product. As such it is essentially anamnestic, that is, it
remembers its nonintelligible precursive instances and is able to give form to those
instances or, let us say, a semblance of form, since the “point” of such a form
is its dissolution. An example: One can rationalize quality, one can talk about
good and evil or attempt to explain it, but the experience of it eludes all forms given
by the universe of “meaning” and is, in this sense, “formless”. The experience
of quality belongs to the universe of firstness. It is a monadic, absolutely self-
referential relation and logically precedes all rationality as its nonrational foun­
dation.

The Paradigm of Time

The three universes of experience which I shall use, in modified form, to sketch
the outline of a holistic medical symptomatology, are best presented or introduced
phenomenologically. The mathematician Brouwer (1913), taking a Kantian route,
142 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

does precisely that. His prose developing the three universal categories as a
phenomenology of time-experience could not be clearer and more concise (Brouwer
1927: 1235):
Consciousness in its deepest home seems to oscillate slowly, will-lessly, and
reversibly between stillness and sensation. And it seems that only the status
of sensation allows the initial phenomenon of the said transition. This initial
phenomenon is a move of time. By a move of time a present sensation gives
way to another present sensation in such a way that consciousness retains
the former one as a past sensation, and moreover, through this distinction
between present and past, recedes from both and from stillness, and
becomes mind.
In this passage, the first category seems to be that of stillness. This logical moment
of silence is an aural figuration of ontological absolute nothingness. Peirce, too
(1898: 6.217), speaks of this nothingness as “the nothing of not having been born”
and distinguishes this “state” from firstness. I shall therefore accept, instead of
three, four universes of experience, modifying Peirce slightly, but, I think, along
some traces of his thought, as the following passage suggests (Peirce c. 1910: 6.490):
whether in time or not, the three universes must actually be absolutely
necessary results of a state of utter nothingness.
Brouwer’s stillness, in the above quoted passage (from 1927), is, as I mentioned,
the figuration (in Greimas’s sense of temporalization) of this Peircean “state of
utter nothingness”, a state of things in which the three universes were com-
pletely ml” (Peirce c.1910: 6.490). This “zero of bare possibility” (Peirce 1898:
6.220) is annulled through the absolute miracle disclosed in sensation, that, rather
than absolutely nothing, there may be some thing. Sensation spreads as a mere first
and fills consciousness, making it move from stillness to fullness: a move of time.
But fullness as presence is annulled again, this time as giving way to another
presence, another first which, in respect to the withdrawing former moment, is
a second. We sense in this display, absolutely necessary as it is, the original play
of nothingness at work. Past and present, otherness and self, are two and move
as sheer togetherness in the permanence of the universe of secondness. In it, they
are irreconcilable absolutes, in eternal strife, irrational abyss, irremediable frac­
tion of being, brutal destruction, entropic dissolution. Now Brouwer introduces
mind as that which from its aboriginal recess from both past and present can hold
both together in a continuity (con-tenere: holding together) which is neither and,
strictly speaking, not anything. It is Entsprechung, correspondence organization,
a code. The play of time is thus enough to show us the universal logic of events.
A symptom is an event. We can insert it or see it in this logic. It is the logic of
the four absolutes of meaning.

The Four Absolutes of Meaning

The logic of meaning is conceptually generated. It belongs to the universe of third-
ness, of symbolism, of language, but precisely as such it discloses that which make
it work: (1) a dimension of play which Wittgenstein called “Spiel”, (2) a dimen­
sion of monadic origin in which all iconicity is founded, and (3) a dimension of
“blind” otherness which does not let it come to rest. Meaning, including the mean-
 THE MEDICAL SYMPTOM 143

ing of symptoms, is linguistically generated, but it involves and presupposes three

other, nonrational universes of experience. Language, in this case, serves, as Peirce
points out (c.1896: 1.493), as “scaffolding”:
To get at the idea of a monad, and especially to make it an accurate and
clear conception, it is necessary to begin with the idea of a triad and find
the monad-idea involved in it. But this is only a scaffolding necessary dur­
ing the process of constructing the conception. When the conception has
been constructed, the scaffolding may be removed, and the monad-idea
will be there in all its abstract perfection.
In this sense of “scaffolding”, I would like to offer first a brief exposition, suitably
adapted to my own needs, of Peirce’s universal categories of human experience.
Then I am going to apply these categories to the symptom, mindful of my earlier
remark that the symptom is a privileged place and mode of human experience.
Finally, I shall portray the symptom as a micro-theater of a macrocosmic “logic”.
The medical symptom is any sign which conveys to a perceiver that something
is fine or wrong with the sender’s existence. “Existence”, in turn, is defined as
a way of “being-in-the-world” (Heidegger), a way of having a world as an in­
dividual reality (Thure von Uexkull’s individuelle Wirklichkeit [1979]). Because of
its crisis-provoking character—I am using “crisis” here in the sense of Thom’s
“catastrophe” (1972)—the symptom is a privileged mode of human experience.
Elements of experience may be conveniently grouped into four structural
moments which are irreducible to one another and in this sense are four absolutes.
First is the category of unbounded freedom. Peirce himself refused to call this
element a category and therefore recognizes explicitly only the three which are
to follow this one. However, he clearly acknowledged, as we have just seen, the
logical need to distinguish, at the very beginning of everything, a state of “abso­
lute nothingness”. He explains (1898: 6.217):
We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing of nega­
tion. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym of the ordinal
numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the present pure zero is
prior to every first. The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which
comes second to, or after, everything. But this pure zero is the nothing of
not having been born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, out­
ward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole
universe is involved and foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined
and unlimited possibility—boundless possibility. There is no compulsion
and no law. It is boundless freedom.
This category, then, designates a mode of “utter nothingness” (Peirce c.1910:
6.490), pure idling, pure play, without there being anything or anyone that plays.
It is absolute nothingness, “not the nothing of negation”, just pure nothing at all.
Second is the category of origin, Peirce’s firstness. He claims that pure idling,
if it is any good, spontaneously produces something, a quale, pure quality,
something similiar to Thom’s “attractor” (1972). He bases his claim on the
phenomenology of play, for example, doodling, in which random processes usually
result eventually in some compulsive morphology, some Rorschach-like configura­
tion. In this universe of experience, compulsive forms are experienced as absolutely

i
 144 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

original, irreducible to anything else but itself. They are self-constituted and self-
referring monads, pure qualia, genuine icons.
Third is the category of otherness, Peirce’s secondness, something similiar
to Heidegger’s Riss (1957) or Derrida’s trace (1972). In this category, everything
is opposed, in conflict, clashing, irrupting. It is the moment of ek-sistence, of stand­
ing out through contrast like figure from ground, a unity constituted by sheer
difference. This experience of everything bordering on or being part of something
else constitutes indexicality.
Fourth is the category of meaning or of the sign. It is Peirce’s thirdness, a
triadic relation, in which incompatible or heterogeneous elements are brought
into a relation of mutual containment. Circularity, reversibility, and chiasmus
of the differentiated units are the main properties of this category. It is this fourth
category, as universe of the symbol, which releases the preceding three. In this
sense, the last category is the first and characteristically reverts the order of genesis
adduced here. In other words—and this is typical of the symbol—it envelops that
by which it is itself enveloped; it encloses that by which it is enclosed.

The Four Universes of the Medical Symptom

If we now apply Peirce’s four universal categories of human experience to the
symptom as privileged clearing (Lichtung) of the world, we can identify in it, as
a matter of convention and convenience, four major universes—a Plotinian might
be tempted to speak of four major hypostases—namely, the boundless Open, abso­
lute origin, brute force, and law-likeness. These correspond, respectively, to the
four absolute dimensions of the sign: absolute nothingness, the icon, the index,
and the symbol.
The first category is perhaps the most difficult one to grasp. In it, the symptom
is considered before its genesis, and this is an absolute sense, that is, without mean­
ing, without causal connections, without content—no purpose, no cause, no
quality—as an absolute nothing. It is a view of the symptom before it is bom
and without any frame or opposition to “place” it. In this universe, we experience
the symptom as “the nothing that is” (Wallace Stevens), as pure nonrelatedness.
Difficult as it may be to consider a dimension of the symptom before it arises,
there is another way of formulating it, and this is to say that the symptom, consid­
ered radically under the aspect of its raison d’etre, its ultimate anchor in ontology,
its basic support in some kind of foundation, has no basis at all. Philosophers who
are mutually differing in other respects such as Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, and
Heidegger, agree with Peirce on this issue, that the foundation of all meaningful­
ness, all cause-effect relations, all forms of representation, is ultimately groundless
(grundlos). Shocking as this thought may appear to some people at first, it can
be quite liberating for many. It frees one not only from trying to find some ultimate
meaning in symptoms of health and illness, but also from the search for an ultimate
cause. It puts all symptom-formation into a frame of gratuitousness, of freedom,
of play, of chance, much like biological morphogenesis and thought-formation
which in Peirce’s logic are seen as epigenetic phenomena (more about this below).
From a universe of absolute nothingness, we enter, by a switch of thought,
the universe of Firstness, of compulsive origins, an entry so startling and over­
whelming in its mystery that it can best be represented by the Leibnizian ques­
tion of which Heidegger was so fond:
 THE MEDICAL SYMPTOM 145

“Why is there something and not rather nothing?’*

Peirce answers this question by begging it:
“Where form is absent, there form can arise.”
Phenomenologically, however, compulsive origins resulting from “differentiation”
(Ehrenzweig 1967) can be experienced in experiments of thought or action: Where
idling and play is perfect, it results in some spontaneous form which is accoun­
table only to itself. Applied to the symptom, this means that in this universe of
experience, the symptom is a first behind which one cannot ask, because it is never
really present as an object. It is, in this mode of consciousness, an all-pervasive mood
which is not graspable. Rather, we find ourselves in such moods. They are symp­
tomatic in the sense that they color, “tone”, qualify or modify the world we live
in. In this dimension, symptoms are most deeply “ours” in the sense of an abso­
lutely individual reality:

Nobody can feel my pain.”

Or,

“Nobody can share my insight.”

The symptom, at this level, is identical with prerational selfhood. It releases
prereflexive feeling-tones (Merleau-Ponty), for example, a sense of total fragil­
ity, of vulnerability, despair. Or a sense of excessive power, of titillating pleasure,
of deep ecstasy, peace. It refers only to itself as a self and is thus consubstantial,
of one substance, with the world it discloses. In this universe, I am the feeling,
I do not have it (Gabriel Marcel). The symptom here is an Urgefuhl, an absolute
primary feeling, prerational, prereflexive, preobjective, prerepresentational.
Symptoms as instances of firstness are monadic relations, states of nonduality.
Peirce puts it this way (1904b: 24):

Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and
without reference to anything else.
Instances of Zen-like illuminations, of feelings of an all-encompassing well-being,
of an all-pervading pain, of flashes of insight, are examples of symptoms as firsts
or, as Heidegger calls them, as Stimmungen, primary moods which imply a certain
being attuned to the disclosed world (gestimmtsein) at a point at which it cannot
become an object. Symptoms as firsts are prerational states, difficult to express
symbolically but nevertheless that which all symbols are ultimately about.
Secondness is the dimension in which the symptom appears as irrational brute
force, an outside or inside aggressor, an irresistible impulse or inexorable blind
fate. Experiences of terminal illness or of obsessive ideas (Zwangsideen) are examples
of this irrational dimension of the symptom. Here the relation is dyadic, a clash,
brute conflict, struggle, resistance, a collision of ego and non-ego, sheer nega­
tion, without any sense, without meaning, without a third. Peirce puts it thus
(1904b: 24):

Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect
to a second but regardless of any third.
146 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

This third absolute universe of the symptom is perhaps the most real one for most
people in the sense of being the most brutal. It is, after all, the category of sheer
otherness, of the symptom as totally and unspeakably other. Its limit case is the
event of death as an occurence of an absolutely irrational physical break, com­
pletely overriding all our attempts at rationalizing it or coming to grips with it,
and ridiculing all our attempts at explaining it.
And finally, there is the fourth dimension of the symptom: the symptom as
symbol. All contemporary attempts at broadening and pluralizing the notion of
symptom can be assigned to this dimension. I shall distinguish in this symbolic
universe of experience three subdimensions. They address psychological, bio­
medical, and sociological aspects of the symptom.
The first symbolic dimension of the symptom is psychological. It is the dimen-
sion of the individual self, the person. After all, it is this person who is feeling
fine or who is suffering and who is undergoing, in a heightened or symptomatic ,
way, the drama of life and death. Individual life-events such as the loss of a loved jj
person or falling in love play a crucial role in the way we produce and experience 3
symptoms. Moreover, all persons perceive their symptoms through individual
frames of meaning, although these frames, from another point of view, can be
perceived as social constructs (provening from popular medicine, religion, art.
literature, philosophy, the mass media).
The second symbolic dimension of the symptom is the natural-biological one.
This is without a doubt the one in which our culture invests the most interests
and which it considers the most “real”. Indeed, for many physicians and patients,
this is the only dimension of the symptom that “really counts”—the rest is talk,
talk, and more talk. In this dimension, disease is construed as consisting of physical
and molecular processes studied by the methods of the natural sciences. Taken
m isolation, this model, in spite of its spectacular successes of treatment during
the last hundred years or so (the treatments for diphtheria [Wood 1961] and tuber­
culosis [Sontag 1978] being prime examples), is deficient, mainly because, as Klein-
man notes (1980:18), it does not “account for the meaning context of sickness”
and, in addition, is not “self-reflexive”, not aware of the basic cultural assump­
tions from which it proceeds (Kleinman 1980: 18).
The question of cultural assumption brings us to the third symbolic dimen­
sion: the cultural-social context, in which disease is given meaning. Arthur Klein­
man points out (1980: 24), that “in the same sense in which we speak of religion
or language or kinships as cultural systems, we can view medicine as a cultural
system, a system of symbolic meanings, anchored in particular arrangements of
social institutions and patterns of interpersonal relations” (Kleinman 1980: 24).
Accordingly, and in versing the whole order of symptomatic genesis described so
far, we can perceive the medical symptom first of all as a cultural product in the
sense in which a language, a given form of life, a consciousness, are said to be
constitutive of what can become meaningful by means of them. Heidegger (1927:
363) puts it this way:

The articulation of the understanding of Being, the delimitation of an area

of subject-matter (a delimitation guided by this understanding), and the
sketching-out of the way of conceiving which is appropriate to such
entities—all these belong to the totality of this projecting; and this totality
 THE MEDICAL SYMPTOM 147

is what we call “thematizing”. Its aim is to free the entities we encounter

within-the-world, and to free them in such a way that they can “throw
themselves against” (ob-icere: entgegenwerfen) a pure discovering—that is,
that they can become “objects”. Thematizing objectifies.
Kleinman further calls attention to the “tremendous power of social reality” which
fashions a world we accept as the only “real” one, to which we commit ourselves,
often passionately, and react to so as to shape our own “life-trajectories” (Klein­
man 1980: 36). The cultural institutions, by naming and ratifying certain diseases
and not others, allow them to “exist” in a socially recognized space. Such “filters
of disease”, as we might call the consciousness and medical practice moulded by
a given culture, are much more diversified than we customarily are ready to con­
cede. (See Staiano 1979 for an excellent discussion of the ethnosemiotic dimen­
sion of the symptom.) Maybe the future will show whether semioticians, most
likely of the Greimas school, will be attracted to the task of giving us detailed
analyses of various types of symptomatic discourse.

The Meaning-Cycle of the Symptom

For now we can at least summarize the Peircean categories in Greimassian form.
The symptom then appears as a transformational microsystem of prefixes to the
word “rational”. The system can be presented as a meaning-cycle in the form
of the semiotic square (Figure 1):
rational (3) (1) prcrational

transrational (0) (2) irrational

Figure 1. The meaning-cycle of the symptom.
Starting from the universe of thirdness (3), in which the symptom is treated
rationally (e.g., biomedically, psychologically, sociologically), we jump through
the logic of negation into its brute irrationality (2). This is the universe of blind
fate, ananke, brute necessity, and coercion. Every attempt at explanation or ra­
tionalization fails. But this impossibility of explanation clears the way toward a
form of consciousness which precedes duality (1) and in which the symptom is
experienced as an absolute origin of consciousness. At the heart of that con­
sciousness we find, like the emptiness in the seed of the huge nyagrodha tree of
the Chandogya Upanishad, an absolute nothingness (0) as the free-play of any
origin. At this point we can reenter the universe of rational meanings (3). The
cycle is complete and without beginning and end. The syntagmatic itinerary (3,
2, 1, 0, 3 ... .) discloses the paradigma of a timeless logic. This means, among
other things, that the reentry into the rationality of the symptom is accompanied
by an absolute freedom which releases and enhances the power of scientific ex­
planation and treatment.

The Symptom as Life-Cycle

It would now be tempting to compare Peirce’s categorial fourfold with that of
Heidegger. This will be done in a later study (Baer 1983). We can, however , ex-
148 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

pand the present categorial model by showing how, in this view, the symptom
sits like a Russian doll in an encompassing icon oflife itself. In other words, we
can show how the ontogeny of the meaning-cycle of the symptom recapitulates
the phylogeny oflife itself. This might be a semiotic way of restoring to medical
theory the traditional relation of microcosm to macrocosm. The basis of this rela­
tion would be the sign. To be precise: the thought-sign. I have shown elsewhere
(Baer 1985) how thought-signs are the criterial attribute of life and would like
to reformulate here the symptom as a thought-sign or life-cycle. To do this, we
can represent the meaning-cycle of Figure 1 as a cycle of openness, iconicity, in-
dexicality, and symbolicity (Figure 2):
symbol (3) (1) icon

open (0) (2)index

Figure 2. The symptom as life cycle.
In this version of the four categories, we can read the symptom as a circle,
as a tropos of a topos: out of what Rilke called the Open (Eighth Elegy) arises
a topos (icon), say, a sharp backache, which incurs the twist of conflict (index),
for example in the form of paralyzing our habitual way of going about things. .
The icon creates its correlative index: to the ache corresponds a new world to
which I have to adapt. The effort of adaptation invokes a holding together of icon
and index, a form of plan, in which the adaptation is worked out. This is done
by the symbol which transforms the mere reaction of the index into thoughtful
action.
With this reformulation of the symptom as thought-sign we are now in a posi­
tion to establish its phylogenetic dimension with the help of Peirce’s evolutionary
logic. To better appreciate this logic, I am going to frame it on one end of the
temporal scale with the logic of Pythagoras, on the other with that of modern
physics.

The Logic of Tautology

The number-logic of Pythagoras starts with a primary unity, much like the logic
of Peirce. And much like Peirce, Pythagoras apparently Finds it difficult to main­
tain the primary unity as the number one. Rather, the primary unity is that which
allows the play of numbers, their harmony, their ratios, hence something like zero,
something like the empty slot “between” numbers which releases the numbers
one and two, odd and even, into their complementary contrast. The contrast is
one of topos and anti-topos, of “limited” (odd) and “unlimited” (even). The
unity lies in a nonsubstantial ratio, a law of correspondence, of complementar­
ity, in short: a code.
It is easy to recognize in this logic not only the constitutive moments of an
open (living) system as described in modern systems theory consisting of a
homeostasis of closed (limited) and open (unlimited) states, but also an ingenious
theory of harmony (or unity) based not on substances but on signs, not on things
but on codes. Physics, at that early time, was already semiotics.
 THE MEDICAL SYMPTOM 149

Linguistically, the “logic” of this harmony can be stated as being expressed

by a tautology. Parmenides, in this sense, is entirely Pythagorean. His thought
is tautologous. Consider, as a typical example, from fragment 8: “The same (lauton)
is thinking (noein) and that about which (houneken, also: ‘for whose sake’ or ‘because
of which’) there is thought.” The unity of observer and observed (the problem
of reference) is here presented in the form of participation: observer and observed
participate in one another on the grounds (Peirce’s icon) of sameness. The same-
ness becomes substantial only and precisely in the differentiation. Another way
of putting this is to say that observer and observed produce one another and by
doing so they make mind (code) come to light. Mind becomes a phenomenon in
the participatory coupling of observer and observed.
Again, this production of sameness through differentiation can be aptly illus­
trated by tautologous predication. The differentiation which is necessary for
predication executes the return of thought from differentiation to identity.
Predication, in other words, “participates” both on the side of the subject as well
as on that of the predicate in a purely relational (self-referential) unity.
Modern physics gets ready to catch a glimpse of this logic. At this point, though,
it is “as yet not an idea, but an idea for an idea” (Misner et al. 1973: 1212),
namely, that nature is a manifestation of a certain type of logic which was intuited
by Aristotle and Hegel: a logic that can think about itself, a self-referential logic,
a tauto-logic.
This is pregeometric logic, a logic which accounts for geometrical topologies
by way of participation, and the question some physicists ask today is consequently
the following (Misner et al. 1973: 1217):
May the universe in some strange sense be “brought into being” by the
participation of those who participate?
Although this question comes to physics in a belated way, it is never too late,
because it addresses not linear time, but circular time, not the syntagma of the
logic but its paradigma. This circular time is released by the sign (Sein). Heideg­
ger’s Sein und Zeit (1927) can show us just in what sense not only time, but all
objectivity is circular by working on the basic insight of Fichte and Novalis, to
wit, that “I” and “not-I” designate two participatory states of the same “system”.
Being (Sein) is “here” (da) only in the form of corresponding voices. Self and world,
in this view, are mutual self-realizations governed by a single code. In other words:
self and not-self together—and only together—are one sign, a thought-sign.

The Logic of Evolution

This brings us back to Peirce. The triadic structure of his evolutionary logic should
be understood as a cycle which combines the paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects
of thought-signs. The cycle can be represented with the help of a Greimassian
square (Figure 3, page following).
Life, according to this logic, arises from absolute nothingness by a kind of
“jump” into a topos, an idea, an icon, a monadic form, which, for the human
observer, takes on the form of a geometrical object. Rene Thom writes (1972:
151-152) that “we might look upon all living phenomena as manifestations of
a geometric object, the life field (champ vital), similar to the gravitational or elec­
tromagnetic Field; living beings would then be particles or structurally stable
150 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Code (symbol) (3) j (1) Self (icon)

freedom contrast

I Nothing (open) (0) (2) Not-Codc

Index
Not-Sclf
Figure 3. The logic of evolution.

singularities in this field, and the phenomena of symbiosis, of predation, of

parasitism, of sexuality, and so forth would be the interactions and couplings be­
tween these particles”.
This view is very close to that of Whitehead, in whose cosmology eternal ob­
jects ingress concrete actual occasions. An eternal object consists of a monadic rela­
tion, much like Peirce’s icon. Compare the two definitions—Whitehead in the
Lowell Lectures of 1925 (published in Whitehead 1948: 159):
Each eternal object is an individual which, in its own peculiar fashion,
is what it is. This particular individuality is the individual essence of the
object, and cannot be described otherwise than as being itself.
And Peirce in his lectures on pragmatism (1903a: 5.74):
... a pure icon does not draw any distinctions between itself and its ob­
ject. It represents whatever it may represent, and whatever it is like, it
in so far is. It is an affair of suchness only.
Peirce is willing to call this self-referential suchness a Platonic form which, at some
itage of evolution—and here the language is practically identical with that of
Whitehead—“enters” some theatre of reactions, such as the world we know
(1898a: 6.195). But unlike Whitehead, for whom the icon was eternal, Peirce en­
visioned the icon itself as being subject to an evolutionary process. He writes in
a Cambridge lecture (1898a: 6.194):
The evolutionary process is, therefore, not a mere evolution of the existing
universe, but rather a process by which the very Platonic forms themselves
have become or are becoming developed.
Peirce then goes on to have the icon originate out of absolute nothingness, a state
of boundless freedom, of utter arbitrary idling. It is this aspect of his “logic of
the universe” which I would like to foreground here and to align it with contem­
porary views of biological morphogenesis. Form, for Peirce, originates out of an
arbitrary play of differences. But once it has jumped into possibility, it tends toward
spatiotemporal stabilization under the influence of a code. I suggest that one of
the best models to make of this combination of arbitrariness and motivation is
the combination of the two articulations (phonemic, morphemic) in linguistics.
One philosopher who has made this move, although only in passing, is Der­
rida. In his book Of Grammalology (1967), he develops in various ways the notion
of difference (trace) as a constitutive clement of meaning in a way which makes
sheer difference (difference that does not make a difference) logically and tem­
porally precede meaningful difference (difference that makes a difference). The
basic idea is the jump of meaning out of meaninglessness. One can visualize the
 THE MEDICAL SYMPTOM 151

scene in the following way: one system of differences which in regard to a second
system of differences is meaningless, is used by that second system to produce mean­
ing. This is how phonemes are used by morphology to constitute morphemes.
Derrida seems to think that all forms, including and especially biological ones,
arise as differences within differences. Form is thus always necessarily displaced, and
that means, conversely, that in order to account for it in principle at any level,
one has to acknowledge its absolute gratuity or, as Peirce has it, its freedom. But an
absolutely gratuitous form—because of its self-reference—is what I have chosen,
following Peirce, to call an “icon”.
Thom attempts to give expression to a similar idea when he uses the term
“attractor” to denote an irreducible locally stable element of morphogenesis. “Irre­
ducible”, that is, to something else, but reducible, precisely for that reason, to
itself alone. In other words, a first.
The startling way in which icons are absolute origins is indeed manifest in
biological morphogenesis. There we notice, as everywhere in morphology, the
combination of (a) lawlike factors (codes) involved in the conservation and develop­
ment of forms, of which the genetic code is a prime example, and (b) jumplike
factors, especially changes in structural genes and changes in gene regulation which
are true firsts in Peirce’s sense and assure the possibility of best designs to envi­
ronmental changes, themselves a product of chance and lawlike factors.
One of the most interesting passages in Peirce’s work relating to iconicity in
biology is contained in one of his Cambridge lectures, entitled “The Logic of Con­
tinuity”. There (1898a: 6.204) he writes, as he does many times elsewhere, that
the clue to making our ideas clear is to make them iconic in the sense of “making
our thought diagrammatic and mathematical”. The diagram of thought is th^
thought itself: here we have a pure icon. By observing its genesis and “experi
menting upon it”, a process which Peirce calls “ideoscopy” or “phenomenol­
ogy”, Peirce assembles the logic of the universe with the logic of consciousness
in the simple image of a blackboard (ibid.: 6.203), which stands for absolute
nothingness, understood as boundless freedom of potential quality. On this im­
aginary blackboard he draws with a piece of chalk a line, a first, taken in its
whiteness as pure icon, but in its contrast to the original blackness representing
the “brute act” of secondness. The stage is set—at least in Peirce’s
consciousness—for the genesis of a possible universe. Peirce writes (1898a: 6.204):
We see the original generality like the ovum of the universe segmented
by this mark. However, the mark is a mere accident, and as such may
be erased. It will not interfere with another mark drawn in quite another
way. There need be no consistency between the two. But no further pro­
gress beyond this can be made, until a mark will stay for a little while;
that is, until some beginning of a habit has been established by virtue of
which the accident acquires some incipient staying quality, some tenden­
cy toward consistency.
This remarkable passage formulates in speculative thought—and with typical
philosophic simplicity—the birth of an icon (or Platonic form) in very roughly
the same terms as we encounter in empirical descriptions of biological morphogen­
esis, where it is said that “mutations occur at random . . . (i.e.,) the chance that
a specific mutation will occur is not affected by how useful that mutation would
 152 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

be” (Futuyma 1979: 249). However, whether or not a spontaneous mutation is

going to be “erased” or not seems to depend, much like the genetic variation
of a given population, on selective pressures of the environment. We can say that
a random—and in this sense arbitrary—genesis of a dialogue between gene varia­
tion or mutation and selective pressures yield morphological stability. The
biological icon has both an arbitrary grounding (much like linguistic morphemes)
and a “motivated” stability by way of repetition, reproduction, coping, etc.
The same is true of the symptom. It is both arbitrary and motivated. It repeats
on the microscene of our bodies the macrocosmic drama of life (Eros) and death
(Thanatos). Freud (1920) clearly saw this biological macrodimension of the symp­
tom. Semiotics can refine his vision by means of Peirce’s logic of events which
lets biology and the human sciences meet in the common structure of thought-
signs. The medical symptom, then, is that most concrete of all signs—a true event
in Heidegger’s (1957) sense (Ereignis)—where the meaning of life and death is
most radically offered for individual appropriation, and where semiosis, much
like psychoanalysis for the later Freud (1937), becomes most intensely interminable.

'
 14

UMBERTO ECO

On Symbols

What is a symbol? Etymologically speaking, the Greek word ouppoXov

comes from oupfitiAAco, “to throw-with, to make something coincide with
something else”. A symbol was originally an identification mark made up of two
halves of a coin or of a medal: two halves of the same thing, either one standing
for the other, both becoming, however, fully effective only when matched to make
up, again, the original whole. In the semiotic dialectics between signifier and
signified, expression and content, or name and thing, such a rejoining is always
deferred, the first half of the couple being always interpreted by our substitution
of another first half of another couple, and so on ad infinitum, so that the initial
gap between signans and signatum grows more and more vast. On the contrary
in the original concept of symbol there is the suggestion of a final recomposition.
Etymologies, however, do not necessarily tell the truth—or, at least, they tell the
truth, in terms of historical, not structural, semantics. What is frequently appre­
ciated in many so-called symbols is exactly their vagueness, their openness, their
fruitful ineffectiveness in expressing a “final” meaning, so that with symbols and
by symbols one indicates what is always beyond one’s reach.
Are there in the specialized lexicons more technical definitions of this category
and of the corresponding term? Alas! One of the most pathetic moments in the
history of philosophical terminology occurs when the collaborators of the Diction-
naire de philosophic of Lalande (1902-1923) gather to discuss the definition of sym­
bol. This page of a “technical” lexicon is pure Ionesco.
After a first definition according to which a symbol is something representing
something else by virtue of an analogical correspondence (for example: the sceptre,
symbol of royalty—where it is not clear where the analogy lies, because this is
a paramount case of metonymical contiguity), a second definition is proposed,
namely, that symbols concern a continued system of terms, each of which
represents an element of another system. It is a good definition for the Morse
code; unfortunately the illustrative citation [from Jules Lemaitre] following it speaks
of a system of uninterrupted metaphors, and the Morse code seems hardly definable
as a metaphorical system. At this point Lalande adds that a symbol is also a “for­
mulary of orthodoxy”, and he quotes the Credo. A discussion follows: Delacroix
insists on the analogy; Lalande claims to have received from O. Karmin the pro­
posal to define as a symbol every conventional representation; Brunschvicq speaks
= of an “internal” representational power and mentions the archetypical circular
■ image of the serpent biting its own tail; van Biema reminds the party that the
“ fish was the symbol of Christ only for acronymic reasons; Lalande wonders how
H a piece of paper can become the symbol for a given amount of gold, while a
153
154 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

mathematician speaks of symbols for the signs of the square root; Delacroix is
caught by the suspicion that there is no relation between the sign for square root
and the fox as a symbol of cunning; someone else distinguishes between intellec­
tual and emotional symbols; and the entry fortunately stops at this point. The
effort of Lalande has not been fruitless; it has suggested that a symbol can be
everything and nothing. What a shame!
There are undoubtedly among all the above definitions some family
resemblances. But family resemblances have a curious property (see, for instance,
Bambrough 1961). Let us consider three concepts A, B, and C analysable in terms
of component properties a ... g:
A B C
r n rr T m
a b c d c b c d c f c d e f g

It is clear that every concept possesses some of the properties of the others, but
not all of them. But let us now broaden the series according to the same criterion:
A B C D E F
T m r n i T n
a b c d e b c d e f c d e f g d c f g h e f g h i f g h i j
In the end, no common property will unite A with F, save one: they belong to
the same network of family resemblance ....
When speaking of the concept of sign, it seems that it is possible to outline
\ unique definition that can take into account the various senses attributed to
lis expression, thus establishing a proper, abstract object for a general semiotics,
.t seems, however, that when facing the various occurrences of a term such as
symbol, such a univocity is impossible.
Symbol is not an expression of everyday language. A word such as sign occurs
in man y ready-made syntagms, and, when one is unable to give a univocal defini­
tion of the isolated term, one is still unable to give a certain interpretation of these
syntagms. It is, on the contrary, the pseudo-everyday language of the press or
of literary criticism that says that a certain merchandise is the symbol of the pro­
ductivity of a given country, that Marilyn Monroe was a sex symbol, that the
terrorists attempted to assassinate the American ambassador in Rome for sym­
bolic reasons, that a certain word, description, or episode has to be read sym­
bolically. A common speaker would have some difficulty in explaining the “right”
sense of these and other similar expressions.
In his exhaustive survey of all the possible uses of symbol, Raymond Firth (1973)
remarks that this term is used in place of sign when there is a certain ineffectuality'.
a “symbolic” gesture does not attempt to get immediate concrete effects. He
notices that there is a web of contrasting relationships, from concrete to abstract
(fox for cunning), from abstract to concrete (logical symbols), of vague metaphors
(darkness for mystery). At its first level a symbol can also be conventional (the
keys of Saint Peter for the power of the church), but as soon as the symbol is
considered in transparence, one finds in it new and less conventional meanings
(since it is unclear what the gesture of Jesus, when he gives the keys to Peter,
means exactly—moreover, why does Jesus give the keys, not materially but
“symbolically”?)
 ON SYMBOLS 155

At the end of his survey Firth shows a propensity for a provisional and
< < pragmatic” definition: “In the interpretation of a symbol the conditions of its
presentation are such that the interpreter ordinarily has much scope for exercis­
ing his own judgment. . . . Hence one way of distinguishing broadly between
signal and symbol may be to class as symbols those presentations where there
is much greater lack of fit—even perhaps intentionally—in the attribution of the
fabricator and interpreter” (1973: 66-67). This is a reasonable conclusion, stressing
the vagueness of meaning and the gap between the intentions of the sender and
the conclusions of the addressee. However, we cannot ignore that other theories
provide different and far more contrasting definitions.
Thus, on the provisional basis of Firth’s suggestion, we shall try three com­
plementary critical moves:
(a) We must first isolate those cases in which symbol is plainly equivalent to sign.
This first decision is certainly a terminologically biased one. It would not be for­
bidden to decide that it is better to call symbols what we have called signs, therefore
[and thereby] considering signs a subclass of symbols. Why decide that signs will
be a genus of which symbols (if any) are a species? There is, however, a reason
for our choice: there are many people who call symbols what others call signs,
but fewer people who call signs what other people call symbols. It seems, in other
words, that in the couple sign/symbol, only the second term is the marked one;
if there are theories where symbol is unmarked, there are no theories where sign
is marked.
(b) Provided that sign expresses a genus, we shall then isolate many species of
it that do not display the properties that, according to Firth, we have tentatively
assigned to the symbolic experience.
(c) At this point we shall look for a “hard core ) > sense of symbol, that is, for
a specific semantico-pragmatic phenomenon that we decide to label as symbolic
mode.
The following diagram tries thus to outline the series of semiotic phenomena
labelled as symbolic by many theories and that in the following sections (from
1 to 3) will be excluded from the rank of symbols. We shall see that many of
them can provide polysemous interpretations, but that these interpretations
are always controlled by certain rules (be they lexical, rhetorical, or what­
ever).
1. Sign production
as a general semiotic phenomenon

1
2. Expressions produced 3. Expressions produced
by ratio Jacilis by ratio difficilu
I
r 1
2.1. Correlated 2.2 Conveying 3.1. Conveying 3.2. Conveying 3.3. Aesthetic
to their indirectly a 'literally' their ‘figurative’ inventions
content by second meaning meanings on
meaning meaning on the basis of
postulates the basis of rhetorical
and conveying contextual rules
directly their inferences 1
‘literal' meaning
3.2.1. Oneiric 3.2.2. Metaphors
images and other
tropes
156 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Once having eliminated all these improper senses, we shall be in the position to
give a survey of many instances of a properly designated symbolic mode (see 4, p.
163ff.), as well as to provide a tentative description of the textual strategies imple­
mented in order to produce interpretations in the symbolic mode (see 5, p. 174fT.).

1. Genus and Species: the Symbolic as Genus

There are, first of all, theories that identify the symbolic with semiotic activity
in its entirety. In these perspectives symbolic activity is that by which man
organizes his own experience into a system of contents conveyed by an expres­
sion system. The symbolic is the activity by which experience is not only co­
ordinated but also communicated.
Goux (1973) has shown that such a notion of symbolic activity underlay Marx’s
theory, thus permitting the dialectic between structures and superstructures (see
also Rossi-Landi 1974). Semiotic and symbolic activities are identical in Levi-
Strauss’s structuralism (1950): culture is an ensemble of “symbolic systems’’ such
as language, marriage r^bs, economic relationships, art, science, and religion.
The possibility of the mutual transformation among structures is permitted by
the existence of a more profound symbolic ability of the human mind, which
organizes the whole of our experience according to the same modalities.
The symbolic and the semiotic also coincide in Lacan’s thought. The registers
of the psychoanalytic field are the imaginary, the real, and the symbolic. The
imaginary is characterized by the relation between an image and a similar ob­
ject, but the similarity of which Lacan speaks is not the one of so-called iconic
signs: it is a phenomenon that takes place within the very perceptual mechanism.
Men experience a mere relationship of similarity (an imaginary one) in the mir-
ror stage, in the erotic dual relationship, and in many cases of isomorphism. In
his “Seminar 1 *’(1953-1954), Lacan considers those images that in catoptrics are
called “real” images, produced by curved mirrors (as opposed to the “virtual”
images of plane mirrors), and that appear and disappear according to the posi­
tion of the looking subject. This physical experience is used as an allegory of the
constitution of the psychic subject, which is produced as subjective self-identity
only by the phenomenon of the symbolic. The subject is an effect of the symbolic;
the symbolic is the determining “order” of the subject. Wheras the imaginary
is a simple relation between the ego and its images, the symbolic produces the
subject through language (la parole) and realizes its closed order by the Law (le
Nom-du-pere). Only through the symbolic is the subject connected with the real,
which is, so to speak, its umbilical cord. In Freud the symbolic is a store of oneiric
symbols endowed with a constant signification (see 2.4.); that is, Freud attempts
to set up a code of symbols. Lacan, on the contrary, flattens the relation between
expression and content by considering only the internal logic of signifiers. Like
Levi-Strauss, Lacan is not concerned with the organization of sign-functions; he
is, rather, concerned with the structural arrangements of signifiers. In “Seminar
1”, he says that thinking means substituting an elephant with the word elephant,
and the sun with a circle. But the sun, in so far as it is designated by a circle,
is nothing if this circle is not inserted within a system of other formulations that,
in their entirety, set up the symbolic order. A symbol becomes a signifying entity
when it is inserted within a world of symbols (undoubtedly, for Lacan, the sym­
bolic order is an s-code [Eco 1976: 38-40]). In this sense Lacan speaks of symbols
 ON SYMBOLS 157

both as words, as in the case of elephant, and as visual signs, as in the case of the
sun-circle, even though the symbolic model in which he is more interested is un­
doubtedly the verbal one. Lacan is not as interested in a typology of signs as he
is in the general category of the symbolic. It is, however, clear that for Lacan
the symbolic order is what we can call the semiotic one. It is true that, in his
interpretive practice, he introduces elements of what we shall call the symbolic
mode, but this happens at the level of the interpretation of oneiric-verbal texts.
From the point of view of a general definition, Lacan identifies the symbolic with
the semiotic in general.
Symbolic and semiotic are also the same for Ernst Cassirer in The Philosophy
of Symbolic Forms (1923-1929). Science does not mirror the structure of being (con­
sidered as the unattainable Kantian thing-in-itself): “The fundamental concepts
of each science, the instruments with which it propounds its questions and for­
mulates its solutions, are regarded no longer as passive images of something but
as symbols created by the intellect itself” (1923-1929: 75). Cassirer mentions Hertz
and Helmholtz’s theory of scientific objects as “inner fictions” or symbols of out­
ward objects: “These symbols are so constituted that the necessary logical conse­
quences of the image are always images of the necessary natural consequences
of the imagined objects” (ibid.). Cassirer does not identify symbols only with those
models or diagrams ruled by ratio difficilis (see 2.3): his purpose is a wider one. He
deals with the Kantian theory of knowledge as if it were a semiotic theory (even
though Cassirer’s a priori is more similar to a cultural product than to a
transcendental structure of the human mind). The symbolic activity does not
“name” an already known world, but establishes the very conditions for know­
ing it. Symbols are not translations of our thought; they are its organs (ibid.: 85-86):

The logic of things, i.e., of the material concepts and relations on which
the structure of a science rests, cannot be separated by the logic of signs.
For the sign is no mere accidental cloak of the idea, but its-necessary and
essential organ. It serves not merely to communicate a complete and given
thought content, but is an instrument, by means of which this content
develops and fully defines itself .... Consequently, all truly strict and
exact thought is sustained by the symbolic and semiotics on which it is based.

2. Expressions Produced by Ratio Facilis

2.1. Symbols as Conventional Expressions. C. S. Peirce defines an icon as a wbich
refers to the Object that it denotes merely by virtue of characters o its own ,
an index as “a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue o eing
really affected by that Object”, and a symbol as “a sign which refers to the Object
that it denotes by virtue of a Law, usually an association of general ideas. . . .
It is thus itself a general type” (1903: 2.249).
As such, a symbol is correlated to its Object by an arbitrary and conventional
decision. In this sense, words are symbols in so far as their lexical content depends
on a cultural decision. Since Peirce had decided to use the term sign for the genus
generalissimum of semiotics, he had to decide whether to reserve symbol for iconic
signs (as Saussure and Hjelmslev did; see 3.1) or for the category of arbitrary
signs. He made his choice following a rather frequent scientific usage, by which
symbols are conventional signs standing for chemical, physical, or mathematical
 158 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

entities. It is true that Peirce knew very well that these scientific symbols display
many “iconic” qualities (as we shall see when speaking in 3.1. of expression pro­
duced by ratio difficilis and conveying a “literal” meaning), but it is also true that
Peirce never identified something as a mere symbol or as a mere icon. In any
case, his decision contrasts with the most common terminological usage, and he
certainly never thought that symbols convey a vague meaning. On the contrary,
he speaks of symbols as those expressions that mean directly and univocally what
they are designed to mean.
Curiously enough, many call symbols in the Peircean sense those stylizations
(such as flags, emblems, astrological and chemical symbols) that Peirce would
have recognized as abundantly endowed with iconic qualities. Probably at their
very beginning, the alchemical symbol for the Balneum Mariae and the astrological
symbol for Lion displayed some more or less evident “analogy” with their con­
tent, but nowadays they function as conventional devices. Emblems, coats of arms,
and other heraldic devices do have a second sense: an image represents in first
instance a tree, a hill, a city, while the heraldic meaning is a different one. But
they are visual allegories whose meaning—even though multiple and difficult to
guess—are already coded. Thus, either they are symbols in the Peircean sense,
or they are “literal” expressions ruled by ratio difficilis; in both cases they must
be excluded from the rank of the instances of a symbolic mode.

2.2. Symbols as Expressions Conveying an Indirect Meaning. The full content of a sign
can be actualized only by progressive interpretations. But the notion of interpreta­
tion (rooted in that of inference) is not sufficient to characterize the symbolic mode.
It characterizes every semiotic phenomenon at large.
There are, however, many expressions (usually sentences or texts) that sug­
gest, beyond their prima facie interpretable “conventional” or “lexical” mean­
ing, an additional “intended meaning” (see Grice 1957). If I tell a lady that I
saw her husband in a cozy restaurant with a beautiful girl, I am undoubtedly
trying to convey, along with the literal meaning, the intended meaning that the
lady’s husband is unfaithful to her. This second meaning is certainly “indirect”,
and, as such, it must be actualized by inferential labor on the part of the addressee;
nevertheless, it is neither vague nor ambiguous.
Todorov (1978), aware of the difficulty of assigning a univocal sense to the
term symbol, decides to provide a framework within which all its contrasting defini­
tions can find a place, and wants to keep as “plural” what is in fact irreducible
to a unique definition. In so doing, however, he accepts the line of thought criticized
above: he identifies symbols with the whole gamut of indirect and even of direct
meanings—connotations, presuppositions, implications, implicatures, figures of
speech, intended meaning, and so on. Once again the symbolic is identified with
the semiotic in general, since it is impossible to think of discourses that do not
elicit some inferential response.
Many of the devices people call symbols have something to do with these
phenomena of “indirect” meaning, but not every device conveying an indirect
meaning can be called symbolic. Every semiotic device can be used, if not from
the point of view of the sender, at least from the point of view of the interpreter,
in order to actualize further meanings.
All these instances of indirect meaning say what they are intended to say on
 ON SYMBOLS 159

the basis of contextual inferences governed by semantic or pragmatic rules. What

the sender intends to express—what he wishes to be understood—is so precise
that the sender would be irritated if the addressee did not understand it. On the
contrary, the genuine instances of a symbolic mode seem to be those where neither
the sender nor the addressee really wants or is able to outline a definite interpre­
tation.

3. Expressions Produced by Ratio Dijficilis

3.1. Symbols as Diagrams. Saussure called symbols what Peirce called icons, and
Hjelmslev ranked diagrams and games among the “symbolic systems”, mean­
ing by symbolic systems those which are interpretable but not biplanar. Thus
Hjelmslev listed among symbols those signs that are isomorphic with their inter­
pretation (1943: 113-114), as in:
the case of pure games, in the interpretation of which there is an entity
of content corresponding to each entity of expression (chess-piece or the
like), so that if two planes are tentatively posited the functional net will
be entirely the same in both .... Symbol should be used only for enti­
ties that are isomorphic with their interpretation, entities that are depic­
tions or emblems, like Thorvaldsen’s Christ as a symbol for compassion,
the hammer and the sickle as a symbol for Communism .... There
seems to be an essential affinity between the interpretable pieces of a game
and isomorphic symbols, in that neither permits the further analysis into
figurae. . . .
Saussure and Hjelmslev spoke in fact of signs ruled by ratio dijficilis (Eco 1976:
183-184) where the expression maps, according to pre-established projection rules,
some features of the corresponding content. In this sense one can call symbol'
those used by algebra and formal logic, at least insofar as their syntactic structu’
is concerned. They are such because every transformation performed upon tl
syntactical arrangement of the expression mirrors a possible rearrangement l
the structure of their content. If, on a geographical map, one alters the borderline
between France and Germany, one can forecast what would happen if, in a possible
world (the new content corresponding to the manipulated expression), the
geopolitical definitions of both countries were different. An algebraic formula and
a map are diagrams. That is why in electrotechnics Seinmetz and Kennedy (follow­
ing Helmholtz) called “symbolic” the method postulating biunivocal cor­
respondence between the ensemble of sinusoidal functions of the same frequency
(which incidentally are expressed by merely conventional and by no means
analogical” devices) and the ensemble of points upon an Arnauld-Gauss plane
of rotating vectors. The rotation of a vector is a diagram that implies different
sinusoidal functions.
It is, however, clear that there is a difference between diagrams and other
phenomena labelled as symbols. Diagrams are based upon precisely coded transfor­
mational and projective rules, in the same way in which, in a musical score, the
symbolic” relation between rising points on the stave (spatial height) and fre­
quency increments (phonic height) are ruled by a precise proportional criterion.
On the contrary, many so-called symbols are characterized by the vagueness of
their content and by the fact that the correlation is not pre-coded but invented
 160 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

at the same moment in which the expression is produced. In Hjelmslev’s defini­

tion the category of symbols encompasses both phenomena, without acknowledging
the radical difference between the way in which the Christ of Thorvaldsen is a
symbol for compassion and the way in which a move on the chessboard has a
symbolic nature. A different chess move would imply different interpretations of
the further course of the game, whereas we do not know how many manipula­
tions the Christ of Thorvaldsen should undertake in order to stand for something
other than compassion.
Moreover, a diagram such as the map of a subway is certainly ruled by ratio
difficilis, but it is neither vague nor indirect: its meaning is a “literal” one; one
can extrapolate from one’s operations upon the map a precise possible state of
affairs. It could not be said that this possible state of affairs is a sort of “second”
sense that the map conveys. In the same way as one can interpret the word father
by inferring that if there is a father there should be either a son or a daughter,
thus if one detects on the map that, for reaching the node C from the node A,
one must pass through the node B, one can infer that if A and C were tied by
a direct connection, then B would be avoided. In both cases the word and the
map tell what they tell as soon as they are correctly interpreted according to given
cultural criteria.
Rather different, on the contrary, is the image of the serpent biting its own
tail. It is defined as a symbol because there is the strong feeling that it not only
represents a snake in an unusual position but that it also aims at communicating
something more.

3.2. Symbols as Tropes. 3.2.1. Oneiric Symbols. Freud in The Interpretation of Dreams
(1900) speaks of oneiric symbols. Dreams convey images which stand for something
else, and Freud is interested in establishing how a “latent content” is organized
by the oneiric labor into the form of a “manifest content”. The latent content
is transformed by the dream distortion (ibid.: ch. 4), and the dream is the disguised
fulfillment of repressed wishes. Freud does not interpret dreams (as ancient
oneiromancy used to do) as organic allegories. Allegories do have a logic, whereas
dreams do not. The psychoanalytic interpretation does not work upon organic
oneiric discourses but upon fragments and their idiosyncratic mechanisms of
substitution. Dreams work through condensation and displacement, and (even
though Freud does not say it explicitly), since they do not have a logic, they have
a rhetoric. Condensation and displacement are modalities of tropic substitution.
In the dream of the botanical monograph, the botanic symbol condenses Gart­
ner, Flora, the forgotten flowers, the flowers loved by the author’s wife, a univer­
sity exam: “Each of the elements of the dream’s contents turns out to have been
“overdetermined—to have been represented in the dream-thoughts many times
over (1900: IV, 283).
Freud knows that the oneiric image is correlated to its content by a sort of ratio
difficilis, since it displays certain features that in some way map equivalent features
of the latent content. But, as happens in all cases of ratio difficilis, the mapping
relationship takes place between selectedfeatures of the expression and selectedfeatures
of the content. To decide which properties have to be selected, that is, which pro­
perties are co-textually pertinent, is exactly the typical labor performed by dreams,
according to certain requirements of plasticity, immediacy, representability.
 ON SYMBOLS 161

Freud knows that oneiric symbols are not “stenographic” signs endowed with
a pre-established meaning; however, he tries to anchor these expressions in an
interpretable content. To find such an anchorage, Freud distinguishes between
those oneiric symbols produced for idiosyncratic reasons which must be interpreted
by using the patient’s associations as their idiolectal encyclopedia, and those whose
symbolism “is not peculiar to dreams, but is characteristic of unconscious idea­
tion, in particular among the people, and it is to be found in folklore, and in
popular myths, legends, linguistic idioms, proverbial wisdom, and current jokes
(1900: V, 351). It is true that every dreamer shows a remarkable plasticity in
employing the most disparate images for symbolic purposes, but Freud tries
repeatedly (see the various editions of the book: 1909, 1911, 1919) to Find a sym­
bolic code so as to explain the intersubjective (or cultural) meaning of umbrellas,
sticks, railway travels, staircases and so on.
To look for an oneiric code means to touch on the hypothesis of a collective
unconscious, as Jung would do; but Freud understands that in doing so one risks
going backwards, to the very sources of human mental activity, where there will
no longer be a code. On the other hand, a code is indispensable in order to speak
intersubjectively of a semantics of dreams beyond the idiosyncratic attitudes of
the dreaming subject. Thus Freud links the decoding of oneiric symbols to verbal
puns, and in doing so he suggests that the knowledge of linguistic mechanisms
can help one to understand the oneiric strategies of condensation and displace­
ment. (The Lacanian decision to anchor the order of the imaginary in the order
of the symbolic must be understood in this sense.) Freud suggests that the code
can be reconstructed and that it is neither universal nor innate, but is historical,
semiotic, and depends on the cultural encyclopedia of the dreamer.
This assumption is not, however, unambiguous. The dream must be inter­
preted according to a linguistic and cultural competence (that is, according to
a competence which is external to the world of dreams); nevertheless, every oneiric
image can be polysemous, as Freud explicitly says, and must be referred to the
idiolect of the dreamer as well as to the whole dream as its co-text. Notwithstand­
ing these perplexities and contradictions, Freud is undoubtedly looking for “cor­
rect” interpretations of dreams, and in this sense his oneiric symbols are not con-
stitutively vague.
Freud has thus elaborated an oneiric rhetoric, with its own rules for generating
and for interpreting images.

3.2.2. Metaphors and Other Tropes. Must we also exclude, from the rank of proper­
ly called symbols, metaphors, allegories, and other tropes? This is not to be taken
for granted, because in many theories of literary criticism this distinction is not
at all clear. However, even though they are “open” to various interpretations,
metaphors are always governed by rhetorical rules and controlled by their co-texts.
In any case, there is a clear-cut test for distinguishing a metaphor from a sym­
bol: a trope cannot be taken “literally” without violating a pragmatic maxim ac­
cording to which a discourse is supposed to tell the truth; it must be interpreted
as a figure of speech, since otherwise it would appear as senseless or blatantly
false. On the contrary, the instances of the symbolic mode do suggest a second
sense, but could also be taken literally without jeopardizing the communicational
intercourse. (I shall further elaborate on this point in section 5).
162 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

More evident is the coded nature of allegories. They can be interpreted

according to complementary senses (see, in 4.3, the medieval theory of the four
levels of sense of the Scriptures), but these senses are never vague or indefin-
ite.
A radical difference between symbol and allegory has been definitely established
by Romantic theorists, who have, however, dangerously identified the symbolic
with the aesthetic.

3.3. The Romantic Symbol as Aesthetic Text. Originally, a symbol was produced by the
mutual relationship of two pieces of a coin destined to acquire their full purport
through their actual or potential rejoining. In other sorts of signs the signans
becomes irrelevant at the moment at which its signatum is caught (the signans is
thrown away, so to speak); instead, in the signs that Romantic philosophers and
poets called symbols, the signatum acquires its full purport only in so far as it is
continually compared to the physical presence of its signans.
This idea suggests that there should be some resemblances between symbolic
activity and the aesthetic function of language, where the message is sell-focusing
and speaks mainly of itself or of the relation between signans and signatum. The
aesthetics of Romanticism has particularly insisted on this parenthood between
symbolism and art. The work of art is conceived as an absolutely coherent organism
in which expression and content are inseparable. A work of art is thus an untrans­
latable and unspeakable message (its “meaning” cannot be separated from what
conveys it), and art is symbolic by definition because its discourse cannot but be
undefinable or infinitely definable. Schelling identifies works of art with symbols
because they are hypotyposes, self-presentations, and, instead of signifying an artistic
idea, they are that idea in themselves. There is no “semantic” interpretation of
a work of art.
Schelling distinguishes schemas, where the general provides us with an under­
standing of the particular, from allegories, where the particular provides us with
knowledge of the general; in aesthetic symbols both procedures are at work
simultaneously.
In the same line of thought, Goethe says that allegories designate directly,
whereas symbols designate indirectly (1797: 94). Allegories are transitive, whereas
symbols are intransitive. Allegories speak to the intelligence, whereas symbols
speak to perception. Allegories are arbitrary and conventional, whereas symbols are
immediate and motivated. A symbol is an image which is natural and universally
understandable. Allegories employ the particular as an example of the general;
symbols embody the general in the particular. Moreover, symbols are polysemous,
indefinitely interpretable; they realize the coincidence of contraries; they express
the unexpressible, since their content exceeds the capability of our reason (Goethe
1809-1832: nn. 1112-1113):

Symbolisms transform the experience into an idea, and an idea into an

image, so that the idea expressed by the image remains always active and
unattainable and, even though expressed in all languages, remains unex­
pressible. Allegory transforms an experience into a concept and a concept
into an image, but so that the concept remains always defined and expressi­
ble by the image.
 ON SYMBOLS 163

In this sense the aesthetic and the symbolic come to coincide definitely, but they
define themselves in terms of each other, in a circular way.
As a matter of fact, Romantic aesthetics does not explain the semiotic strategy
by which, in the poetic use of languages, particular meanings are conveyed: it
only describes the effect that a work of art can produce. By doing so, Romantic
aesthetics flattens the concept of semiosic interpretation (which undoubtedly ac­
quires a particular status in aesthetic texts) into the one of aesthetic enjoyment.
On the other hand, semiotics can explain the phenomenon of symbolic mode,
but it cannot fully explain aesthetic enjoyment, which depends on many extra-
semiotic elements. In a work of art the expression is indefinitely interpretable,
because the interpreter can continually compare it with its content and with the
whole of his encyclopedic competence, but such a. semiosic interpretation represents
only one among the various aspects of aesthetic openness. A work of art can be
aesthetically interpreted in many ways, because we compare its meanings (inter­
preted in the semiosic sense) with the individual structure of the token expression
that conveys them. By displaying further and further new and uncoded possible
relationships between these two planes, the work of art elicits also nonsemiosic
reactions, such as synesthesiae, idiosyncratic associations, and more and more
refined perceptions of the material texture of the conveying expression.
To interpret semiosically means to know better and better the possibilities of
the encyclopedia; to interpret aesthetically also means to know more and more
intus et in cute the details of an individual object. In Hjelmslev’s terms, the semiosic
interpretation has to do with forms; the aesthetic one has to do with substances.
Thus if one uses the term symbol to describe the aesthetic experience, one has then
to avoid the same term for other forms of “symbolic” understanding, such as
for instance, those that take place in mystical experience (where the mystic get
something beyond his own visionary experience).
The Romantic tradition is, instead, very ambiguous in this regard. Influen­
tial theorists of symbolism such as Creuzer (1810-12) speak of symbols as
“epiphanies of the Sacred”. The basic ideas of established religious doctrines spring
from symbols that act as a light beam coming from the depths of the Being (I,
35). However, the same Creuzer says that a Greek sculpture is a plastic symbol,
thus showing an oscillation between the idea of symbols as unattainable and
transcendent revelations, and symbols as the self-evident presence of the artistic
value embodied in a physical form. Is the Romantic symbol the instance of an
immanence or of a transcendence?

4. The Symbolic Mode

4.1. The Hegelian Symbol. A radical attempt to distinguish the symbolic experience
from the aesthetic one was performed by Hegel (1817-1829) in his philosophy of
the fine arts.
The Hegelian symbol represents the first stage of artistic creativity (which
dialectically progresses from symbolic to Classical and to Romantic art):

Generally speaking, symbol is some form of external existence immediately

present to the senses, which, however, is not accepted for its own worth,
as it lies before us in its immediacy, but for the wider and more general
significance which it offers to our reflection. We may consequently dis-

I
164 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

tinguish between two points of view equally applicable to the term: first,
the Significance, and, second, the mode in which such a significance is ex­
pressed. The first is a conception of the mind, or an object which stands
wholly indifferent to any particular content; the latter is a form of sensuous
existence or a representation of some kind or other.

In symbols the correlation between signifier (expression) and signified (significance)

is not a conventional one (the lion is a symbol for strength because it is strong);
nevertheless, the motivation determining the correlation is in some way undeter­
mined. The lion, for example, possesses qualities other than mere strength, and
these qualities do not become relevant to the symbolic purpose. It is exactly this
selection or reduction of the relevant qualities that provides for the ambiguity of
symbols. Hegel refuses the idea of aesthetic symbolism as expressed by Creuzer:
“In this sense the gods of Greece, insofar, that is to say, as the art of Greece
was able to represent them as free, self-subsistent, and unique types of personali­
ty, are to be accepted from no symbolical point of view, but as self-sufficient in
their own persons” (1817-1829: 21). The symbolic mode arises as a form of pre-
art only when men look at natural objects as if they suggest something universal
and essential, without a strict and absolute identity between expression and
significance. In these first stages of artistic activity, when men try to spiritualize
nature and to naturalize the universal, fantastic and confused results are produced:
symbolic art experiences the inadequacy of its images and reacts to the sentiment
of their limits by deforming them so as to realize an excessive and merely quan­
titative “sublimity”.
Hegel outlines carefully these phases of symbolic activity (unconscious sym­
bolism, symbolism of the sublime, conscious symbolism of the comparative type
of art) through which mankind progresses from the symbols of Eastern art and
religion to Western fables, parables, and apologues, to the allegory, the metaphor,
the simile and the didactic poem. What is important, however, in Hegelian
perspective, is the refusal to put together the symbolic and the artistic. The sym­
bol always displays a certain disproportion, a tension, an ambiguity, an analogical
precariousness. In “genuine symbolism” the forms do not signify themselves;
rather they “allude to”, hint at, a wider meaning. Any symbol is an enigma,
and “the Sphinx stands as a symbol for symbolism itself’ (ibid.: 83). In primeval
symbolism a symbol has a meaning but it is unable to express it completely. The
meaning of a symbol will be fully expressed only by the comparative mode of
art, but at this point one is witnessing the dialectic “death” of the symbolic mode
which transforms itself into higher and more mature forms of rhetorical expres­
sion. Hegel’s whole argument is extraordinarily lucid, at least in distinguishing
the symbolic from the aesthetic at large, as well as from the rhetorical. Hegel helps
us in outlining a symbolic mode as a specific semiotic phenomenon in which a
given expression is correlated to a content nebula (Eco 1976: 260).

4.2. Archetypes and the Sacred. Jung’s theory of symbols as archetypes clearly outlines
a notion of the symbolic mode as characterized by an analogy between expres­
sion and content and by a fundamental vagueness of the expressed content.
Jung (1954) opposes the personal unconscious to the collective one, which repre­
sents a deeper, innate layer of the human psyche and which has contents and
 ON SYMBOLS 165

modes of behavior that are more or less the same everywhere and in all individuals.
The contents of the collective unconscious are the archetypes, archaic types, univer­
sal images, representations collectives: lunar, solar, vegetal, meteorological represen­
tations—more comprehensible in myths, more evident in dreams and visions. Jung
is explicit in saying that these symbols are neither mere signs (he uses the Greek
technical word (Jepeia) nor allegories. They are genuine symbols precisely because
they are ambiguous, full of half-glimpsed meanings, and in the last resort inex­
haustible. They are paradoxical because they are contradictory, just as for the
alchemists the spirit was conceived as senex at iuvenis simul (“an old man and a
youth at once”). If the archetypes are indescribable and infinitely interpretable,
their experience cannot but be amorphous, undetermined and unarticulated. Sym­
bols are at the same time empty and full of meaning, and in this sense the ex­
perience of the mystics, which is strictly concerned with symbolic visions, is a
paradoxical one. As Scholem (1960) also remarks about Jewish mysticism, mystical
thought lives on a continual threshold between tradition and revolution: on one
side the mystic is nourished by the tradition, but on the other side the visions
he has can be interpreted so as to perturb the traditional truths. Usually the mystic
uses old symbols, but fills them up with new senses and, in so doing, always
challenges the authority, that is, the thought of the tradition he is supposed to
follow and to reinforce. This kind of nihilistic experience is very well illustrated
by the story of Brother Klaus von der Flue, mentioned by Jung. Brother Klaus
has a vision of a mandala divided into six parts with in its center the “crowned
countenance of God”. His experience is defined as “terrifying”, and the fifteenth-
century humanist Woelflin describes it by saying that “all who came to him were
filled with terror at the first glance”. Jung remarks that visions such as the man­
dala are the usual and the traditional antidote for chaotic states of mind.
Brother Klaus has to choose between a free interpretation of the symbol and
a traditional one. He relies on a devotional booklet by a German mystic, and
assumes that what he has seen was the image of the Trinity. In this way the mystic,
so to speak, “tamed” his unbearable experience (Jung 1954: 394):
This vision, undoubtedly fearful and highly perturbing, which burst like
a volcano upon his religious view of the world, without any dogmatic
prelude, and without exegetical comment, naturally needed a long labor
of assimilation in order to fit it into the total structure of the psyche and
thus restore the disturbed psychic balance. Brother Klaus came to terms
with his experience on the basis of dogma, then firm as a rock, and the
dogma proved his powers of assimilation by turning something horribly
alive into the beautiful abstraction of the Trinity idea. But the reconcilia­
tion might have taken place on a quite different basis provided by the vi­
sion itself and its unearthly actuality—much to the disadvantage of the
Christian conception of God and no doubt to the still greater disadvan­
tage of Brother Klaus himself, who would then have become not a saint
but a heretic (if not a lunatic).
In the mystical experience symbols must be tamed exactly because they are
exaggeratedly “open”, and their force must be controlled. It obviously depends
on one’s religious and philosophical beliefs in deciding whether this force springs
from a sacred source, or is nothing other than the way in which an interpreter,
166 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

idiosyncratically, fills up the empty container of the symbolic expression. Firth

(1973) observes that the mystical symbol is a private one: the mystic is the
“detonator” of the symbol, but immediately afterwards a public “elaborator”
is needed who establishes certain collective and understandable meanings for the
original expression. In the story of Brother Klaus, both detonator and elaborator
coincide. Firth mentions, on the contrary, the case of Saint Margaret Mary
Alacoque who, as detonator, experienced the vision of the Sacred Heart ofJesus,
while her Jesuit confessor interpreted and elaborated her symbolic material, pro­
viding the Catholic community with a new cult.
Incidentally, the case of this vision is interesting insofar as the pertinence of the
so-called analogous properties is concerned: Saint Margaret Mary had her vision
when both science and common opinion were definitely convinced that, physio­
logically speaking, the heart was not the seat of human feelings; nevertheless, in the
first half of this century, Pope Pius XII still spoke of the Sacred Heart as a nat-
ural symbol” of the Divine Love, a symbol that was “natural” only for those who,
with an unconscious semiotic sensitivity, identified nature with encyclopedia. Pius
XII certainly knew that the human heart was not the seat of emotions, but he also
knew that, according to a nonspecialized competence (such as is expressed in and
supported by many ready-made syntagms and by love songs), it was still considered
so. What counts, in the symbolism of the Sacred Heart, is not the weakness of the
analogical correlation but the vagueness of the correlated content. The content of
the expression Sacred Heart (be it uttered in words or visually represented) is not a
series of theological propositions but an uncontrollable ensemble of mental and af­
fective associations that every believer can project onto the cardiac symbol. On the
other hand, the symbol is the device by which a given authority controls these as­
sociations, as well as the profound drives that elicit them—in the same way in which
the saint herself had probably projected into the mystical symbol a series of obses­
sions that, without the symbolic discipline, could have driven her to insanity.
But this is a positivist interpretation of a mystic experience. Usually, in the
symbolic line of thought, symbols are considered as the vehicle of a transcendent
Voice who speaks through them. Such is the perspective of Ricoeur’s hermeneutics
(1962). Symbols are opaque because they are analogic; they are bound to the diver­
sity of languages and cultures, and their interpretation is always problematic:
“There is no myth without exegesis, no exegesis without confrontation”. But if
there are recognizable symbols, there must be a Truth that symbols express, and
symbols are the voices of Being: “The implicit philosophy of any phenomenology
of religion is the renewal of a theory of reminiscence” (ibid.: 22). Ricoeur knows
very well that, along Freudian lines of thought, religious symbols do not speak
of the Sacred but of what has been removed. But in his hermeneutic perspective,
these two possibilities remain as complementary, and symbols can be interpreted
in either way. They tell us about the unconscious that we were and the Sacred
that we ought to become. Freud and Heidegger are re-read in a Hegelian mood. The
eschatology of human consciousness is a continual creative repetition of its ar­
cheology. In this way, naturally, nobody can assign to symbols a final truth or
a coded meaning.

4.3. The Symbolic Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The symbolic mode is a recur­
rent tendency in many cultures and can coexist with other ways of producing or
 ON SYMBOLS 167

interpreting texts. Since this mode appears in many historical stages, it would
be sufficient to isolate some of its instantiations: one of its characteristics is to
reproduce itself in different epochs with the same features, so that an historical
survey need not be exhaustive and can proceed through examples.
We can start from one of the most influential instances of the symbolic mode,
the one developed by late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, not only because it
has represented one of the most impressive and long-lasting cases of the symbolic
mind, but also because our civilization is still dependent in many respects on that
historical experience.
Pagan poets believed, more or less, in the gods of which they were speaking. But
in the sixth century B.C., Theagenes of Regium tried to read these poets allegor­
ically, and so did the Stoics many centuries afterwards. This allegorical reading
had secular purposes: it aimed at discovering some “natural” truths beneath the
mythical surface. However, once this way of reading was outlined, why not turn
the method, and its purposes, the other way around? Thus, while, in the first cen­
tury A.D., Philo of Alexandria was still attempting a secular interpretation of
the Old Testament, Clement of Alexandria and Origenes attempted the opposite,
that is, a nonsecular and, if possible, more mystical reading of religious texts.
At the moment in which the newborn Christian theology dared to speak of
God, the Fathers of the Church realized that, in order to speak of Him, they could
only rely on what He had told them: the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Scriptures
were two, the Old Testament and the New Testament. At that time the Gnostics
assumed that only the New Testament was true. Origenes wanted to keep the
continuity between the two Testaments, but he had to decide in what way they
were saying the same thing, since apparently they were speaking differently. Thus
he made the decision to read them in a parallel way: the Old Testament was the
signifier, or the “letter”, of which the New Testament was the signified, or the
spirit. At the same time, the New Testament was also speaking of something con­
cerning the Incarnation, salvation, and moral duties. The semiosic process was
thus rather complicated: a first book speaking allegorically of the second one, and
the second one speaking—sometimes by parables, sometimes directly—of some­
thing else. Moreover, in this beautiful case of unlimited semiosis, there was a
curious identification between, on the one hand, sender, message as signifier or
expression, and signified or content, and on the other hand, referent, interpretan-
dum, and interpretant—a puzzling web of identities and differences that can hardly
be represented by a bidimensional diagram (see, for a splendid discussion on these
points, Compagnon 1979):
Content: Logoi, as the indirect meaning
to be interpreted

Interprelants:
J Logoi, as the hermeneutic
! discourses

Sender:
Christ, Expression:
as Logos Logos, as discourse
Referent:
Logos, Christ as the ultimate
referent of the Scriptures
 168 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

This semiosic web was encouraged by the ambiguous status of the term logos,
which is at the same time verbum mentis and verbum vocis, as well as the name and the
nature of the second person of the Trinity. Moreover, the first interpreter of the an­
cient law was still Christ as Logos, and every commentary of the Holy Texts was an
imitatio Christi, so that in the light of the Logos all faithful interpreters can become
Logikoi. To make the web even more inextricable, Christ, in so far as He was the
Logos (that is, the knowledge that the Father had of Himself), was the ensemble of
all the divine archetypes; therefore, He was fundamentally polysemous.
Thus both Testaments speak of their sender and of their own polysemous
nature, and their content is the nebula of all the possible archetypes.
What the first exegetes understood was that, at that point, the Scriptures were
in the position of saying everything, and everything was too much, for any ex­
egesis looks for a translatable Truth. The Church is the divine institution sup­
posed to explain the truth, to make it understandable, even to the illiterate. The
symbolic nature of the Books had thus to be tamed and reduced, in the same way
in which the mystic vision of the detonator has to be tamed by its elaborator.
The symbolic mode had to be transformed into the allegorical one. The Scriptures
potentially had every possible meaning; but in fact their reading was susceptible
to being governed by a code, and the meanings of the text had to be reduced
to a manageable format. That is why the first Fathers proposed the theory of
allegorical senses. In the beginning these were three: literal, moral or psychic,
mystic or pneumatic. According to Origenes, the moral sense also held for the
unfaithful and was thus immediately dependent on the literal one. Later the senses
became four (literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical). As Dante explained in
the Epistula XIII(i. 1312-1317; but the theory was already fully elaborated by Bede
in the seventh century), given a verse such as in exitu Israel de Aegypto, “if we look
at the letter it means the exodus of the sons of Israel from Egypt at the time of
Moses; if we look to the allegory it means our redemption through Christ; if we
look at the moral sense it means the conversion of the soul from the misery of
sin to the state of grace; if we look at the mystical sense it means the departure
of the sanctified spirit from the servitude of this corruption to the freedom of eter­
nal glory. y y
With this further elaboration, the moral sense can be understood only through
the mediation of the allegorical one, and is attainable only by the faithful. The
whole medieval tradition elaborated upon this theme, which can be summarized
by the line of Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1330): liLittera gesta docet, quid credos allegoria,
moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia” [Literature teaches what people have done,
allegory teaches what you should believe, morality what you should do, anagogy
where you should direct yourself]. (But the same formulation appears in many
other authors; for an impressive survey of all these theories, see De Lubac 1959).
The theory of the four senses provided a sort of guarantee for the correct
decoding of the Books. But the Patristic and Scholastic mind could never avoid
the feeling of the inexhaustible profundity of the Scriptures, frequently compared
to a forest or to an ocean. According to Saint Jerome (c.397: Ep. 64.21) they are
an liinfinita sensuum sylva'* [infinite forest of senses] and (c.411: col.448J) an
ltoceanum et mysteriorum Dei, ut sic loquar labyrinthum’} [“ocean of the mysteries, or
if I may so put it, of the labyrinth, of God”]. Origen speaks of a “latissima sylva* *
[broadest forest] (c.232-250: In EzA, col. 696) or of a sea where, if we enter in a
 ON SYMBOLS 169

small boat, our mind is caught by fear and we are submerged by its whirls
(c.232-250a: In Gen. 9.1, col.210).
Gilbert of Stanford (a. 1153: In Cant. 20.225) tries to show how many senses
can be found in the rapids of the divine discourse:
Scriptura Sacra, morem rapidissimi fluminis tenens, sic humanarum men-
tium profunda replet, ut semper exundet; sic haurientes satiat, ut inhex-
austa permaneat. Profluunt ex ea spiritualium sensuum gurgites abun-
dantcs, et transeuntibus aliis, alia surgunt: immo, non transeuntibus, quia
sapientia immortalis est; sed, emergentibus et decorem suum ostenden-
tibus aliis, alii non deficientibus succedunt sed manentes subsequuntur;
ut unusquisque pro modo capacitatis suae in ea reperiat unde se copiose
reficiat et aliis unde se fortiter exercent derelinquat. [Sacred Scripture, like
the rapids of a river, Jills the depths of human minds, while it forever rushes onwards.
Great whirlpools of spiritual meanings areformed within it, and while some whirlpools
dissolve, others arise. Indeed, even when the former whirlpools do not dissolve, new
ones appear, because wisdom is immortal. But, as the new ones arise and show their
beauty to the previous ones, the newer onesfollow the previous whirlpools. Thus each
person finds in Scripture wherewith to befully satisfied according to capacity, yet leaves
to others wherewith they can also be absorbed.]
Which is to say that, even though the senses of the Scriptures are infinite, none
of them annuls the others; each increasingly enriches this immense store of mean­
ings, where everyone can find what he is able to find according to his interpretive
capabilities.
The metaphor of the ocean or of the forest alluded to the symbolic structure
of the Books, and this symbolic structure was the continual challenge to their
allegorical interpretability. Either the Books had infinite readings (therefore they
were ambiguous expression correlated to the content nebula of all possible arche­
types) or they had only the four canonical ones. But, if the four senses were coded,
there was no further possibility of interpreting the Books, therefore of exploiting
their admirable profundity. The problem was how to reconcile these two trends,
so that it was possible to read the texts, continually discovering in their pages,
if not new things, at least the same and everlasting truth rephrased in ever new
ways: non nova sed nove, no new things but the same things retold in a new way.
The early Christian theology had then to find a way of controlling (by an
allegorical code) the free interpretation of the (symbolic and uncoded) nature of
the Books. A rather oxymoronic situation, indeed. At this point, the topological
model capable of representing this situation should be even more complex (perhaps
a Moebius Ring), since the only authority that could establish the right way of
interpreting the Books was the Church, founded upon the Tradition; but the Tradi­
tion was represented exactly by the series of “good” interpretations of the Holy
Scriptures. In other words, the Tradition draws its right to control the interpreta­
tion of the Books from the interpretation of the Books. Quis custodiet custodes [who
will guard the guardians]? How can the authority legitimate the interpretation,
since the authority itself is legitimated by the interpretation?
This question had no answer; no theory of types or of metalanguage was
elaborated to legitimate the circle of hermeneutic legitimation (no theory of
hermeneutic legitimation can indeed be legitimated, if not by the very process
 170 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

of hermeneutic reading). At the origins of the hermeneutic practice there is a circle;

it does not matter how holy or how vicious.
The only possible answer to this question was a practical one: the rules for
good interpretation were provided by the gatekeepers of the orthodoxy, and the
gatekeepers of the orthodoxy were the winners (in terms of political and cultural
power) of the struggle to impose their own interpretation. Such a rule also holds
for a more secular hermeneutics: the text will tell the truth in so far as the reader
has the rhetorical power to make it speak. And the reader will be sure to have
seen right in so far as he has seen—in the text—his own image. The same, albeit
less secular, procedure held for the interpretive practice in Jewish mysticism
(Scholem 1960: 15):
The literal meaning is preserved, but merely as the gate through which
the mystic passes, a gate, however, which he opens up to himself over and
over again. The Zohar expresses this attitude of the mystic very succinctly
when, in a memorable exegesis of Genesis 12.12, God’s words to Abraham,
Lekh lekha, are taken not only in their literal meaning, “Get thee out’’,
that is, they are not interpreted as referring only to God’s command to
Abraham to go out into the world, but are also read with mystical literalness
as ‘“Go to thee’, that is, to thine own self’.
We feel here, pre-echoed, the Freudian maxim, as re-read by Lacan: Wo Es war,
soli Ich werden [where the id was, the ego should be].
The whole history of medieval exegesis is the story of the establishing and,
at the same time, of the fair challenging of exegetical auctoritates. First of all, from
the time of Augustine, it was discovered that, if the Books always tell something
Other, they do so not only by the words they use but also through the facts they
tell about. The allegory is not only in verbis but also in factis. The problem was
how to assign an allegorical value to facts, that is, to the furniture of the existing
world, to animals, to plants, to stones, to actions, to gestures, and so on. In De
Doctrina Christiana, Augustine decides that in order to understand the Scriptures
the exegete must know physics, geography, botany, mineralogy. Thus the new
Christian civilization accepts and introduces (by further and further re-elabora­
tions) into the interpretive circle (that is, into its own growing encyclopedia) all
the knowledge of classical civilization, as it was inherited by the late Roman culture,
under the form of a syncretistic encyclopedia. This is the origin of the acceptance
of the Hellenistic Physiologus and of the successive production of herbaries,
bestiaries, lapidaries, Imagines and Specula Mundi.
The main characteristics of these texts are: (a) Since every visible entity has
an allegorical meaning, the world’s creatures are not described according to their
empirical properties, but according to those properties that display some analog)'
with the content they are supposed to represent. So the lion is described as an
animal which cancels with its tail the traces of its passage in order to deceive its
hunters, simply because he must possess this property to function as the image
of Christ deleting the traces of human sin by His incarnation, (b) Whether because
of the growth of an hallucinatory imagination or because of a symbolic tempta­
tion challenging the rights of the allegorical coding, the properties of these creatures
are frequently contradictory, so that every item of the medieval encyclopedia can
acquire alternative meanings: the lion is at the same time the Figure of Christ and
 ON SYMBOLS 171

the figure of the Devil because of its hideous jaws. How can an interpreter be
sure that in a given context the lion stands for Christ and not for the Devil? The
allegorical code is open, so as to become a symbolic matrix where the meanings
are, if not nebulous, at least manifold. The medieval solution is that a preceding
auctoritas should have already established the “good” contextual selections: once
again the vicious hermeneutic circle. The medieval interpreter looks continually
for good authorities, knowing at the same time that any authority has a wax nose
that can be moulded as the interpreter wants. With humble and hypocritical flex­
ibility, the medieval interpreter knows that he is a dwarf with respect to the auc-
ioritates, but a dwarf mounted upon the shoulders of giants, and therefore he is
able to look a little further ahead: perhaps he does not see new things (nova), but
he sees them in a new way (nove).
In this way the allegorical mode is inextricably and ambiguously intertwined
with the symbolic one: the medieval mind is a divided one, rent by the conflict be­
tween confidence in an indisputable truth (repeated by every word and every fact),
and the feeling that words and facts must be continually reinterpreted in order to
go further and further, beyond their acknowledged sense, since the whole universe
is quasi liber scriptus digito Dei [like a book written by God’s finger], but in this book
altud dicitur, aliud demonstratur [what is said is different from what is shown].
Once again, as in the case of mysticism, the gathering of the community around
the ever-speaking voices of the Scriptures and of the world has the function of
social control. It does not matter what both the Book and the world say; it matters
that they speak and that there is a centre of elaboration of their speech. When
people gather around a flag, it does not matter what exactly the flag symbolically
means, since it can have multiple senses: what matters is that the flag undoubtedl)
means something to them. The power consists in possessing the key for the right inter­
pretation, or (what is the same) in being acknowledged by the community as the
one who possesses the key. Not only in the Middle Ages does every community
(be it a church, a country, a political regime, a scientific school) in which the
symbolic mode holds need an auctoritas (the Pope, the Big Brother, the Master).
The auctoritas is indispensable when there is not a code; where there is a code—as
a system of pre-established rules—there is no need for a central auctoritas, and
the power is distributed through the nodes of organized competence. Either power
eliminates the other one. Civilizations and cultural groups have to make a choice.
The medieval symbolic mode collapses when, with Aquinas’ theology, a code
wins (the Summae are a sort of institutional code: they do not allow for a vague
interpretation of reality and the Scriptures). Aquinas definitely destroys with cogent
argumentations the medieval tendency toward the allegorical and symbolic reading
of reality and reserves a strictly coded allegorical reading only for the facts nar­
rated by the Old Testament.
The language of the Scriptures is purely literal: the Old Testament tells us
about facts that, in so far as they have been pre-disposed by God in order to teach
us, are to be interpreted allegorically. But these facts are only the facts narrated
by the Old Testament. After the Incarnation the possibility of looking at facts
as meaning something else no longer exists.
As far as language (be it poetic or scriptural) is concerned, every rhetorical
strategy represents an instance of modus parabolicus [parabolic mode], but this non
supergreditur modum litterale [does not exceed the literal mode] (Aquinas 1256: q. 6.
o

-
172 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

a. 3. ad 22). This means that since there are rhetorical rules, tropes and allegories
can be interpreted univocally as if they were literal expressions. Rhetoric is a
natural language.
If the symbolic mode collapses, for a while, in Western thought, it survives,
however, and grows in different directions in other forms of mysticism. A para­
mount example of a different symbolic mode is the Jewish mysticism of the Kab-
bala, where the Book that the Christian tradition tried desperately to anchor in
a fixed allegorical reading blows up, so to speak, in a really unlimited semiosis,
even losing the linear consistency of its material expressive level.

4.4. The Kabbalistic Drift. Scholem (1960) says that Jewish mystics have always tried
to project their own thought into the biblical texts; as a matter of fact, every inex­
pressible reading of a symbolic machinery depends on such a projective attitude. In
the reading of the holy text according to the symbolic mode (ibid.: 36), “letters and
names are not conventional means of communication. They are far more. Each one
of them represents a concentration of energy and expresses a wealth of meaning
which cannot be translated, or not fully at least, into human language”. For the
Kabbalist the fact that God expresses Himself, even though His utterances are
beyond any human insight, is more important than any specific and coded meaning
His words can convey.
The Zohar says (III, 202a) that “in any word shine a thousand lights”. The
unlimited quality of the sense of a text is due to the free combinations of its signifiers
which, in that text, are linked together as they are only accidentally, but which
could be combined differently. In a manuscript of Rabbi Eli-yaku Kohen Ittamari
of Smyrna we read why the scrolls of the Torah, according to the Rabbinical law,
must be written without vowels and punctuation (Scholem 1960: 74-75):
This is a reference to the state of the Torah as it existed in the sight of God
before it was transmitted to the lower spheres. For He had before Him
numerous letters that were not printed into words as is the case today, be­
cause the actual arrangement of the words would depend on the way in
which this lower world conducted itself.... The divine purpose will be
revealed in the Torah at the coming of the Messiah, who will engulf death
forever .... For the God will annul the present combination of letters
that form the words of our present Torah and will compose the letters into
other words, which will form new sentences, speaking of other things.
Thus, when a man utters the words of the Torah, he never ceases to create
spiritual potencies and new lights (ibid.: 76): “If therefore he spends the whole
day reading just this one verse, he attains eternal beatitude, for at all times, in­
deed, in every moment, the composition [of the inner linguistic elements] changes
in accordance with the name that flares up within him at this moment”.
Such a disposition to interrogate a text according to a symbolic mode still rules
many contemporary hermeneutic practices. They can take two alternative (though
profoundly connected at their source) routes. Language can be the place where
things authentically begin: in Heidegger’s hermeneutics the word is not “sign”
(Zeichen) but “to show” (Zeigen), and what is shown is the true voice of Being.
In such a line of thought, texts can be indefinitely questioned, but they do not
only speak of themselves; they reveal something else and something more.
 ON SYMBOLS 173

On the other hand, there is a radically secularized hermeneutics where the

text is no longer transparent and symptomatic, since it only speaks of its possibil­
ity of eliciting a semiosic “drift”. More than “auscultating”, the text must (in
a more radically Kabbalistic option) be deconstructed, until it fractures its own
expressive texture. Thus the text does not speak any longer of its own “outside”.
It does not even speak of itself; it speaks of our own experience in (deconstructive-
ly) reading it. There is no longer a dialectics of here and there, of signans and signatum.
Everything happens here—and the dialectics takes place, at most, as aJurther-and-
further movement, from signans to signans.
Only in this way, even in epistemological frameworks devoid of a traditional
notion of truth, is it possible that the very act of reading provide a certain ap­
proach to what a text truly (even though never definitely) says. From this point
of view it is interesting to re-read the fascinating discussion that took place be­
tween John Searle (unwillingly playing the role of the “literal” man, who be­
lieved that the word copyright conventionally means that the excerpt from a given
paper cannot be reproduced without permission) and Jacques Derrida, who, in
a true Kabbalistic mode, from the unstable combination copy-right draws infinite
inferences on the instability and fragility of Searle’s language, and on the
deconstructibility of every linguistic utterance. Focused upon as a new and un­
faithful Torah, the text of Searle allows Derrida to read in it something else,
something other than what his adversary believed it to mean, something by and
through which he, in fact, has been meant (Derrida 1977: 203-204):

The questioning initiated by the logic and the graphics of Sec does not stop at
the security of the code, nor at its concept. I cannot pursue this problem too
far, since that would only add new complications to a discussion that is al­
ready too slow, overdetermined, and overcoded in all respects. I shall simply
observe that this line of questioning is opened in the first of Sec’s three
parts, and to be exact by the following phrase: “The perhaps paradoxical
consequence of my here having recourse to iteration and to code: the disrup­
tion, in the last analysis, of the authority of the code as a finite system of
rules, at the same time, the radical destruction of any context as the protocol
of code” (p. 180). The same direction, that of an iterability that can only be
what it is in the impurity of its self-identity (repetition altering and alteration
identifying), is charted by the following propositions: “As far as the internal
semiotic context is concerned, the force of the rupture is no less important:
by virtue of its essential iterability, a written syntagm can always be de­
tached from the chain in which it is inserted or given without causing it to
lose all possibility of functioning, if not all possibility of‘communicating’,
precisely. One can perhaps come to recognize other possibilities in it by in­
scribing it or grafting it onto other chains. No context can entirely enclose it.
Nor any code, the code here being both the possibility and impossibility of
writing, of its essential iterability (repetition/alterity)” (p. 182). And:
... in so doing [i.e., by the iterability or the citationality that it permits]
it [the sign] can break with every given context, engendering an infinity of
new contexts in a manner which is absolutely illimitable. This does not imply
that the mark is valid outside of a context, but on the contrary that there are
only contexts without any center or absolute anchoring [ancrage]” (pp. 185-6).
174 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

In this ultimate epiphany of the symbolic mode, the text as symbol is no longer
read in order to find in it a truth that lies outside: the only truth (that is, the old
Kabbalistic God) is the very play of deconstruction. The ultimate truth is that
the text is a mere play of differences and displacements. Rabbi Levi Isaac said
that “also the white, the spaces in the scroll of the Torah, consist of letters, only
that we are not able to read them as we read black letters. But, in the Messianic
Age, God will also reveal to us the white of the Torah, whose letters have become
invisible to us, and that is what is meant by the statement about the ‘new Torah’
(Scholem 1960: 82). The Lacanian acknowledgement of the autonomy of the sym­
bolic as the chain of the signifiers, by inspiring the new deconstructionist prac­
tices, has now allowed the new and atheistic mystics of the godless drift to rewrite
indefinitely, at every new reading, the new Torah.

5. Semiotics of the Symbolic Mode

Our quest for the specific symbolic mode is seriously challenged by the deconstruc-
tive practice. If in a text everything can be read beyond its conventional (and delu­
sory) meaning, then every text is a reserve of symbols. Once again, the symbolic mode
is equated with the semiotic one: each human discourse always speaks indirectly. A
fascinating but unsatisfactory conclusion. Symbols looked so mysterious; they prom­
ised such a privileged way of knowing. And now we are left with two equally irritating
Iternatives: either every utterance provides for this privileged knowledge (but where
rerything is privileged, there is no longer a privilege), or language is always sym-
>lic but only a happy few can deal with it as such. It will be then unclear what the
hers really understand; they probably misunderstand, but why despise them, since
inisunderstanding is the only way of interpreting? Or is there a difference between
“correct” and “incorrect” misunderstanding?
There is, however, a fully secularized way of conceiving of the symbolic mode, as
limited to specific forms of communication, and it is the one proposed by many mod­
ern aesthetic theories springing from the experience of French Symbolism. Even
though the cultural roots of artists such as Baudelaire go back to many currents of
mystical thought, in the modern aesthetic perspective the artist is a free detonator
of a vision that he himself produces: an expression purposefully endowed with vague
meanings, one which cannot be anchored in a pre-established code (there is no fixed
elaboration). The poetic work remains open. It is still the Romantic ideal, but definite­
ly dominated by the ideal of poetic ambiguity. It is true that when Baudelaire (in
i t
Correspondances”) speaks of Nature as a temple whose living pillars whisper a
cryptic speech, so that man wanders among them as in a wood of symbols where
colors, perfumes and sounds echo each other, this picture reminds us of the medieval
world as a book written by the hand of God. But Baudelairean symbols (be they alba­
trosses, cats, or serpents) are private-, they do not need a Physiologus to explain their
possible meanings. They acquire their full significance only within their poetic con­
text. It is true that Mallarme’s idea of a context made up by empty and white spaces
can recall the rabbinical idea of a scroll where even the white spaces are to be read
as letters, but this time there is no God to warrant (and to be named by) the combin­
atory game: the Book is not conceived by God to speak of Himself. On the contrary,
it is the whole world which exists in order to give birth to the Book (Le Livre), and
the Book only speaks of its infinite combinatorial possibilities.
More radically, the symbolic mode is poetically secularized in Joyce’s theory
 ON SYMBOLS 175

of epiphanies and in Eliot’s notion of objective correlative. Here events, gestures,

suddenly appear as strange, inexplicable, intrusive evidence within a context which
is too weak to justify their presence. So they reveal that they are there to reveal
something else: it is up to the reader to decide what else.
In this line of thought not everything can be a symbol. A symbol has to be textually
produced; it requires a specific semiotic strategy. It is exactly such a strategy that
should now be in some way outlined—at least under the form of an abstract model.
A symbolic strategy can produce aesthetic enjoyment, but it is first of all semiotic
machinery.
Let us start from the normal conversational implicatures as described by Grice
(1975). They are instances of indirect signification, as described in 2.2., but not ne­
cessarily of the symbolic mode: the additional meaning transmitted by an implica-
ture is not a vague one, at least not as far as the intentions of the speaker are con­
cerned (it can become vague only because of a lack of cooperation by the hearer).
In a text, the device of flouting the conversational maxims can be used
rhetorically. Metaphors, irony, hyperboles all violate the maxim of quality, since
they do not tell (literally) the truth. If I say that a hero is a lion, literally speaking
I lie: my addressee, by recognizing such a blatant case of lying, must infer that
I probably intend to say something else. But since the correct interpretation of
the metaphor is that this hero is a courageous or ferocious man, the metaphorical
expression does not necessarily convey a content nebula (even though it could).
Many metaphors (and all catachreses) can be disambiguated without vagueness.
More interesting are the violations of the maxims of quantity, relation, and
manner. Not every rhetorical violation of these maxims produces the symbolic
mode: figures such as periphrasis or laconism violate the maxim of quantity without
conveying vague meanings, and certain synecdoches and metonymies violate the
maxim of manner without referring to nebulous contents.
Nevertheless, we can say that even though not all the violations of these maxims
result in producing the symbolic mode, the symbolic mode springs from certain
violations of them and represents a case of textual implicalure.
Naturally a text can narrate a case of conversational implicature, thus encourag­
ing the interpreter to implement the appropriate inferences. If a narrative text
reports a conversation in which the first speaker asks the second one about his
love affairs, and the second speaker answers by some meteorological remarks,
the reader has to infer that the second speaker was making a conversational impli­
cature, meaning “I am not supposed to tell about my private life”, and, by means
of other co-textual inferences, some additional information about his character
can be extrapolated. But all these inferences follow rhetorical or psychological
laws, more or less coded, and rely on pre-established frames. This will not be
considered an instance of textual implicature but, rather, a case of mere reported
conversational implicature.
On the contrary, when in a Zen story the Master, asked about the meaning
of life, answers by raising his stick, the interpreter smells an abnormal implicature,
whose interpretant keys lie outside pre-existing frames. This gesture means not
only that the Master refuses to answer, but also that his (gestural) answer has
a still uncoded meaning, and maybe more than one. The textual implicature signal­
ing the appearance of the symbolic mode depends on the presentation of a sentence
of a word, of an object, of an action that, according to the precoded narrative
 176 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

or discursive frames, the acknowledged rhetorical rules, or the most common

linguistic usages, should not have the relevance it acquires within that context.
The standard reaction to the instantiation of the symbolic mode should be
a sort of uneasiness felt by the interpreter when witnessing an inexplicable move
on the part of the text, the feeling that a certain word, sentence, fact, or object
should not have been introduced in the discourse or at least not have acquired
such an importance. The interpreter feels a surplus of signification since he guesses
that the maxims of relevance, manner, or quantity have not been violated by
chance or by mistake. On the contrary, they are not only flouted, but—so to
speak—flouted dramatically.
i c
By an epiphany [Stephen] meant a sudden spiritual manifestation, whether
in the vulgarity of speech or of gesture or in a memorable phase of the mind itself.
He believed that it was for the man of letters to record these epiphanies with ex­
treme care, seeing that they themselves are the most delicate and evanescent of
moments”, wrote Joyce in Stephen Hero (i. 1904-1906). In producing most of his
epiphanies, Joyce puts them within a co-text that explicitly introduces and stresses
their strangeness and their revealing intrusiveness. Other authors (see, for example,
the objective correlatives in Eliot) present the irrelevant apparitions without justi­
fying their presence. What signals their role is the fact that they should not be there.
Incidentally, the feeling that something should not be there is the one that ac­
companies, in the early theory of textual symbolism, the interpretation of an event,
of an object, of a precept in the Holy Scriptures. See how Augustine, in the De
Doctrina Christiana (c.397-426: III. 14. p. 87), explains when an expression of the
Bible has to be taken figuratively and not literally (naturally, as we have seen
in 4.3., the problem of Augustine and of the Middle Ages will be to reduce the
symbolic power of the expression by interpreting it allegorically):
To this warning that we must beware not to take figurative or transferred
expressions as though they were literal, a further warning must be added
lest we wish to take literal expressions as though they were figurative.
Therefore a method of determining whether a locution is literal or figurative
must be established. And generally this method consists in this: that
whatever appears in the divine Word that does not literally pertain to virtu­
ous behavior or to the truth of faith you must take to be figurative.
The symbolic mode, as theorized by both decadent and contemporary aesthetics,
has also been, and can also be, implemented in different cultural frameworks.
In Gerard de Nerval’s Sylvie (1853) the narrator, in the first chapter, lives a con­
flict between his actual love for an actress (seen as an unattainable ideal woman)
and crude everyday reality. A piece of news read by chance plunges him (at the
beginning of the second chapter) into a state of half-sleep in which he recollects
the events of an imprecise past—presumably his childhood—in the village of Loisy.
The temporal contours of this reverie are blurred and misty: he remembers the
apparition of a mysterious and ethereal beauty, Adrienne, destined for the convent.
In the third chapter, when awakening from his state of half-sleep, the nar­
rator compares the image of Adrienne with the actress and is struck by the suspi­
cion that they are the same person, an unreasonable hypothesis, indeed; but he
still suspects himself of having superimposed the two images, loving the disap­
peared girl of his childhood in the shape of the actress of his adulthood. Suddenly he
 ON SYMBOLS 177

decides to set foot into reality again. Incidentally, at this point the narration abrupt­
ly shifts to the present tense; previously it had been carried on in the imperfect
(a tense that in French stresses a temporal vagueness much more than the sup­
posedly equivalent English tenses can do). Returning to reality, the narrator
decides to go back to Loisy, not to see the girl of his dreams, but to see Sylvie,
who in the second chapter appeared as the representative of humble reality, as
opposed to the enchanted Adrienne. He wonders what time it can be, realizing
that he has no watch. He steps back to ask the doorman, and with this concrete
information he takes a cab to go back physically in space, and ideally in time.
However, between the first question about the right time and his visit to the
concierge, the narrative sequence is interrupted by the following description (Ner­
val 1853: 80-81):
Among all the bric-a-brac splendours which it was customary to collect
at that period to give local colour to an old apartment, shone the restored
brilliance of one of those Renaissance clocks, whose gilded dome sur­
mounted by the figure of Time is supported by cariatides in the Medici
style, resting in their turn on semi-plunging horses. The historical Diana,
with her arm round her stag, is in low relief on the face, where the
enamelled numbers of the hours are marked on an inlaid background. The
works, excellent no doubt, had not been wound up for two centuries. I
had not bought that clock in Touraine to learn the time from it.
What is the narrative function of this description? None. The reader already knows
that the narrator has no reliable watch. At the discursive level this long digres­
sion does not add much to the knowledge of the habits of the character. The
presence of that clock sounds strange and strangely delays the action. Thus thi
clock must be there to mean something else.
What it could mean will be inferred throughout the further course of the story.
In the fourth chapter, Nerval does not narrate the present trip to Loisy. Just at
the end of the third chapter, the author abandons the narrator sitting in the cab
and follows his new memories. The narrator muses on another time, different
from the one of the second chapter. It is some temporal state between remote
childhood and the time of the narration, an imprecise moment of the narrator’s
adolescence, and this state lasts from chapter four to chapter six. At the begin­
ning of the seventh chapter, there is a very short return to the present (time and
tense); then the narrator starts a new reverie about a bewitched voyage to the
Abbey of Chaalis—where he believes he saw Adrienne for a second time. The tem­
poral contours of this experience are absolutely unclear: was he there before or
after the experiences remembered in the previous three chapters? Moreover, did
he really meet Adrienne, or was it an hallucination? This chapter is a revealing
clue that impels the reader to consider the following, as well as the preceding,
chapters in the light of an unsuccessful quest for the things of the past. Nerval
is not Proust; he does not come to terms with his past. Sylvie is the story of the
failure of memory as well as of the failure of identity: the narrator is unable to
distinguish not only the present from bygone times, but also the imaginary from
the real. Sylvie, Adrienne and the actress are three “actorial” embodiments of
the same actant—each woman becoming in her turn the instance of a forgotten
and lost ideal, as opposed to the crude presence (or absence and death) of the
178 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

others. The narrator fails to understand which one he really loves and which one
he really loved. At this point the reader catches the possible symbolic meanings
of the Renaissance clock. It is a symbol standing for a nebula of alternative but
nevertheless complementary contents: namely, the vagueness of remembrance,
the incumbency of the past, the transience of time, the longing for the remnants
of an idealized heroic era—perhaps the clock is even the symbol for Sylvie as a
whole, a story within a story—and so on ad infinitum. The novel encourages as
many interpretations as there are readings. This symbol is open; it is, how­
ever, overdetermined by the co-text. It is undoubtedly a symbol, since its interpre­
tation is doubtful, and there were only doubtful reasons for its textual appear­
ance.
The episode is interpreted as symbolic exactly in so far as it cannot be definitely
interpreted. The content of the symbol is a nebula of possible interpretations; open
to a semiosic displacement from interpretant to interpretant, the symbol has no
authorized interpretant. The symbol says that there is something which it could
say, but this something cannot be definitely spelled out once and for all, other­
wise the symbol would stop saying it. The symbol says clearly only that it is a
semiotic machine devised to function according to the symbolic mode.
In this sense a symbol is different from a metaphor. When facing a metaphor,
the interpreter, in discovering that the metaphoric expression does not tell the
truth, is obliged to interpret it metaphorically. In the same way, when facing the
flouting of a conversational maxim, one is obliged to assume that the expression
should express something else.
On the contrary, when confronted with an allegory, the interpreter could also
decide to interpret it in its literal sense. The fact that at the beginning of the Divine
Comedy Dante is in a gloomy wood can be taken as a report of a literal event,
disregarding the possibility of seeing it as the adventure of a human soul lost in
the wood of sin.
Both symbol and allegory are signaled, at least, by a feeling of literal waste,
by the suspicion that spending such a textual energy for saying only this is
pragmatically “uneconomical”.
The further difference between symbol and allegory stands in this: that the alle­
gory is more insisted upon than the symbol and, furthermore, that the allegory is a
piece of extended narrativity, whereas usually a symbol is the sudden apparition of
something that disturbs the course of a previous narration. Moreover, an allegory
should immediately suggest its own key; it should point towards a portion of ency­
clopedia which already hosts the right frames for interpreting it (it represents an
explicitly intertextual reminder), whereas a symbol leaves the interpreter face to
face with the uncoded. Thus a symbol cannot send back to a previously coded cul­
tural competence; it is idiolectal because it holds only for the textual environment
where it appears (otherwise it is only the “quotation” of a previously catachresized
symbol). In this sense aesthetic symbols are removed from every “political” con­
trol; they detonate but they cannot be elaborated from the outside. The aesthetic expe­
rience cannot be a mystical one, because it cannot be interpreted and tamed by an
external authority. No critical achievement has the force to establish an interpretive
tradition; when this happens, the aesthetic symbol has provisionally (perhaps defi­
nitively) lost its appeal—it has become something that can be quoted as “shibbo­
leth” by the members of a critical clique, the “gesture” of a frozen ritual, the mere
 ON SYMBOLS 179

mention of a previous symbolic experience. The living symbol is then replaced

by a kitsch label.

6. Conclusions
If one then makes an abstraction from any possible underlying metaphysics or
mystical assumption, the symbol is not a particular sort of sign, endowed with
mysterious qualities, nor is it a particular modality of sign production. It is a textual
modality, a way of producing and interpreting the aspects of a text. According to
a typology of sign production (Eco 1976: 217-261), there is an actualization of
the symbolic mode when, through a process of invention, a textual element is pro­
duced which could be interpreted as a mere imprint, or a replica, or a stylization.
But it can also be identified, by a sudden process of recognition, as the projection,
by ratio dijficilis, of a content nebula.
Take the wheel of a carriage at the door of a country house. It can be the
sign for the workshop of a carriage maker (and in this sense it is an example of
the whole class of object there produced); it can be the sign of a restaurant (thus
being a sample, pars pro toto, of that rural world to which it announces and promises
culinary delights); it can be the stylization of the sign for the local seat of the Rotary
Club. One can also decide to recognize it as a manifestation of the symbolic mode:
one can focus upon its circularity as suggesting the ability of proceeding ad in­
finitum, or upon the equal distance of the hub from every point of the circle, the
radiant symmetry that links the hub to the rim through its spokes. One can
disregard as symbolically irrelevant other properties (namely, its wooden material,
its artificial origin, its metonymic link to oxen and horses . . . ). Starting from
the selected properties, one can discover, in one’s encyclopedic competence, that
these pertinent properties map the properties of something else, even though th
something else is a nebula of many things: let us say, time with its forward p
gress, the perfect symmetry of God, the creative energy that produces, fro:
unique centre, the circular perfection of every being, the progression of the di'
light beams throughout the fall of Neoplatonic emanations . . . that wheel c
send us back to all these properties of all these entities, and in its content nebui.
it conveys all of them, and all of them can coexist at the same time, irrespectivi
of their mutual contradictoriness. The symbolic mode neither cancels the wheel
as a physical presence (all the suggested content seems to live within the wheel and
because of the wheel), nor cancels the token wheel as a vehicle of a “literal” conven­
tionalized meaning. For the profane it could still remain the sign for the carriage
maker’s workshop. In the same way, the profane only see a cobbler at work where
the Kabbalist recognizes in his operation the symbolic action of the one who “at
every stitch of his awl . . . not only joined the upper leather with the sole, but
all the upper things with all lower things”, drawing at every step “the steam of
emanation down from the upper to the lower (so transforming profane action into
ritual action), until he himself was transfigured from the earthly Enoch into the
transcendent Metatron, who had been the object of his meditation” (Scholem
1960: 132).
The symbolic mode is thus not only a mode of producing a text, but also a
mode for interpreting every text—through a pragmatic decision: “I want to inter­
pret this text symbolically”. It is a modality of textual use.
This pragmatic decision produces at the semantic level a new sign-function, by
180 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

associating new content—as far as possible, undetermined and vague—with ex­

pression already correlated to a coded content. The main characteristic of the sym­
bolic mode is that the text, when this mode is not realized interpretively, remains
endowed with sense—at its literal or figurative level.
In the mystical experience, the symbolic contents are in some way suggested
by a preceding tradition, and the interpreter is convinced (he must be convinced)
that they are not cultural units but referents, aspects of an extrasubjective and ex-
tracultural reality.
In the modern aesthetic experience, the possible contents are suggested by
the co-text and by the intertextual tradition: the interpreter knows that he is not
discovering an external truth but that, rather, he makes the encyclopedia work
at its best. Modern poetic symbolism is a secularized symbolism where languages
speak about their possibilities. In any case, behind every strategy of the symbolic
mode, be it religious or aesthetic, there is a legitimating theology, even though
it is the atheistic theology of unlimited semiosis or of hermeneutics as deconstruc­
tion. A positive way to approach every instance of the symbolic mode would be
to ask: which theology legitimates it?
 15
S
IRENE PORTIS WINNER

Semiotics of Culture

Semiotics of culture, a very broad domain within semiotics, requires

a system of signification (the construction of sign-vehicles that, being based on codes,
refer back to all possible worlds) and the transmittal of this information so that
the system of signification can be perpetuated. Whether the sign itself is a text
or a part of text clearly depends upon the context, as Lotman has shown. Methods
used to analyze and conceptualize the characteristics of the semiotic object differ,
but in this view the meaningful object (the sign or the text) itself must not be
dichotomized by such oppositions as abstract/concrete, verbal/nonverbal, syn­
chronic/diachronic, or code/message, but must subsume all of these spheres. Thus
semiotics of culture would need to focus on all objects that in some cultural semiotic
system and for some person refer back to something that they are not.
1) If we outline the parameters of a semiotics of culture, it appears that
this domain is both narrower and broader than a general semiotics conceived
in terms of conventional sign encoding. The specifics of a semiotics of culture
may be briefly summarized. First of all semiotics of culture draws upon aspects
of all studies of particular sign systems that either underlie or are directly a
part of culture, in order to investigate the function or correlation of different
sign systems in culture, where a culture is seen as a changing hierarchy of semio­
tic systems which is never isolated from the systems of other cultures. Culture
is understood as pursuing a heterogeneity of languages or sign systems that par­
ticipate in the typical syncretic culture text. Not only are the intersections and
homologies and transformations of sign systems within texts to be investigated,
but also the higher semiotic system of the text which these relations create. Thus
a complex text becomes, in a sense, in its own right a kind of supersign. Fur­
thermore, since the text is not closed, the relation of the text to its context must
be considered. Finally, following upon the assumption that in the last analysis
all culture texts of a certain culture share some invariants, it is assumed that
underlying cultural models may eventually be determined by the study of culture
texts.
In order to exemplify more concretely the approach of semiotics of culture
to the analysis of a culture text, we may consider a mythological tale. It would
not be sufficient to analyze only the universal invariants that structure such texts
such as its universal symbols, which would appear in the same form cross-cul-
turally, without attending to their various cultural transformations. Nor would
it be sufficient to attend only to the organization of its verbal artistic structure
and the internal meanings of its figures of speech as though the text were a closed
system. Rather it would be necessary to place the text in the context of the entire
181
182 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

culture in time and space and to analyze the role of basic cultural perceptions,
beliefs, and values as they underlie participating cultural codes, rules and norms,
and all the mechanisms of transformation of these deeper levels to more specific
levels. In addition it would be necessary to consider the structural relation of this
text to other similar texts, as well as to texts of other types, such as songs, poetry,
rituals, etc. Furthermore, the intentions of the senders as they become a pan of
the text, and the point of view of the receivers who decode and thus also alter
the text, would need to be accounted for. Then, within this broad context one
would consider all the interrelations, intersections and transformations of the vari­
ous internal sign systems (Kristeva’s intertextuality) including that of natural lan­
guage, the language of the mythological artistic text, the system of visual images
invoked, the purely auditory or musical codes or rhythm, intonation, etc., and
the accompanying gestures or actions of the teller of tales. Finally, the text would
need to be understood on its own semiotic level. Does it attain some kind of super­
sign status where it is, in a sense, a system of systems? Of particular relevance
in such a complex encoding and decoding is the role of aesthetic function, which,
by virtue of its ability to relate heterogeneous units from all levels, discovers new
similarities, expositions and equivalences making possible the combination of the
uncombinable, and thus giving rise to new meanings. For example, by juxtapos­
ing objects of all kinds, aesthetic images create metonymic metaphors or montages,
making it possible for nonverbal objects to render abstract meanings and verbal
objects to become more visual and palpable. Thus a pervasive assumption is that
sign systems, because of their interrelatedness in culture, are not homogeneous
'ut partake in various ways of the diverse characteristics of other sign systems.
While semiotics of culture is concerned with the most abstract and metatextual
:vels, such as invariant cultural models, its particular and great strength remains
its lack of reduction and its rejection of closed systems. The concrete, rich and
specific level of the culture text is never abandoned and is of fundamental interest.
Thus a text is understood as polysemantic, polyfunctional, changeable, and pre­
eminently context-sensitive.
2) In certain senses semiotics of culture is narrower than a general semiotics
conceived on the basis of a linguistic paradigm, since such a semiotics in general
attends to the entire universally based communicating mechanisms of systems of
signification of living organisms, and if we include Eco’s pseudo-communication
we may encompass nonintentional messages on the biological and even inanimate
levels. Insofar as general semiotics concerns itself with humans, it attends to pan­
human physiologically and psychologically based structures and their philosophical
interpretations, all those structures which make the particular type of communica­
tion known as human, its types of sign systems and texts, possible and universal­
ly present.
Areas in general semiotics which occupy the borders between psycho-biological
universals and human variable cultures include the semiotic dimensions of the
physiology of medicine (symptomatology); the genetic code understood as a form
of communication that has parallels to the structure of language (Roman Jakob-
son); the functions of the brain as they determine the universal bases for binary
oppositions in perception and different levels of semiotic activities such as verbal
and nonverbal, abstract and concrete, symbolic and iconic; and the semiotics of
the internal communication of psychiatric and diseased minds evidenced by studies
 SEMIOTICS OF CULTURE 183

of aphasia, of autistic or psychotic individuals (Lacan, Jakobson, Ivanov and

others); universal apects of language and of thought that constrain semiotic ex­
pression; universal symbols and their universal meanings if they exist, all of which
are discussed by linguists, philosophers and psychologists (for example Peirce,
Chomsky, Jakobson, Freud, Devereux, Saussure, Hjelmslev, etc.).
Insofar as universal aspects of physical and natural environment and society
(Marx, Durkheim and modern ecologists, etc.) are looked upon as universal and
invariant structures that precondition general forms and meanings of signs, such
concepts are a part of general semiotics.
Semiotics of culture cannot ignore broad findings that define universal struc-
tures underlining semiotics of culture, but it cannot achieve this particular type
of breadth. The conclusions of the findings in general semiotics are, however,
highly relevant to semiotics of culture and may form primitive assumptions or
premises in regard to semiotics of culture. This does not mean that such positions
are uncritically accepted. Paradigms of science change, and some premises turn
out to be negative or debilitating rather than heuristic. Furthermore, the factor
of feedback from culture to society and nature is equally important. Semiotics
of culture departs from the primary polar relations of nature and culture and the
mediating role of society, and thus universals based on nature and society that
constrain and underlie culture, and are as well affected by the semiotic structure
of culture, provide the foundation for research in semiotics of culture. Society,
then, like the empirical ego, is both a creator and a product of culture.
3) Semiotics of culture may also be viewed as more encompassing than a general
semiotics glottocentrically conceived, since, while it attends to aspects of all sign
systems in culture as they interrelate and does not overlook the more abstract
level of underlying invariants and codes, it concentrates upon the infinitely variabl*
and endlessly transformable concrete text in culture in relation to its highly variable
context, human and nonhuman. The effect of these factors has been to free
semiotics of culture from certain limitations historically dominating the broad field
of semiotics, namely the emphasis on langue or code to the detriment of parole,
and the dominance of the linguistic model in the analysis of all sign systems whether
verbal or not.
The move in semiotics of culture from emphasis on universal rules and the
linguistic model to context, the specific and the concrete, has led to a renewed
interest in semantics and pragmatics as affected by varied cultural contexts and
to a reassessment of the iconic qualities of the signifier level of the sign itself, no
longer seen as simply arbitrarily connected to a symbolic meaning. The fundamen­
tal assumption that verbal systems are not the only primary ones does not deny
that verbal systems compose privileged systems characterized by double articula­
tion when the minimal unit is apparently devoid of inherent meaning. Nor does
it deny that all nonverbal sign systems are more or less translatable into or
describable by languages whereas the reverse does not appear to be true. Never­
theless nonverbal sign systems have their own importance and specifics. Thus
the various secondary or syncretic sign systems from verbal and nonverbal arts,
gestures, and all kinds of ritual activities, from table manners, to cooking, to
economic exchange, to wearing of special kinds of clothes, etc., all appear to syn­
thesize and transform, in various degrees, attributes of both verbal and nonver­
bal primary systems.
184 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Since natural language is no longer viewed as the only primary system, the
nonarbitrary nature of other sign systems in culture becomes the more relevant,
and since all sign systems interpenetrate in culture, it is not necessary to assume
that the linguistic sign is unaffected and remains purely arbitrary. Furthermore,
if signs are always a part of systems, and if the system is present in the text level,
then no sign, not even the verbal sign, is purely arbitrary from the inner point
of view. When cultural signs and texts are not understood as entirely arbitrary
or fortuitous, or purely relative, and when they do not represent autonomous units
or closed systems, their various types of relations to other systems and their various
types of internal logic and dynamics (transformations, oppositions, reversals, evolu­
tionary changes, etc.) are all open to fruitful investigation, bearing upon the
elucidation of the principles of communication in culture.
Thus it is clear that investigations of underlying codes and dynamics ordering
of texts cannot be limited to those purely reflecting the linguistic model. This is
true whether we proceed from Levi-Strauss’ basic oppositions and transforma­
tions and type of cultures (cold/hot, concrete/abstract, bricoleur/engineer, etc.),
Goody’s (1977) and Derrida’s (1978) parole or speech as opposed to ecrilure or writing
and associated modes of thought, or Lotman’s (1978) typologies of culture or modes
of thought based on numerous interpenetrating criteria (discrete/nondiscrete,
change by transformation/change by addition of new elements, orientation towards
content/orientation toward expression, focus on beginnings/focus on ends) or
Kuhn’s (1970) shifting paradigms, or Foucault’s (1973) archaeology of contem­
porary modes of thought. Furthermore, insofar as we go beyond the analyses of
underlying and interpenetrating verbal and nonverbal cultural codes and the basic
ultural meanings they signify, we focus on the richness of culturally textured
•arole of the culture text, although it cannot be separated from langue.
Thus semiotics of culture addresses the specificity of human experience, and
yet refuses to remain purely descriptive, unsystematic or hermeneutic, static or
limited to closed systems. The problems of so broad an approach are large, and
particularly challenging is the question of boundary. For example, it is less dif­
ficult to see how semiotics of culture could concern itself with those traditionally
well-defined texts that humans create, such as formalized texts, a musical piece,
a dance, a dramatic performance, a work of visual art, a ritual, ceremony or in­
stitution, a game, a joke, an artifact from a simple tool to an artistically rendered
piece of pottery, an archaeological structure from a simple house to a cathedral,
even a city or an irrigation system or a village unit. But what of the many appar­
ently unbounded units of behaviour that pervade all human life? Here we refer
to the many segments of behaviour that lack easily discernible structures or formal
easily visible boundaries such as frames, a stage, bindings of various types, or
ritualistic beginnings and ends. Here semiotics of culture has a particularly strong
contribution to make, for all patterned activities in culture, from segments of con­
versation to informal visits, to economic exchanges, to routine subsistence activities,
to ways of movement, to ways of handling space, to styles of clothes, to gestures,
expressions and posture, etc., are culturally coded, and thus they convey many
levels of meaning from the most obvious to the most metaphorical and from the
iconic to the most conventional. Indeed, following Peirce, “the human sign”
demands analysis itself.
 16

MICHAEL HERZFELD

Disemia1

TPhe central argument of this paper is that the linguistic formulation of

C i
diglossia”, whereby a single language may have both literary (“H”) and ver­
nacular (“L”) “registers”, is part of a larger semiotic phenomenon in which in­
dividuals are able to negotiate social, national, ethnic, or political boundaries
through a potentially inexhaustible range of co-domains. Language, though im­
portant, is not necessarily primary in this wider phenomenon, which I propose
to call disemia. Disemia is thus a higher-order concept, not only than diglossia,
but also than all such models as political polarization, class-based differentiation
of behavior (including kinesics and proxemics), “folk” versus “urban” culture,
and the like. In Ardener’s sense (1971), it is a paradigmatic structure, a category
of formal social principle rather than of behavior type.2

Defining the Issue

Ferguson’s seminal presentation of the original diglossia model (1959) trea
it as an ideal-type construct, or set of “continuous variables” (Johnson 1975: 39,
Intermediate or “mixed” forms represent emic categories which permit a con-
siderable range of variation in actual speaking practice. Like the “register”
categories, the isolation of language as a discrete domain seems justified as a reflec­
tion of indigenous perceptions, at least as far as Greek (“the language ques­
tion”) and Arabic are concerned, and the crucial role of literacy in determining
the choice and range of any one speaker’s utterances reinforces that impression
(Ferguson 1959; Fishman 1967; Shouby 1957). Yet this perspective shares the
a priori logocentrism of many sociolinguistic categories (cf. Webber 1973; Crick
1976: 63-68), and demonstrates that a commitment to the reporting of emic
categories does not adequately guarentee the representation of conceptual structure.
If emic analysis stops at language, it is in fact rarely emic at all; it becomes in­
stead a passive commitment to the etic view that a spoken language is capable
of expressing the entire range of what its speakers are able to mean. It is a rejec­
tion of the very possibility of a “symbolic syntax” (Ardener 1970; Crick 1976:
111), or semiotic system, in which linguistic signs have a co-operative rather than
a dominant function.
Thus, the alternative model of disemia poses a heuristic challenge. If the social
“conditions of use” of diglossic variants in language can be identified, and if these
conditions are not merely dependent functions of linguistic discourse, then they
must represent principles which can be sought in non-linguistic behaviors also.
If language exhibits diglossia, why not seek disemia in gesture, in architectonics,
in music (surely a fertile field), in food habits?
185
186 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

The conditions of use for disemic variants generally are likely to be of two kinds.
Conditions of the first group are historical or ideological; they consist of those pre­
conditions which have been determined by the culture’s prior ideological experi­
ence, and which in turn determine the appropriateness of a register-marked usage.
Those of the second group are immediate or communicative; as in Fillmore’s for­
mulation (1971: 278), they are determined by the utterer’s intentions and com­
municative competence, and constrain the situational appropriateness of a par­
ticular parole. The two sets thus correspond to the two fundamental kinds of
diachrony, that of linguistic (or cultural) evolution and that of particular utterances
respectively, and are necessarily linked in an analogous and unceasing dialectic.
In other words, the cultural presuppositions which govern an individual’s selec­
tion of register both influence, and are cumulatively influenced by, the particular
choices that are actually made.
I shall attempt to demonstrate the model ethnographically, using the paradigm
case of modern Greece. This does not mean, of course, that Greek disemia is neces­
sarily motivated by the same antecedent principles as comparable phenomena else­
where, but only that the generalization of a linguistic to a semiotic model oflers more
generous possibilities of explanation. Presumably, the potential of this revised model
would then have to be worked out for other cultures on an empirical basis. It is a
heuristic rather than an elaborately taxonomic device; otherwise, it could only en­
tangle us in a thankless choice between reification and runaway typologizing—which
is where, to some extent, the uncritically exploited diglossia model has already led.
One cannot emphasize too strongly that a deterministic model, rather than one which
is sensitive to the semiotics of social interaction, will lack heuristic efficacy, by focus­
ing on disemia as rigid sets of rules rather than as a model for folk rhetorics that can
be manipulated to achieve (“constitute”) all sorts of special effects—irony, contrast,
humor, and much else (see Bouissac 1977, Kendall 1981, Schwimmer 1979).

The Greek Paradigm: First Approximations

Greek H (katharevousa)* is not so much “purely Classical” as definitively
European. While Turkish- and Arabic-derived forms were supplanted during the
eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century emergence of Greek nationalism by Clas­
sical lexemes and syntactic markers, some syntactic elements (notably the genitive
relative tou opiou) appeared to caique German or French prototypes. It is not clear
how far such calquing represents conscious design, but—to anticipate the argu-
men* it is at least consistent with the more general practice in nineteenth-century
Greece of adopting Western European cultural realia4 on the grounds that they
were “really” (i.e., derivatively) Hellenic. The self-view of the (modern) Greeks
as ‘Hellenes” was directed to external consumption, and was a major ideological
component in the articulation of Greek nationalism with Western European politi­
cal and moral support (Herzfeld 1982). As a recent paper by Sotiropoulos (1977)
demonstrates, the development of H-Greek served the economic, political, and
ideological subordination of the emergent nation-state to the European Powers,
by concentrating communicative control in the hands of an outward-directed,
Western-educated elite. Although there may have been deliberate intention in
this, given the peculiarly reflexive or metalinguistic properties of language, there
is no reason to assume that something analogous was not taking place with regard
to other, perhaps less obtrusive co-domains.
 DISEM1A 187

L-Greek, on the other hand, came to be associated with a more introverted

ideology, one that was concerned with the Byzantine and Turkish roots of the
modern culture, and with peasant society, rather than with the Periclean glories.
In its extreme development, as dhimotikia,5 it became the clearest index of a
speaker’s Marxist orientation—a “foreign dogma”, in the pronouncements of
the H-using political Establishment, and certainly opposed to the “Hellenist”
perspectives of the latter.
The principal axis along which these two ideologies were opposed was that
of introversion/extroversion (or inclusion/exclusion). They thereby not only
reproduce the definitive contours of a “culture text” (cf. Winner & Winner 1976:
106-107), but constitute the basis of a dialectical relationship between two ex­
plicitly recognized indigenous models.6 Moreover, the disemic registers encap­
sulate “constructions” (Goldstein 1976) of history, so that each social interaction
reproduces the tension between extremes, and each utterance has the effect of
creating anew (“performing”) the lines of social interaction between actors as
a microcosm of the wider ideological issue.
Let me clarify, first of all, with a linguistic example. When a rural Greek wishes
to explain something to a co-villager, he will normally use the term yati for
“because”. When he wishes to imply some external authority for his opinion,
he will use the Neo-Classical (H) form dhioti. Note that he never uses dhiati, “why”,
for the L-form yati (“why” here); either the questioner assumes the superordinate
position in the exchange (cf. Goody 1978: 17-23; Labov 1969: 57; Herzfeld 1980),
or else a semiotic claim to the authority of external validation would violate “felicity
conditions”. When the villager wishes to explain something to an outsider, suck
as the foreign ethnographer, he is more likely to use dhioti than yati for “because’!
as an index of his interlocutor’s external status and of his own desire to show familiar
ity with educated usage.
This is more than simply “code-switching”. The possibility of such connotative
manipulation is part of the code itself. If connotation is not so much a “vaguer”
kind of meaning than denotation, than it is a superimposed level of sign-production
(Eco 1976: 54-57), the notion of rigidly differentiated codes simply reifies the tax­
onomy of subcodes and ignores the rich semiotic implications of so-called “mixed
forms”—of ordinary discourse, in fact. It is not the lexical item that indicates which
code is being used; rather, it is the use of a given lexical item which indicates (a)
the burden of historical and ideological implication, and (b) the degree of social
closeness between speaker and addressee. Thus, a “use theory” not only serves
semantic analysis well in regard to encyclopedic knowledge (Eco 1976: 98-100,
1984: 46ff.), but also provides a more flexible (and less aprioristic) approach to
the semiotics of diglossia. Phonologically identical units may and do appear in
dictionaries of both registers with identical semantic descriptions. What
distinguishes them is the way in which they are used, and this is knowledge of
an encyclopedic kind.
Outside language, the same observations hold good. A Neo-Classical house-
ornament which originally bespoke an H-orientation, rescued from the demoli­
tion of its original home and incorporated into the design of a small Piraeus house
surrounded by skyscrapers would now usually convey, not the Hellenic preten­
sions of its new owner, but his extreme demoiicism in the threatening face of
“Western culture”. It is not the sign, but the way the sign is used, that tells us
188 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

about its motivating ideology. When the once-despised underworld rebetika songs
began to acquire popularity with the intelligentsia and then gradually with the
Establishment generally, good Classical roots were suddenly “discovered” (or
“constructed”) for them (Veinoglou 1976). Sung by a drunkard in a Piraeus dive,
of course, they still connote “low” culture. Sung in an Athenian salom, other cues
will enable those who know about such things to determine whether they are
“meant” ironically or pretentiously. These are indeed “illocutionary or perlocu-
tionary acts that are unaccompanied by locutionary ones” (Cohen 1975: 8). They
achieve their effects in part, at least, by alluding to the presupposition of shared
historical knowledge.

An Architectonic Example
Certainly, when one has examined diglossia/discmia as a semiotic rather than
as a purely linguistic problem, there is no reason to confine the construct to
language at all. This is particularly the case when we consider that the informing
ideology is largely the same for language as for the other co-domains. True,
language is indigenously treated as a special and discrete problem (to ghlossiko
zilima). It is also true that non-linguistic artifacts mostly seem to convey their
messages as simultaneities rather than as sequential utterances. Such objections
are nevertheless hardly radical. We are not necessarily denying the distinctiveness
of language by refusing to treat it as fully autonomous. On the contrary, the shift
from diglossia to disemia gives us a context in which the linguistic phenomenon
can be treated as a paradigm case rather than as a unique isolate. What makes
what we should then call linguistic disemia different is what in general makes language
different from other cultural artifacts, no more and no less, and it would be merely
tautologous to insist on representing it as a special case—what paradigm is not?—of
the wider phenomenon.
An architectonic example shows how disemic “marking” can function as an
index of ideological orientation and of immediate social relationships simultaneous­
ly, in a manner analogous but not identical to that found in language. In an ac­
count of the Neo-Classical architecture of Athens and Piraeus, we are told, “It
was natural for the newly constituted “good” society—made up of the merchants,
the leading local headmen of Turkish times, the klefts and the educated people
from the West and from Constantinople—to concede the lead to the Bavarians'
in determining the measure of social standards. . . . Dances, dress, manners fol­
lowed Bavarian dictates. The same was true of houses. . . . Thus, the Neo-Classical
house came to be adopted. In addition, it had certain advantages of convenience.
It created a false impression of Greekness8 on the exterior. It emphasized the
owner s economic pretensions, flattered his newly acquired urban outlook, and,
at the same time, protected his private life” (Iakovidhis 1975).
Here, microcosmically, we find the extroversion of the “Hellenist” model and
the introversion of the self-critical “Romeic” model combined in a single “ut­
terance”. This is a doubling of the indexical function; the protection of the
householder’s private life was not merely a mechanical function, it was a means
of signifying his privacy to the rest of the world. To explain in more detail: the
“Hellenistic” exterior was an ideological statement of cultural identity, while the
interior harmonized well with the introversion of the “Romeic” ideology in that
it was immune to inspection by outsiders. The ideological choice a Greek makes
 DISEM1A 189

between the two national ideologies may be rhetorically stated in absolute terms.
In everyday life, however, the signs of both ideologies are manipulated situational-
ly, whether in language, architecture, mores, or any other medium.
Moral disemia is particularly interesting. A villager can praise the aggressive
self-regard known as eghoismos to his fellow-villagers, then condemn someone as
having exhibited precisely that moral quality when describing the latter to an offi­
cial or a foreigner. Such behavioral disemia can be identified in other cultures
hitherto restrictively classified as “diglossic”, notably those of the Caribbean.
Thus, the evidence adduced by Abrahams and Bauman (1971) and Reisman (1970)
shows how an ostensibly negative evaluative term is used of L-behavior that is,
in the appropriate social contexts, regarded as positively indicative of “insider”
status. Again, while it would be insulting to label a Greek villager as a thief’
or a “liar”, both terms can convey praise in contexts where the reference is to
particular acts performed in symbolic defense of the in-group (e.g., sheep-stealing
from other villages in the West Cretan highlands, lying to conceal a household’s
inner workings) (see also Friedl 1962: 80; du Boulay 1974: 77-78). The sense of
the “lie’ ’ in the latter instance is directly analogous to a style of architecture which
protects each household from the prying eyes of the next.
Thus, the disemia model allows us to treat various distinctive codes or co­
domains in directly analogous terms. This is infinitely preferable to treating each
as so completely sui generis that it has to generate a sub-discipline of its own—
“sociolinguistics”, “the anthropology of aesthetic form”, and so forth. Above
all, it broadens our understanding of the potential significance of “conditions of
use” for a general semiotic theory, and for the penetration of interpretative systems
other than our own.

Heuristic Possibilities
Disemia has heuristic potential in two respects. First, it invites a more critical
investigation of cultures where H- and L-styles are indigenously recognized,
whether or not they include a linguistic component. Stirling, for example (1965:
283-289), evocatively describes such a pairing (urban-rural) in Turkish attitudes;
we may now be led to inquire whether, as the Caribbean materials cited above
might suggest, there are any situations in which the L-style is evaluated positive­
ly, or whether the classification is as static and socially context-free as the
ethnograghic description implies.
The second heuristic potentiality of the disemia model is that it points up the
marking of social boundaries (insiders vs. outsiders) in such a way as to lessen
our dependence on linguistic indices. Poems’ analysis of Newfoundland hooked
rugs (1979) demonstrates this well, in the indexical correlation of iconicity (designs)
with degrees of socially hierarchical differentiation appropriate to the rooms in
which the rugs are situated. Here, the internal H/L distinction does not appear
to be replicated in language, despite some evidence (Faris 1968) of semantic
discrepancies between Newfoundland usage and “standard” English. Pocius*
description of the phenomenon does not suffer noticeably through the absence
of supporting evidence of a linguistic nature.
One test of the model’s flexibility lies in its ability to accommodate some of
the effects of tourism on so-called “traditional” cultures. Tourism effectively calls
on local people to provide foreigners with an idealized view of their culture, while
190 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

at the same time encouraging the incorporation of these idealized (or attenuated)
cultural forms into the local aesthetic (see, e.g., Hirschfeld 1977 and Sherzer and
Sherzer 1976 on San Bias molas\ cf. also Cretan touristika, woven articles partly
used domestically). The significance of cultural elements is thus contextually
negotiated (cf. also Schwimmer 1979: 272-273). The metasemiotic rhetoric may
change too. Especially in and around the coastal town of Rethimno, Crete, the
practice has sprung up of scratching designs in cement house-fronts before the
latter have dried. The local people claim that this is done “for beauty”, whereas
the wealthier and worldlier Irakliots—who use “Western” tiles and facings to
a large extent—distain such decoration, and say that they abandoned it many
years ago (Herzfeld 1971)! Beauty is in the eye of the impecunious Rethimniot
householder who mainly has to demonstrate domestic pride to his local neighbors,
whereas the Irakliot is additionally concerned with the impression his town will
make on the tourist hordes.
To summarize, the disemia model suggests a broadly holistic use of speech
act theory without demanding the presence of (verbal) speech. By incorporating
the ideological implications of insider/outsider distinctions, it abstracts the H/L
opposition from the restrictive model of diglossia and applies it to the whole range
of everyday realm. It thereby suggests a new and specifically semiotic perspective
on the social basis of aesthetic concerns.
 17

ROBERTA KEVELSON

Prolegomena to a Comparative
Legal Semiotics

Philip Shuchman (1979: 3-4) recently stressed, in discussing the problem

of knowledge in legal scholarship and in analysis oflegal discourse and practice,
that legal theorists must begin to seriously ask two major questions: 1) how is
the authoritative legal actor’s knowledge of a reality external to the case at hand
brought to bear on the legal judgment or decision, and 2) what are the leading
philosophical assumptions about epistemology which underlie explicit legal
premises and which influence the actions of legal theorists and their practicing
counterparts, legal actors? The answers to these questions, I want to suggest, can
fruitfully be sought by applying to legal matters the theory and method of semiotics
which derives from Charles S. Peirce. Here, I want only to introduce a perspec­
tive on the relation between law and society which may serve to stimulate further
inquiry along semiotic lines.

The Background, of Legal Semiotics

We know that Peirce’s theory of signs as integral with a semiotic epistemology
or theory of knowledge has influenced juridical thought directly and indirectly
since the close of the nineteenth century. A revolutionary illustration of his im­
pact on jurisprudence is Geny’s classic study on legal method (1889; discussion
in Kevelson 1981a). We find repeated reference to Peirce in the writings of such
distinguished legal historians as Huntington Cairns (1962), and notes of in­
debtedness to Peirce for the notion of “legal realism” by such controversial legal
theorists as Jerome Frank (1930). That Peirce’s philosophy was a direct influence
on Oliver Wendell Holmes and on Francis Lieber is a reasonable assumption.
Certainly the exchange of ideas between Peirce and his colleagues in law, especially
during his residence in Cambridge, Massachusetts, appears to have resulted in
the formulation of important, innovative legal theory in late nineteenth-century
and early twentieth-century legal philosophy (cf. Fisch 1964, 1942; Kevelson 1984,
1985).
What I want to show here are some contributions to be made from the study
of law in relation to that of signs. Charles Hartshorne remarked in recent conver­
sation that as long as we continue to become aware of logical possibilities not yet
realized, and begin to examine such possibilities, we are faced with the inescapable
fact of a growing universe in which we ourselves are interactive partners. The
development of legal semiotics is a logical possibility within the doctrine of signs
which warrants close attention.
191
192 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

It is a fact that some key terms in modern semiotic research, such as Code,
Interpretation, Speech Acts, Interrogation, Definition, and Discovery Procedures,
had their origin in law. So it should perhaps not be surprising that a new branch
of the study of signs has recently emerged that can be broadly designated Legal
Semiotics. Within this area of semiotic inquiry we find the following subdivisions:
1) relations between Law and Legal Systems, 2) relations between Legal Discourse
and Legal Practice, 3) exchange of signs between official Legal Actors and non-
official members of the General Public, 4) sign structures of inquests and trials,
5) intersystemic communication between Codes of Legality and Codes of
Legitimacy, 6) relations between the laws of Logic and the logic of Laws, and
7) a comparative semiotic perspective on Legal Cultures.
Each of these areas of inquiry within Legal Semiotics can be approached in
terms of one or a combination of three major considerations: 1) the logical struc­
tures of legal reasoning; 2) legal hermeneutics as paradigmatic for the interpreta­
tion of signs in general in social systems; 3) isomorphism between legal systems
and contextual, coeval social institutions.
In this essay I will be concerned with the seventh subdivision of legal semiotics
(a comparative perspective on legal cultures), and I will deal with it in terms of
the third approach or emphasis (isomorphism between legal systems and their
contextualizing social institutions). Informing my observations, but not directly
discussed, will be Peirce’s semiotic methodology.

How Are Legal System and Social System Related?

Legal anthropologists and sociologists of law in general use the term “legal
culture”. This term carries the rhetorical suggestion that law and social custom
are two sides of the whole of any given society, a property it has acquired through
ts use by scholars attempting to understand, on the one hand, the interaction
etween customs and moral values of a society, and, on the other hand, the order
f authority which specifically constitutes the legal institutions of a society.
Oliver Wendell Holmes remarked that the growth of legal systems and codes
is logical in form, but in substance these codes follow popular feelings and pat­
terns of behavior deriving from basic emotions concerning loss, namely, revenge:
desire for retribution and demand for compensation. He remarks that a legal
system is never consistent or complete, but forever attempting to achieve a balance
between values emerging from present experience and values carried over by
customs rooted in a common-law past. Holmes stresses that the reciprocal rela­
tion between law and custom exemplifies an exchange of meaningful signs. In
a wide range of legal theory, Holmes’s viewpoint is designated as an assumption
of “interactional law”.
A concept similiar to that of Holmes is expressed by his contemporary, Fritz
Berolzheimer, who maintained that society always appears as a whole, a sym­
bolic type of sign, and that there is a necessary relation between every existing
society and its laws. He says (1904-1907: xiv-xxxiv): “. . . a legal process is not
limited to the formulations of laws, but embraces the economic and social institu­
tions and movements which vitalize them . . .”.
Edwin Schur remarks (1968: 73) that “. . . the question of distinguishing law
from other social norms . . . has plagued and continues to plague numerous an­
thropologists and sociologists”. Schur refers to Malinowski’s conclusion from his
 PROLEGOMENA TO A COMPARATIVE LEGAL SEMIOTICS 193

work on the Trobrianders, that the stuff we recognize as legal phenomena are
consequences of a “configuration of obligations” which cannot be ignored without
penalty. The person who breaks the law is testing the strength and power of the
Legal Actors who, in their turn, are obliged to make appropriate legal judgment.
It must be noted that some legal systems include rules for the various ways
laws may be justifiably broken, while others do not allow for any violation of laws
in the name of some presumed and “higher” legitimacy or social sense ofjustice.
In legal systems of the latter type, positive law is absolutely free to oppose social
values, and seeks to establish itself as the sole authoritative system. In legal systems
of the former type, legality and legitimacy are adjuncts in an ideal according to
which positive law and social claims for justice engage in continuous dialogue,
which dialogue constitutes the conceived unity of a Legal System as a whole.
Representing the view that legal codes and cultural values are involved in a
creative tension is Pekelis (1950: 42), who refutes the theory that “rules . . . are
a simple restatement of an existing custom”, and reminds us that “rules which
are enacted with the very purpose of reversing existing custom . . . should be
read as we read the negative of a snapshot: white for black and black for white”.
Thus a code of law may be regarded as a system of signs of a predominantly
symbolic function which represents abstract, ideal values or leading goals of a
society, and as such prescribes and sets forth paradigms of how people ought to
behave; or it may be regarded as a description of how people actually behave,
inasmuch as a community by definition is a social contract whose rules are agreed
upon through the voluntary processes by which individuals transfer their freedoms
to one another and become socialized. That is Locke’s thesis, which in this im­
portant respect affirms the Hobbesian notion of the motivation for social contract.
It has long been believed by legal theorists of many camps that a legal code
is a mirror of society. Dietze observes (1964: 74) that “if law, as is usually be­
lieved, is a mirror of society, then different mores, circumstances, and times may
rationally require different codification . . . .” He goes on to remark (ibid.) that,
“characteristically, old German codes were explicitly called ‘mirrors’ (Spiegel),
the most famous of them being the Sachenspiegel”.
The problem of recodifying the laws of a society requires that we consider
the concepts of “open” and “closed” in at least two different senses. The first
involves the study of Legal Hermeneutics referred to above; the second requires
that we clearly distinguish between open legal systems and closed legal systems
as respectively representative of closed and open societies, and it is some features
of this latter relationship that must be discussed here.
To begin with, it is useful to accept Friedman’s point (1975) that there is not
in actual practice a single Legal System. Rather, as he goes on to show, there
are in all societies networks of legal subsystems. These legal subsystems continually
conflict and compete with one another for position, influence, and dominant power.
As a rule, a closed type of legal system will predominate in a society which derives
its working values from an underlying belief in fate, in predetermination, in a
universe created once and for all by a divine force. In such societies, the legal
code is presumed to extend a divine mandate through its privileged, authoritative
legal actors.
An open society, by contrast, is one which has explicitly distinguished bet­
ween civil and sacred law. Open societies are often but not always characterized
 194
FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

bY a prevailing belief that the world has not been created once and for all, is not
a Being so much as a Becoming. I would mention here that it is this process of
Becoming which gives Peirce’s philosophy of signs—and especially that part of
his Expanded Logic which he calls, synonymously, Methodology, Methodeutic,
and Speculative Rhetoric—such critical prominence in our approach toward
understanding the “open” aspect of legal systems (Kevelson 1984).
Through the interpretation of signs, new signs for reality emerge. Peirce was
very much concerned, in his later writings especially, with methods of discovery
for explaining open systems. Traditional logical methods of justification are, as
we know, inadequate when it comes to the discovery of new ideas (Russell 1984).
Correlatively, as social changes come to be regarded in legal theory as a source
of new law, we find rules for discovery procedures in law made increasingly more
explicit (Beal 1896; Ross 1912). It is no mere coincidence that Peirce’s interest
in the logic of discovery developed at the same time that legal theorists were writing
texts on procedures for legal discovery. Both in law and in semiotic philosophy
the fact of changing societies is a primary fact of experience to be accounted for.
The difference between open and closed societies with their corresponding legal
systems may be summarized as follows. In closed society, the dominant, prevail-
ing legal code has become as though canonized. It is represented by the guardians
of the legal order as embodying fixed and eternal values, somewhat like the holy
texts which religious leaders of communities safeguard. In an open society it is
assumed that codes of law are man-made, and that new laws must be enacted
to fit changes in the times.
These remarks serve to foreground some main assumptions at work in the
area of Legal Semiotics.
1) There is no ideal Legal System in any society; there are only relations be­
tween legal subsystems which conflict for the position of ascendancy.
2) Verbal Legal Acts are of three kinds: decisions, commands and requests,
and rules. There are both verbal and nonverbal Legal Acts, but all legal acts are
presumed to derive from a verbal infrastructure, and thus must be examined and
accounted for in the context of natural language by appropriate modes of analysis,
such as, particularly, Peirce’s Methodology, or Speculative Rhetoric.
3) Assumptions of authority, often implied but deleted in explicit Legal Acts,
characterize traditional presumptions of trust and legitimacy. Such presumptions
are not adequate by themselves in transitional, open societies. The approach of
Legal Semiotics to a comparative view of legal cultures has especial need for
Peirce’s method of methods in order to account for different patterns of legal discourse
and practice.
4) Coexisting legal subsystems sometimes reinforce one another, at other times
they conflict with each other. In order to understand the shifting dialogue be­
tween opposing and/or complementary subsystems, we need intersystemic bridge
laws. Such bridge laws permit us to describe the kinds of legal dialogue which
take place as an exchange of value signs between the predominant and author­
ized legal actors and the spokesmen for values newly emerging in the general
public. In this way, we may begin to explain the age-old symbiosis between
legitimacy and the rules of law, or legality.
5) The system of logic which predominates in any given society is a referent
model, or sign, for contextual social structures and cultural institutions. We assume

j
 PROLEGOMENA TO A COMPARATIVE LEGAL SEMIOTICS 195

that these derived systems are Interpretants which interpret their object-sign, the
legal system. Following Peirce’s concept of the three categories or stages in the
process of coming to a conclusion about an object, the Interpretant Sign is
Firstness, the Immediate Interpretant is Secondness, and the Dynamic Interpre­
tant is Thirdness. These three stages correspond with the functions of the iconic,
the indexical, and the symbolic which are simultaneous and coordinate functions
in response to context (Kevelson 1981, 1981b, 1984, 1985).

Social Signs and Their Legal Interpretants

A monolithic cornerstone was laid for legal semiotics by Wigmore (1928), when
he invited us to think of all institutions of a given society, including artifacts, modes
of personal interaction, the design or physical layouts of communities, as well
as predominating patterns of thought and value, as extensions or modalities of
empowered and effectual legal systems.
Since Wigmore’s study of legal systems there has been interest, particularly
among sociologists, in the relationships between societies and legal systems. A
number of seminal studies in social science pre-date Wigmore by more than a
decade; but it is particularly in Wigmore’s unique approach that we can begin
to examine the topics of edifices, men of law, and legal records, as logical types
in a logic of law regarded as a system of signs.
These topics are extensions of two prototypical terms of legal understanding:
Justice and The Laws. From the time of ancient Greece these terms have been
interconnected in the development of Western legal science. At times, these terms
have been regarded as synonymous, at other times they have been taken to be
in opposition. When they have been taken as equivalent, this was done on the
basis of a well-known strategy of rhetoric, the argument by convergence. The
opposite interpretation was brought about rhetorically through an argument by
dissociation (Kevelson 1977).
We especially want to distinguish the meaning of the term ‘pragmatics’ in
Peirce’s philosophy from the way we use the concept of pragmatics in our or­
dinary conversation to refer to the direct, practical aspects of certain thoughts,
procedures, and action in the world. For Peirce pragmatics is an integral aspect
of a Methodology which is not directly applicable to practical affairs, but seeks
rather to account for the actual processes by which ideas develop and grow through
discourse in the course of practical life. The Speculative Rhetoric or Methodology
which intends to describe how new thought-as-sign interprets known thought-as­
sign is modelled upon the rhetorical tactics of persuasive discourse. Semiotic
methodology is a theoretical representation of experiential arguments in law and
in ordinary communication (Kevelson 1984, 1985). Indeed, Toulmin (1958) has
called the legal argument the prototype of all other argument in natural language.
Let us try to provide an overview of some of the main features of a number
of legal systems which date from antiquity, and which can be conveniently regarded
in a global way. I am not suggesting anything approaching an exhaustive descrip­
tion of these selected systems; my intention is merely to compare and contrast
certain features of each which may be considered characteristic and significant.
The Egyptian legal system, which endured from about 3200 B.C. until around
800 B.C., underwent great modification, reflecting a changing culture and, par­
ticularly, internal political revolutions which took place during that period. These
 196
FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

changes in the society from war, commerce, modifications of the signs of deity—
all contributed to undermine the structure of an indigenous legal system in Egypt.
In response to these pressures, the native court of law held proceedings under
the aegis of the god Osiris. This court evolved to a highly complex system resis­
tant to the influences resulting from foreign conquests; but in the eighth century
B.C. the system was badly weakened by internal civil war, by the conquering
Assyrians, Persians, and Greeks, and finally by the Roman Caesars who imposed
upon Egypt their own legal system, thereby destroying once and for all the native
Egyptian system (Wigmore 1928: 49).
Unlike the Egyptian system of law, the Mesopotamian legal system, which
dates from around 2500 B.C., changed hardly at all during its effective existence.
The earliest people of that area were the Sumerians, a non-Semitic people.
Fragments of their codes, the earliest code-texts to be discovered which are still
intact in modern times, anticipate the “pillar-code” of Hammurabi which dates
from around 2100 B.C. Hammurabi’s code governs all of cultural life: crime,
family, property, commerce. It is noteworthy that this is the only legal system
which was organized from a central power source that did not provide for the
special training of legal professionals. The Egyptian laws, which were more regional
than central in their source of issue, and were not encoded as a binding system
as Hammurabi’s code was, share with the Mesopotamian laws the absence of train­
ing schools for professional lawyers.
A legal system as such was not established within Jewish civilization until 500
A.D. some 2500 years after the Mosaic Code had become the law of the Hebrews.
A system of law requires that official legal actors enforce the law, interpret the
law, and legislate it; the system must therefore provide the resources needed to
decide cases.
When the Mishnah or book of learning was brought together with the Gemor-
rah or Talmudic commentaries by the priests into an encyclopedia of law which
e ined, in a legal framework, major topics ofJudaic culture, the legality-legitimacy
i ectic was brought into a marriage under God. Among the major topics dis­
cussed were history, mathematics, medicine, theory of metaphysics, and sundry
speci ic problems in civil law. Neither statutes nor rules are recorded in this text;
it is a documentation of discourse constructed dialogically of questions and answers,
e find in the long history of Hebrew law that the sign-referent of the Highest
ega ctor changes. The sign, or term of Highest Legal Actor, evolves from
Kings to Prophets to the Judges of the Mosaic Period (1200 B.C. to 400 B.C.)
to the classic period of Hebrew law in which the chief Actor is the Rabbi (300
B.C. to 200 A.D.). Thus the term “god” extends to the term “Rabbi”. In the
course o this development, the primary legal texts shift from the canonized Pen-
tateuc o t e irst period to the reports of cases and Talmudic commentary of
the second or classic period. In the Talmudic Period which follows, the Legal
Digests become the primary sources of legal precedent, and in this period Hebrew
law struggles for survival under imposed Roman law; the culture at this time is
characterized under dual and competing legal systems.
In the history of the Jewish people, what Wigmore calls the Medieval Period
egins around 700 A.D. This corresponds with the Jewish restructuring of the
people as an alien group in a host culture. During this period we find Private
Codes and Talmudic Commentary, until around 1500 A.D., at which time the
 PROLEGOMENA TO A COMPARATIVE LEGAL SEMIOTICS 197

cultural development is characterized by emphasis on local custom, on ceremonial

and moral rules, and increasingly on borrowed, culturally transforming patterns
of living. At this time, legal texts begin to include translated assimilations of ancient
texts, and they begin to be printed rather than hand-written. The concept of legal
authority has radically altered under the influence of successive Persian, Greek,
and Roman conquests, and passed from the Kings to the Sanhedrin or senate,
and from the Senate to the community, which may consist of as few as ten men.
The last distinctive legal system I want to include in this brief survey is the
Islamic system. It should be stressed that, from its inception, the Islamic legal
system was a complex, comprehensive sign of interrelationships between all areas
of cultural life: all aspects of one’s life were prescribed through a revealed, divine
command. It is presumed that everything a member of the Islamic culture should
know, believe, and do is written in the summaries attributed to Mohammed and
also those written down after his death as gleanings from his thought. These didac­
tic summaries encompass all aspects of religion, ethics, law, politics, and industry.
They are in great part easily practiced dicta.
The Islamic legal system reached the peak of its development during precise­
ly those four centuries which are referred to as the Dark Ages in Europe, 800
to 1200 A.D. The world’s oldest law school was the Mosque El Azhar in Cairo,
founded in 970 A.D.. This was not a seat of the ancient Egyptian law, but an
Islamic law school. Wigmore remarks that “in the sciences and arts, the Saracens
were the preeminent people” who brought intellectual and cultural activity and
progress to all of Europe.
As in the Rome of the emperors, the Islamic legal system, two hundred years
after the death of Mohammed, was divided into judicial and juristic functions,
both set apart from executive functions. At this time a system of professional legal
specialists was developed. By 900 A.D. this institution was so well organized that
the writings of these jurists formed the third major source of Islamic law. The
first source remained the Koran itself; now, to the second source (the commen­
tary on Mohammed’s sayings and writings), a third source was added, the pro­
fessional legal commentary.
Wigmore suggests (1928: 775) that the Islamic legal system has endured as
a native legal system because it realizes the formula for a legal system which reaches
into and affects virtually every corner of every life in every aspect of a total cultural
system, to wit, it performs the following functions: “Judiciary organization, careful
documentation, role of counsellors, use of authority and precedent in argument
and in decisions, theoretically religious background of its legal principles”. Yet
it must be said that the Islamic system of law is not one which exemplifies semiosis
as open dialogue (notwithstanding Rescher’s analysis [1966] of interrogative pat­
terns in Arabic legal discourse). It is a highly complex structure of signs and sign-
relationships, but it is designed to be as resistant as possible to evolutionary pro­
cesses of exchange and growth, particularly where it is a question of stimuli from
beyond the horizons of Islamic authority.
In all, the above examples suggest that certain cultures, perhaps all cultures,
exemplify, as signs-in-themselves, the semiotic process of transacting and exchang­
ing meaningful signs between participants in the rounds of daily life. Within these
societies as units of culture, sometimes in spite of their explicit structures, each
temporal realization of authority adds to a cumulative message of discourse__
198 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

tradition—that constantly adapts and modifies through interpretative translation

and response to the Other. I have attempted here to correlate patterns of rule
with patterns and images of authority which act, in different ways, for different
societies, as representations of the society’s highest values. Eventually, we will
need to attempt a systematic (and not just a selective) presentation of logical pic­
tures of each distinctive type of legal system that can be discerned in human history,
replete with its major quests and inquiries, using Peirce’s Methodology.

Concluding Remarks
The experimental phenomena of legal systems are systems of behavior, and
as such are processes and events in which meaningful signs are exchanged in actual,
practical life. The theory of Legal Semiotics does not immediately engage in these
transactions, but rather, at a second remove from the exchange of meanings, it
seeks to explain how this discourse proceeds and develops.
Because rhetoric plays a central role in the emergence of sign relations within
legal cultures, it warrants particular attention within legal semiotics. A semiotic
methodology for the study of law, once developed, can contribute to our under­
standing of practical and nontraditional uses of rhetoric in legal action and legal
reaction. It can also point the way toward describing both societies’ modes of
responding to legal authorities and the internal dialogue between the judge as
highest legal actor and as member of society. In addition, legal semiotics casts
new light upon the fact that no individual person is a passive object of a legal
system, that one can bribe, cajole, outwit, outtalk, and in countless ways use
rhetorical strategies to mold a rule or shape its application. As Friedman points
out (1975: 105ff.), the use of rhetoric is the act of a person engaging in a com­
municative event, using signs in persuasive ways in order to shape the under­
standing of the law.
Legal “commands” do not strike a person directly from the outside, but they
are filtered through a semiotic web composed of cultural and personal scales and
measures of straights and crookeds. Not the least of the problems confronting a
semiotics of law and legal systems is that of understanding the process of how
equivalent meanings and values are arrived at and agreed to within these net­
works of semiosis. This issue dovetails with the object of inquiry within Speculative
Rhetoric, which is constituted by “the devices which have to be employed to bring
new relations to light” (Peirce c. 1903: 4.370). The task of legal semiotics is to
bring to light just this open foundation of systems of law as such, and to set them
in relation to societies and cultures as a whole.
 18

RICHARD L. LANIGAN

Semiotics, Communicology,
and Plato’s Sophist1

-1- he dialogue Sophist is often regarded as the most difficult of Plato’s writings.
In pan, it is ambitious in taking up the problem of the Being of Not-Being. Also,
it attempts an explanation of the One and the Many that is an enduring
philosophical and empirical paradox. Last, the dialogue is an oral illustration of
Platonic method (maieutic) as purported in the Seventh Letter. The presence of
these varying threads in the one dialogue suggests a major shift from the conver-
sational tone of inquiry present in the early dialogues to the argumentative mode
of analysis in Plato’s late thinking. The chief result is the creation of an object
of consciousness within interpersonal experience that is open to analytic justifica­
tion as an empirical experience.
My essay attempts to explicate the main features of the Platonic argument
in order to establish that the model of discourse analysis is semiotic in nature and
phenomenological in function. I am using the term model in its technical theory
construction sense as an “exemplar” (combined “paradigm” and “prototype’ )
in a theory.2 Thus in a Heideggerian view (1968: 51), “What a model as such
is and how its function for thinking is to be understood can only be thought from
an essential interpretation of language.” The dialogue Sophist relies on a binary
code that is cast within a rhetorical situation grounded in an analogue logic. The
binary coding is made clear with the illustrative use of a modified version of
Barthes’ model of discourse. The Barthes model is grounded in Hjelmslev’s theory
(1943, 1943a, 1948; Garvin 1954) in which he describes the structure of language
and similar systems with the following theorems:
1. A language consists of a content and an expression. 2. A language con­
sists of a succession, or a text, and a system. 3. Content and expression
are bound up with each other through commutation. 4. There are certain
definite relations within the succession and within the system. 5. There
is not a one-to-one correspondence between content and expression, but
the signs are decomposable in minor components. Such sign components
are, e.g., the so-called phonemes, which I should prefer to call taxemes
of expression, and which in themselves have no content, but which can
build up units provided with a content, e.g., words (1948: 35).
The Barthian model of Hjelmslevian theory allows a direct comparison between
the stages of Platonic method and Barthes’ concepts of connotation, denotation,
and reality as set in a signifier or rhetoric system and signified or ideology system
199
 200 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

(Lyons 1963). The analogue logic is equally applicable in the respective correla-
tion to Merleau-Ponty’s (1945) phenomenological model of description, reduc­
tion, and interpretation. In short, the logic for a semiotic phenomenology is provided
in the dialogue Sophist and it points the way for viewing the speaking subject as
an agent provocateur in the sociocultural context where empirical reference must
give way to the production of analytic signification. As Heidegger (1968: 51)
specifies: “speaking about ontic models presupposes that language in principle
has an ontic character, so that thinking finds itself in the situation of having to
use ontic models for what it wishes to say ontologically, since it can only make
something evident through words.”
My essay does not represent an effort to claim that Plato is either a semiologist
or a phenomenologist. Rather, I argue that the dialogue Sophist offers a long
neglected textual model of binary analogue thinking that is foundational to many
of the issues current in the study of the philosophy of communication where
semiology and phenomenology intersect in the problematic of analysis. Indeed,
many of the basic elements in the Platonic investigation are being unnecessarily
reinvented by contemporary theorists. By addressing the fundamental problem
of the Being of Not-Being, Plato provides a semiotic phenomenology of discourse
in which he demonstrates the acceptability of analytic proofs as the concrete analysis
of empirical communication acts. Thus, the dialogue Sophist represents a critical,
but often ignored, theoretical foundation for an empirical examination of the sign
relationship between the ontology of the speaking subject and the epistemology
of the discourse system.
As a dialectic examination, my analysis has four steps. First, I review the
exemplar of maieutic that Plato provides in Letter VII. Then I indicate the parallel
between the Platonic model and the one that Barthes (1964) offers. The point
of this comparison is to demonstrate that Barthes adopts a view of “rhetoric”
and “ideology” (and the subsequent view of “text”) that is dysfunctional if we
concede the force of Plato’s analysis. Third, I examine the Platonic model as it
is applied in substance to the productive art of discourse in the dialogue Sophist.
Last, I suggest the way in which Merleau-Ponty’s existential phenomenology
(1945) offers a praxis model of philosophic discourse that meets the Platonic stan­
dard for theory construction and grounds rhetoric in a dialectic logic consistent
with modern Hjelmslevian notions (1943) in communication theory. That is, I
am concerned to argue that Plato gives us a coherent logic of discourse as a ground­
ing that we readily perceive as information theory. Barthes utilizes this theory
and is trapped by its structure, namely, that context always provides for choice,
but concrete choice is systematically ambiguous. By comparison, Plato helps us
discover that the inclusion of the human agent in the use of information theory
sets the criteria for communication theory, in which a person makes a choice that
systemically constitutes a context. But in specifying the problem in order to locate
the solution, Plato stops short of disclosing the condition for choice in context.
For such an illustration of completed theory, I turn to Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy
of communication (1945) and my own extensions of his basic model (Lanigan
1970, 1972, 1979, 1979a). One other feature of these various comparisons needs
to be mentioned before proceeding. In Plato, Barthes, and Merleau-Ponty the
basic philosophic pair of concepts at issue is “rhetoric” and “ideology”. In this
regard, it is important to recognize the signification that attaches to these con-
 SEMIOTICS, COMMUNICOLOGY, AND PLATO’S SOPHIST 201

cepts as they are used in dialectic analysis. In brief, “ideology” should be viewed
as a condition of discourse that constitutes the context of choice, viz., “information .
By comparison, “rhetoric” is the practice of discourse that constitutes a choice
in context, viz., “communication”. Indeed, it is the very irony of the dialogue Sophist
that in seeking out the axiological characteristics of sophistry, we apparently locate
the philosopher’s condition and thereby discover the logic of human discourse
with its full ontological import (Kerferd 1954, 1981).

The Seventh Letter

Plato addresses his letter to the companions and friends of Dion. The letter is
occasioned by Plato’s attempt to maintain his neutrality in the struggle for power
at Syracuse between the exiled Dion and the ruling Dionysius I. We need not
encumber ourselves with the history of Syracuse, but it is of consequence to recall
that in the dialogue Sophist the discussion begins epistemologically with the prob­
lem of distinguishing among the sophist, the statesman, and the philosopher.
Plato’s intellectual problem in the dialogue has its vivid practical illustration in
Letter VII, which recalls the threat to his personal existence during the boat trips
between the Greek mainland and Sicily. To be sure, the existential flavor of Plato s
thinking is all too clear in his rather constant mention of his recurrent, urgent
need to get a boat out of town! With less facetiousness, I also need to remind
you that Socrates is pursuing the question “What is knowledge?” in the dialogue
Theaetetus, which ends with a promise to complete the discussion the following
day (Klein 1977). Yet, the next day Socrates is arrested and brought to trial. The
consequence is that the discussion of knowledge resumes while Socrates is in prison
awaiting execution. The resumed dialogue is the Sophist (Sallis 1975: 457).
In the key passage of Letter VII, Plato announces the exemplar that informs
the Socratic method of maieutic.3 “For everything that exists there are three
classes of objects through which knowledge about it must come; the knowledge
itself is a fourth, and we must put as a fifth entity the actual object of knowledge
which is the true reality. We have then, first, a name, second, a description, third
an image, and fourth, a knowledge of the object” (p.353BC: 342b-343c). And
later he adds, “Furthermore these four [names, descriptions, bodily forms, con­
cepts] do as much to illustrate the particular quality of any object as they do to
illustrate its essential reality because of the inadequacy of language. Hence no
intelligent man will ever be so bold as to put into language those things which
his reason has contemplated, especially not into a form that is unalterable which
must be the case with what is expressed in written symbols.” The fact that this
model is communicated in a written letter points to a momentary paradox. Yet,
we recall the dialogue Sophist where the contemplated model is in fact articulated
according to Plato’s criteria for production (Isenberg 1951).
Plato offers us an illustration to demonstrate the model’s utility. The example
is the concept “circle”. First, the articulate use of “circle” is a word that names.
Second, we use nouns and verbal expression to describe the circle and thereby
suggest its logos: “The thing that has everywhere equal distances between its ex­
tremes and its center.” Third, we discover a class of objects, e.g., the graphic
object that we can draw and erase or the wooden object we can turn on a lathe
and then destroy. Fourth, we come upon another thing that is not found in sounds
or in the shape of bodies, but in the mind. This concept has a degree ranging
 202 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

from knowledge to understanding to current opinion, each displaying a “par­

ticular quality”. Fifth, there is the real circle, what Plato in his Idealism calls
the “essential reality”. We immediately perceive that the clear, but epigrammatic
presentation of the exemplar in Letter VII is an assertion in want of proof. The
desired demonstration of the model occurs in the dialogue Sophist, where Plato
addresses the question of knowledge and its method, i.e., the logos of logos (Sallis
1975: 456; Kerferd 1954). But before examining this detailed argument, I would
like to compare the Platonic model to that of Barthes (1964).

Barthes’ model of discourse

Barthes’ 1964 model actually consists of a developmental approach to the ques­
tion of knowledge that is in spirit like the Platonic quest. In particular, both Plato
and Barthes are concerned to formulate a method for discovering and utilizing
knowledge that is produced and comes to us in the form of discourse. Also, both
theorists provide for a modification in their method when discourse proves to be
an inadequate guide. This modification is, of course, the use of myth. As I subse­
quently suggest, it is Barthes’ (1957) model for myth analysis that points to a seri­
ous defect in the structuralist theory of rhetoric in general and of text in particular.
It is a defect that is exposed initially by using the Platonic model for epistemology.
In chapter IV of Barthes’ Elements of Semiology (1964) we have the now classic
presentation of the semiotic model of discourse. The model is constructed to ac­
count for the production of signification. By comparison, Eco (1976: 54-56, 268-
269) presents a less flawed process model of the Hjelmslevian theory and subse­
quent diagrammatic presentation. Following Hjelmslev, Barthes calls the first ele­
ment in the system the “plane of expression”. The second element is the “plane
of content” and the connection between the two planes is simply the “relation”.
He proceeds to argue that the £xpression/i?elation/Content or ERC condition
exists on the two levels of “connotation” and “denotation”, this latter being a
metalanguage function. Barthes offers two illustrative expressions of this model:
one is a symbolic calculus and the other is a pictorial diagram. Last, there is a
third diagrammatic illustration of the model that shows the combined models of
connotation and denotation as based in the real system. It will be useful to com­
pare the symbolic and diagrammatic versions [mutatis mutandis existential graphs]
of the models to indicate the logical limitations built into Barthes’ approach.
The symbolic version of the model in a propositional calculus is quite simple
and straightforward (Figure l)4:
2 E R C

1 ERC
Figure 1. Barthes' ‘connotation' expressed in his propositional calculus

The first system [noted in “1” in Figure 1] ERC becomes the plane of expression
of the second system {noted as “2” in Figure 1], so the formulation now reads
(ERC)RC. In this case we have the connotation, since the plane of expression in
the first system (ERC) becomes the signifier [Sr] of the second system, i.e., (ERC)
substitutes for E in the second ERC. This structure is reversed in the case of denota­
tion, thereby becoming a metalinguistic physical function. Here (Figure 2) we
have the plane of expression in the first system by commutation for the plane of
 SEMIOTICS. COMMUNICOLOGY, AND PLATO’S SOPHIST 203

2 E R c
1 ERC
Figure 2. Barthes’ 'denotation/metalanguage' expressed in his propositional calculus
content in the second system. That is, the formulation reads ER(ERC), in which
the signified (ERC) replaces the C in the first system of ERC. Both connotation
as a signifier and denotation as a signified are apparent in the existentialist graphs
(Figures 3 and 4).
Sr Sd

Sr Sd

Figure 3. Barthes' ’connotation'graphically produced

Sr Sd

Sr Sd

Figure 4. Barthes’ ‘denotation/metalanguage' graphically produced

At this point a problematic issue arises. If we take Barthes’ (1968) symbolic

presentation of connotation (ERC)RC and denotation ER(ERC) as combinatory,
it should be possible to express the formulation as (ERC)R(ERC). Why is this
formulation not presented by Barthes? If we graphically present the combinatory
formula (Figure 5), it becomes quite apparent. Barthes gives us only one com

Connotation 2 ERC

1 2 ERC

Denotation 1 '¥ R C^

Figure 5. Combinatory overlay of Barthes' propositional calculus for 'connotation and

denotation' where the metalanguage function is produced: Rhetoric

mutation set (Figure 5), while there is at least one other necessary set (Figure
6), and multiple sufficient sets (Figures 7 and 8). In fact, Barthes suggests the

Connotation ERC

1 2 ERC

Denotation I rE r c'
Figure 6. Combinatory overlay of Barthes’ propositional calculus for ‘connotation' and
denotation’ where the metalanguage Junction is produced: Ideology

possibility of an answer when he distinguishes “Rhetoric” (Figure 5) from

“Ideology” (Figure 6). Yet there is not discussion of the production of Ideology;
it is simply asserted. The best explanation for the use of the linear ratio of
 204 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Information-1 Information-2 Redundancy

Connotalion 2 E R C E R C E R C
A .A
----\ f
I 2 bR C E R C E R C
.A.
CT
Denolation 1 'e R F *1 R C E R C

Figure 7. Examples of combinatory sufficient condition sets that can he demonstrated in

communication theory

Myth-1 Myth-2

Connotation 2 E R C E R C
A
I 2 b R C E R F
Denotation I 'e R C' E R C

Figure 8. Examples of combinatory sufficient condition sets that can be interpolated in

communication theory

(ERC)RC.ER(ERC) (see Figure 9) rather than my entailment model (ERC)R(ERC)

3 Connotation Sr: rhetoric Sd: ideology

2 Denotation: Sr Sd
Metalanguage

1 Real system Sr Sd

Figure 9. Barthes' complete model in Elements of Semiology (1968: 93)

(or more elegantly (ERC)2) is that such an entailment (see Figure 10) discloses

3 Connotation Sr: Rhetoric Sd: Ideology

2 Denotation: Sr Sd Sr Sd
Metalanguage

I Real system Sr Sd Sr Sd

Figure 10. Lanigan extrapolation of Barthes’ model

that discourse is dialectic (ontologically reversible) and should be grounded in

a theory of the speaking subject (Kristeva 1975: 5, Merleau-Ponty 1945: 174;
Eco 1976; Hikins 1977). In contrast, Barthes solves the problem of the ontological
status of discourse by making language (langue) the ground for Being. For Plato,
language is the ground for Not-Being. As one might guess, the Barthian view
is that of the classical sophist to which Plato points his many objections. As a
limited demonstration of my argument, I suggest a comparison between Barthes’
 I
SEMIOTICS, COMMUNICOLOGY, AND PLATO’S SOPHIST 205

use (1957: 115; 1977) of his model for myth analysis (Figure 11) and one of the

III SIGN
Myth <
I SIGNIFIER II SIGNIFIED
3. Sign
Language
1. Signifier 2. Signified

Figure 11. Barthes' interpolation model in Mythologies (1972: 115; graph inverted)
sufficient variations of my entailment model [see Figure 8: Myth-1], which reveals
an identity of formulation. I am confident about the accuracy of my interpreta­
tion since Barthes (1957: 109) specifically argues that “myth is a type of speech”,
to which he adds the operational definition: “Innumerable other meanings of the
word ‘myth’ can be cited against this. But I have tried to define things, not words.”
If we follow Barthes’ intent in providing this definition of ‘myth’ and “speech”
as deriving from a “thing”, we instead should expect the formulation presented
in Figure 8, Myth-2, which indicates such content signification. The fact that
Myth-2 is asserted, i.e., “to define things, not words”, when Myth-1 is used
(Figures 9 and 11) merely confirms the error by omission found in the original
model in the Elements of Semiology (see the “Ideology” system in Figure 10).
However, for immediate purposes of comparison with Plato’s analysis, I use the
complete model (Figure 9) that Barthes presents in the Elements of Semiology (1964).
I think the Platonic argument is clearest if simply formulated according to Barthes’
construction principles, since the comparison thus illustrates the concrete dif­
ferences involved between the two theorists.
For Plato, the “plane of expression” consists of what I shall call the “verbal
form” (Sr) in relation to what Plato calls the object or “bodily form” (Sd). W<
have now the simple ERC formulation. For Platonic connotation, the “name’
stands in relation to “description” and this pair becomes the signifier in place
of the “verbal form” (Figure 12 ; cf. Figures 3 and 1) or (ERC)RC. For denotation

Sr Sd
Verbal Form Bodily Form
(particular quality)

Sr Sd
Name Description

Figure 12. Platonic categories formulated according to Barthes' model of connotation

Sr Sd
Name Description

Sr Sd
Knowledge Essential Reality

Figure 13. Platonic categories formulated according to Barthes' model of denotation

206 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

and the metalanguage function we have the signifier/signified relation of name

and “description” where “description” is produced by the relation of ‘ knowl­
edge” and “essential reality” (Figure 13; cf. Figures 4 and 2) or the formulation
ER(ERC). At this point, we can compare the two possible sets represented by
the formula (ERC)R(ERC) or (ERC)2. The commutation set hypostatized by
Barthes (1964) as “rhetoric” is apparent in Figure 14. The key factor to be

Sr: Discourse; Sd: Writing;

maieutic; sophistic eristic; mimetic

Sr Sd
Connotation Verbal Form Bodily Form
(particular quality)

Sr Sd
Denotation Name Description

Sr Sd
Real System Know­ Essential
ledge Reality

Figure 14. Platonic categories formulated according to Barthes' model

CLASS CHARACTERISTIC

*
T
-0
SUBCLASS <
—>r
r —► a
V
SUBDIVISION

Figure 15. Plato’s method of definition by genus (CLASS) and differentia

(CHARACTERISTIC)

recognized, as Plato argues, is the signifier function, the verbalform that is always
a “particular quality”. Before proceeding, it is helpful to look at my construction
of the set that Barthes (1964) suggests is “ideology” (Figure 16). Or, it may be
useful to visualize the arrangement of sets as specified by my formula (ERC)2 in
Figures 10 above and 17 below. I believe that it is apparent that the diacri­
tical sign production process of this formulation is consistent with the logical and
phenomenological principles of paradigmatic/synchronic and syntagmatic/dia-
chronic production established by Saussure and elaborated by Jakobson in the
context of communication theory (Lanigan 1979, Holenstein 1976, Alperson
1975).
Plato’s model for knowledge, used as a test of Barthes’ model, therefore, allows
us to recognize with Plato that an ambiguity exists when dealing with words,
actions, or thoughts. This is the Platonic problem of distinguishing sophists,
 SEMIOTICS, COMMUNICOLOGY, AND PLATO’S SOPHIST 207

Sd: Writing (1 ext)

Sr Sd
Verbal Form Bodily Form

Sr Sd
Name Description

Sr Sd
Know­ Essential
ledge Reality

Figure 16. Lanigan extrapolation of Barthes' model applied to the Platonic categories

statesmen, or philosophers. Or more to the point, we have the problematic

ambiguity of speaking, writing, and thinking as the labor of sign production
(Eco 1976). Here is the philosophic issue. Barthes (1964) resolves the ambigu­
ity by choosing writing as a context that punctuates both speaking and writing
as choice procedures (Lemert 1979). Plato, on the other hand, suggests, as a
communication theorist might, that we probably should choose thinking to con­
textualize speaking and writing (the philosopher’s method of maieutic). Or
perhaps a second Platonic choice would be to select speaking as a context for
writing and thinking (the sophist’s method in rhetoric). Let me digress slight­
ly to indicate that in the dialogue Sophist Plato suggests that speaking can pro­
duce many different qualities, so that just as we might perceive that the speech
of philosophers is like the speech of the gods (which for Plato is a correct as­
sessment), we may mistake the pedagogical speech of sophists for those speak­
ers (ideologues) who engage in eristic. As distinguished from philosophers anc
sophists, Plato has no label to mark the eristic practitioners (see Figure It
above), who are mere bodily forms for whom there is no verbal form, i.e.,
they have no name because the description of their acts is not produced by any
knowledge of essential reality. These “ideologues”, as I call them, are em­
bodiments of eristic. They are speakers (particular quality) who are marked
by their skill at deception (a denial of essential reality). Yet, philosophers,
sophists, and statesmen (Kerferd 1981) are speakers (essential reality) who are
to a degree skilled at knowing (particular quality). Barthes’ notion of “myth”
seems to be an exemplar of Plato’s notion of eristic where “III SIGN” (Figure
11) is identical to “Bodily Form” (Figure 16). In the present context, how­
ever, to make the extension that the concept of “text” becomes the “Verbal
Form” attached to the “Bodily Form” is an error (Figure 17). It is to confuse
the very production of ideology with rhetoric (Sallis 1975: 110-117). We might
speculate that we now also have an explanation for why Barthes’ (1953) “Writ­
ing Degree Zero” is so difficult to detect as an explicit object of production
(an “essential reality”); or, why Levi-Strauss avoids contemporary social analysis
(Charbonnier 1961; Levi-Strauss 1960: 49). With this comparison between Barthes
and Plato and with my assertion that Plato’s dialectic should be the received
logical interpretation, I now turn to the argument that Plato offers for the justi­
fication of maieutic.
208 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Sr: Discourse Sd: Writing

(consciousness) (experience)

Sr Sd
Verbal Form Bodily Form
(particular quality)

Sr Sd Sr Sd
Name Description Name Description

Sr Sd Sr Sd
Know­ Essential Know­ Essential
ledge Reality ledge Reality

Figure 17. Lanigan model for Platonic categories

The dialogue Sophist
The dialogue Sophist (i.367-361BC) stands as a ready illustration of Burnyeat’s
comment (1979: 56) that “Plato’s dialogues are a miraculous blend of philosophical
imagination and logic”. On the one hand, the dialogue Sophist entices us to con­
template how we know things by looking to our experience with those persons
who articulately profess imagination, i.e., the sophist, statesman, and philosopher.
There is a hint of argument by degree in this approach whereby Plato uses the
personae of the dialogue to display a scale (of distinctions) of knowable experience.
The dialogue opens with Theodorus, a mathematician, introducing the Eleatic
Stranger (a philosopher who knows the sophistic method) to Socrates, who spon­
taneously mistakes the Stranger for a god in playful recognition of the demeanor
that a philosopher should have. Art in its fundamental sense is the practice of
nowledge that begins with the gods and has its first reflection in number, the
| rt of mathematics. So philosophers, who are like gods in the practice of knowing,
nust be skilled in the logos of logos, i.e., the understanding of collection and divi­
sion . Hence from the perspective of the dialogue personae, we know that the
analysis of knowledge will proceed by the philosopher’s ability (the art of distinc­
tion) to combine and divide the characteristics of the sophist (representing the
acquisitive arts) from those of the statesman (representing the productive arts).
In short, the personae represent an analogue logic of degree in which the choice
of the philosopher prescribes a context belonging differentially to the sophist or
the statesman. This binary analogue model of choice/context construction is, strict­
ly speaking, our contemporary understanding of communication theory (Runci-
man 1973: 200-201; Lanigan 1979; Marcus 1974).
On the other hand, the dialogue Sophist is a concern with logic as separate
from philosophical imagination. In Plato’s phrase (i.367-361BC: 226c), there is
“the art of discerning or discriminating”. It is clear that Plato assigns the art oj
controversy to the sophist (ibid.: 232b) and the art oj imitation to the philosopher
(ibid.: 235b). The logical approach indicates one kind of knowledge that can be
distinguished from another, so the kind of dialectic used by the sophist can be
contrasted with that used by the philosopher. Within the context of dialectic
possibilities (Sallis 1975: 478), speakers make choices in discourse that display
“controversy” (that which is over against, in opposition to, logos) or “imitation > »
 SEMIOTICS, COMMUNICOLOGY, AND PLATO’S SOPHIST 209

(that which is identical). As opposed to “controversy which is digital (Prior

1979), “imitation” is binary by degree, in either “likeness” (Plato i.367-361BC:
235d) or “semblance” (ibid.: 236b). In contemporary terminology, Plato is assert­
ing the conditions required by information theory, in which digital choices ascribe
a context of choice. That is, the formulation reads: Either x or y is true in context
z. One makes a particular choice in a pre-established context; a context of choice
predicates a choice in context (Lanigan 1979). Thus, Plato’s notion of “controver­
sial” choice is parallel to the technical concept of information “bit”, whereas the
idea of “imitation” is akin to “redundancy” (see Figure 7).
Plato undertakes to explore the differences between Being and Not-Being,
philosopher and sophist, by exploring the binary oppositions that are discovered
in the image (Bodily Form) the sophist projects through discourse (see Figure 14
above). Plato’s goal is to demonstrate that the “Being” (Bodily Form) of the sophist
can be discovered in his discourse (Verbal Form), which is produced by the
c(
name” and “description” that can be the “knowledge” we have of the “essen­
tial reality” in question. This procedure (Hunt 1921) is the famous Academic
method (derived from Plato’s use of Socratic maieutic in the Academy) of defini­
tion by genus and difference (see Figure 15). Taylor (1956: 377) provides a con­
cise summary of the method:
In principle the procedure is this. If we wish to define a species x, we begin
by taking some wider and familiar class a of which x is clearly one subdivi­
sion. We then devise a division of the whole class a into two mutually exclusive
sub-classes b and c, distinguished by the fact that b possesses, while c lacks,
some characteristic P which we know to be found in x. We call b the right-
hand, c the left-hand, division of a. We now leave the left-hand division c out
of consideration, and proceed to subdivide the right-hand division b on the
same principle as before, and this process is repeated until we come to a right-
hand “division” which we see on inspection to coincide with x. If we now
assign the original wider class a and emumerate in order the successive
characters by which each of the successive right-hand divisions has been marked
off, we have a complete characterization of x\ x has been defined.
Plato begins his maieutic analysis by saying of the sophist (i.367-361BC), “He
is clearly a man of art”. The investigation is rather long and involved and I shall
not trace it out, since Sallis (1975) provides an excellent schematic illustration
i
(Figure 18), and since this analysis by division is abandoned as merely a discovery
of logos instead of the sought definition of knowledge, i.e., a logos of logos. But,
it is important to list the defining characteristics of the sophist that Plato discovers.
First, the sophist uses flattery. Second, he is a merchant of knowledge regarding
virtue. Third, he uses the knowledge of others as a merchant. Fourth, he makes
use of one’s own knowledge of virtue. Fifth, the sophist makes money by teaching
argumentation. And sixth, he is skilled in the educational practice of cross­
questioning. Unfortunately, as I indicated, this analysis proves inadequate. It is
apparent that Plato, in the person of the Eleatic Stranger who conducts us through
this long division, is thinking as an information theorist. His digital choices of
names and descriptions turn out to be only a context of choice, rather than choice
per se. Thus, it is painfully obvious to Plato that the six characteristics belong
to the philosopher as well as the sophist. There is not difference in contextual
210 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

— .5 -----3
—£ -1 r"* —s
5
.C
II
s!_
*U. £
2
c
^3
5
13 m _____
r"c“ .§c m
X

S*
s 2 i
a f ■5

I s&
J: 5
"s _ —(S'
u

L-i o-
m
“e2 —I 1—2 P-’ « r—%
I s.§ 1 £
Q.

5 3
rlS' oS S3
8. ___
u- ■5.
5
<
ll
■o §
«

r I? t

Ji
S
11
oi
£
>—£
£
-D

L—«£
1
—u.

—& -.1 .1 ----- u w>

e «
■S $ 3
rj
§
3 5 1.3
&. I | __ 13 €
-* 5o
s.— §------
u 5------ £
<
s 5
u. s8. ■s II s£
I E S

L_iu >3 __£i

LU 5
5 9
« O

—.Si
o .rl 3
Jo
tk sis if*
in m
2 ** 2 ■O
o ‘o 5*
M
so­ ls — & I-1 3 *“
.a
II .5 £ ’s.rt

&
r
£
*e £ 11,5
■52
o ill in
m
o
1
£ of
CO O
— s’8
IS o
3>
•2
I
■5

S
^ Iv *5
5g 5
L 8 T
-5 ~ o -I •2 g
I
51 1o § •S '7-
.■§
3>------
•S ll-
1
o
■2
IM is Ov

8o 2. o 3 |s° C Cl
S
0
II
JL«
* 5
£.s
ju .5

I I od
1 -i —%
— v
o
II
11
_•£o
a
*o
< 3)
£
£ E
 SEMIOTICS, COMMUNICOLOGY, AND PLATO’S SOPHIST 211

kind between the philosopher and the sophist. As Plato argues, there is only a dif­
ference of degree—for instance, let us take the fifth characteristic whereby the
sophist makes money by argumentation and the philosopher is seen to lose money
in the same way;
Plato’s judgment is that the analysis has gone astray because it started with the
division of characteristics from the perspective of “controversy”, i.e., a digital divi­
sion. Instead, we should start again with the perspective of “imitation” as the basis
for a new series of divisions that in fact are “collections”. In short, Plato shifts the
dialectic into a binary analogue form of combinatory logic in which a choice of con­
text is made, i.e., the communication theory perspective: Both x and y are true of
context z. This is to say, a choice of context gives context in choice (Lanigan 1979).
Thus, certain pairs of defining characteristics will be both present (a collection) and
separate from each other (a division). For example, Plato suggests the typical dilem-
ma of the information theorist: things must be said to be either hot or cold. This is
not a paradox for the communication theorist, who realizes that the Being of things
can possess both hot and cold in any given situation (i.367-361BC: 243b). It is clear
to Plato that one should not mistake a difference of kind for a distinction by degree.
This is to say, a collection is a difference by contiguity (a distinction and combina­
tion) that entails a difference by division (a distinction by disjunction and separa­
tion) because the reverse implication disallows a process presence, i.e., a separation
cannot lead to a concrete combination. “In this sense, the diagnosis does not es­
tablish the fact of our identity by the play of distinctions. It establishes that we are
difference, that our reason is the difference of discourses, our history the difference
of times, ourselves the difference of masks. That difference, far from being the
forgotten and recovered origin, is this disperson that we are and make” (Foucault
1969: 131; see 1963: 35-36). The same point is made by Peirce (Savan 1976: 16),
who says, “a sign is something by knowing which we know something more.”5
Plato confirms the basis for his new choice of division grounded in collection
by taking up the problem of distinguishing among “Being”, “One”, and
“Whole” (i.367-36lBC: 244d). He discovers that the collection “Being-One-
Whole is found in the division of both “Being-Whole” and “One”, where the
collection “Being-Whole” is a division of both “Being and “Whole”. Plato is
quite explicit (ibid.: 253-258) in suggesting that the binary analogue logic of com­
munication theory is the dialectic discourse that identifies both the sophist and
the philosopher as opposed to those who practice eristic, i.e., “ideologues” who
rely on the use of information theory to invent their knowledge (Kerferd 1981:
59ff.). Plato proceeds to an elaborate proof of his thinking by showing how the
conditions of “Being”, “Movement”, “Rest”, “Same”, and “Other” combine
and divide. In brief, he argues that Being and Not-Being become mutual proofs
of each other by their status as binary boundaries that punctuate knowledge (Figure
19). The proof recognizes two oppositional pairs: Movement and Rest; and Same
and Other. Either one or the other in each pair is recognized as the Being against
which the Not-Being is contrasted when one member of the pair is initially selected
as a defining characteristic. For example, in the pair Movement/Rest we could
select Movement as characteristic of Being. In turn, Rest is thereby equally
characteristic of Not-Being (i.e., not being in motion). Thus, we discover that
the Being and Not-Being of Movement is the Same and that the Being and Not-
Being of Rest is Other than Movement (Sallis 1975: 514ff.).
 212 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

NOT-BEING

Either MOVEMENT or REST

Binary CONTEXT

Articulates of (digital: either/or)

CHOICE

BEING

CHOICE

Articulates in (analogue: both/and)

Binary CONTEXT

Either SAME or OTHER

NOT-BEING

Figure 19. Plato’s entailment of communication theory and information theory in the categories
of Being/Not-Being, Movement/Rest, and Same/Other

Plato’s basic illustration for his argument is language, where he reviews many
of these logical features in terms of language at both the phonological and syntac­
tical levels. And, he offers a review of language in terms of paradigmatic and syn-
tagmatic shifts, i.e., the analogue function of the one and the many (Plato
i.367-361BC: 253d-e). It is plain that the competence of the philosopher matches
the performance of the sophist (ibid.: 253b). The speaking subject is the source
of Being (ibid.: 263a-e). As proof, Plato offers a comparison between the follow­
ing sentences:
(1) “Theaetetus sits.” (2) “Theaetetus, whom I am talking to at this
moment, flies.”
Plato tells us that several judgments are possible. First, as Theaetetus remarks
about both utterances: “they are about me and belong to me.” Hence, (1) is true
and (2) is false. And we know that the second utterance is one of the shortest
that conforms to the definition of a sentence. The first contains both name and
description in Being. Whereas, the second prescribes Being in the person of Theaetetus
(“. . . whom I am talking to at this moment . . .”) and Not-Being in his name
 SEMIOTICS, COMMUNICOLOGY, AND PLATO’S SOPHIST 213

“Theaetetus” which is true and Not-Being in his description (“. . . flies”) which
is false.
It may be helpful to review this example with the aid of Figure 17. The first
sentence divides discourse (Sr: Verbal Form) and the person of Theaetetus (Sd:
Bodily Form); Not-Being (Sr) is combined with Being (Sd). By contrast, the second
sentence combines discourse and the person (Sr: Verbal Form and Bodily Form);
Being (Sr) is distinguished from Not-Being (Sd: “flies”). The word “flies” be­
comes the Bodily Form of Not-Being. Recall Barthes’ comment about myth as
things that are speech! Thus, Plato establishes the dialectic of collection and division
as conditions of Being and Not-Being that are mediated by the speaking subject,
not language. Mediation by language is myth. As Taylor (1956: 377) remarks, “the
satisfaction of these conditions depends on our native acumen and our acquaintance
with the subject-matter, and no rules can be given for it, precisely as no rules can
be given for the discovery of a promising explanatory hypothesis. The method, like
all scientific methods, will not work in vacuo". Thus does Plato remark (i.367-
361BC: 260a) that “... to rob us of discourse would be to rob us of philosophy. ’ ’
There is more to note here. We have an illusion of how the philosopher and
the sophist use thinking to produce discourse. The reverse, using discourse for
thinking, is eristic, i.e., bad philosophy and bad sophistry. Indeed, eristic is the
crime for which Socrates stands falsely condemned. The dialogue Sophist explains
the philosopher’s method and hence the innocence of Socrates. In accord with
the quest for a logos of logos, the explanation comes through the last minute speak-
ing of a sophistic philosopher, the Eleatic Stranger!
Thus far in my analysis I compared Plato’s model of discourse analysis to
that of Barthes (1964). Second, I indicated certain errors in structuralist thinking
a la Barthes by reexamining the detailed argument that Plato gives in the dialogue
Sophist with respect to the method of discursive analysis. I would now like to briefly
suggest the way in which Merleau-Ponty (1945) builds on the Platonic argument
by utilizing the speaking subject as the source of sign production to combine the
methods of semiology and phenomenology.

Merleau-Ponty and semiotic phenomonology

Discourse according to Barthes (1964), as we recall, exists on the levels of con­
notation, denotation (metalanguage), and the real system. The object of his struc­
tural analysis is language (langue) or its artifacts: text and myth. By comparison,
Merleau-Ponty’s (1945) phenomenological analysis takes the consciousness of the
person as the object of analysis. The result is the development of a model of analysis
consisting of (1) description, (2) reduction, and (3) interpretation (Lanigan 1972).
Utilizing this method, I now want to construct a model of discourse that is a
semiotic phenomenology. By describing the key features that Plato offers to us
and reducing them to essential characteristics in the comparison between Barthes
and Plato, I generate a hermeneutic of discourse for the speaking subject. In this
model (Figure 20), there are two reversible commutation systems: (1) the Rejlec-
iive System of the signifier (Sr) and (2) the Prerejledive System of the signified (Sd).
Each system consists of three levels (boundaries): the punctuation of Expression
(comparable to Barthes’ “connotation”), the punctuation of Perception (comparable
to “denotation”) and the punctuation of meaning (comparable to “real system”).
These three paradigmatic levels exist in both the Sr and Sd systems.
 214 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Sr: Reflection Sd: Prereflection

Sr Sd
Expression Self Experience Experience of Other
Sr Sd Sr Sd
I Perception Consciousness Self Consciousness Other
(of) (of)

Sr Sd Sr Sd
;r Meaning Preconscious Unconscious

Figure 20. Semiotic phenomenology of human communication. Vertical relationships display

communication theory: analogue choice, binary coding, metaphor, symbol, and paradigmatic!
synchronic condition. Horizontal relationships display information theory: digital choice,
binary coding, metonymy, sign, and syntagmatic/diachronic condition

The signifier system of Reflection illustrates the phenomenological perspective

that discourse is a production of the speaking subject. In this system, Expression
is the Self Experience that is constituted by Consciousness of Self or, in Platonic terms,
Expression is the “particular quality” of Verbal Form that is named in the descrip­
tion of self (cf. Figures 17 and 20). Thus, Expression is constituted by Perception.
In turn, Perception derives from a Meaning infrastructure that is the Preconscious.
Again in Platonic terms, the Preconscious is equivalent to the knowledge I have
■)f an essential reality. We can see that the phenomenological method of Merleau-
'onty (1945) has the same logical structure as the Platonic dialectic. That is, the
iethodological description of self experience is reduced to consciousness of self, which
.Hows the interpretation of what has meaning in the preconscious. Recall Plato’s
method of analysis for sentences (1) and (2) above.
Where Plato and Merleau-Ponty differ is over the ontological status of the
maieutic. For Merleau-Ponty (1945) discourse is a proof of the person, the speak­
ing subject, as the incarnation of consciousness. For Plato the analysis shows that
the person is an Image [Bodily Form] of an ideal Form [“essential reality”] that
is true.6 For Plato this Image can be known through discourse that is oral
(knowledge), i.e., an oral report of what was said (understanding), or written
(opinion). But writing converts the “essential reality” into a “particular quaJ-
ity”, i.e., writing as an instrument replaces the “person as instrument” just as
mimicry of another uses the voice as an instrument to replace my discourse (Plato
i.367-361BC: 266d-267e). Opinion is mistaken for knowledge in Writing. Eco
(1976: 171) illustrates the semantic sense in which propositional meaning requires
a perceptum from the communicative point of view of an addressee, which is precisely
the point of Plato’s view that writing requires (erroneously) the reader to invent,
rather than discover, a perceptum. Sebeok and Rosenthal (1981) ingeniously point
to this same principle (historically found in magic acts of the theatre) as the “Clever
Hans” fallacy in scientific research procedures. Thus while Plato and Merleau-
Ponty differ on the ontological status of persons and discourse, they are agreed
that discourse is a dialectic knowledge of the person, not language.
The signified system of Prereflection illustrates the phenomenological view that
subjectivity in discourse must be viewed as intersubjectivity. That is, in the Sr
 SEMIOTICS, COMMUNICOLOGY. AND PLATO’S SOPHIST 215

system, Expression comes from the speaking subject (experience of self), which en­
tails that Expression in the Sd system is the speaking subject (experience of other).
For Plato this is simply another way of suggesting that Being is founded in Not-
Being. Or from the linguistic point of view, it is Saussure’s distinction between
parole {speaking subject) and langue (speaking subject).The Sd system of Prereflection
is thereby the experience of the Other, which is constituted by the Consciousness
I have of the Other. Or in Platonic terms (Figure 17), experience of an Other (Bodily
Form) is named by my conscious description of the Other. Expression of the Other
is constituted by my Perception. In turn, Consciousness derives from the ground-
ing of the Unconscious. In Platonic terms (i.367-361BC: 265b-266d) the unconscious
is equivalent to the knowledge we have of an object’s absence in essential reality.
Or more precisely, we have the Not-Being of Being as Same or Other (Figure
19). In a phenomenological perspective the Unconscious is the Not-Being of my
consciousness or Being. In turn, this knowledge of my Being at the Meaning level
of the Sd system allows me to constitute the perception level in which my con-
sciousness (Being) constitutes the Other (Not-Being [of me]).
Foucault (1961: 191) provides a concrete illustration of the present analysis
in his discussion of the therapeutic force of imitation in “theatrical representa­
tions”.
The fulfillment of delirium’s non-being in being is able to suppress it as
non-being itself; and this by the pure mechanism of its internal
contradiction—a mechanism that is both a play on words and a play of
illusion, games of language and of the image; the delirium, in effect, is
suppressed as non-being since it becomes perceived as a form of being;
but since the being of delirium is entirely in its non-being, it is suppressed
as delirium. And its confirmation in theatrical fantasy restores it to a truth
which, by holding it captive in reality, derives it out of reality itself, and
makes it disappear in the non-delirious discourse of reason.
Foucault’s analysis, interestingly enough, draws on a previous exploration
Merleau-Ponty (1962: 291, 334) of the place of the rationality of the speakir
subject in the problematic of hallucination and delirium (Levin 1945; Lanigan
1979b).
I trust that it is apparent at this point that Merleau-Ponty adopts Saussure s
concept of, and Jakobson’s elaboration of (Holenstein 1976), paradigmatic/syn­
chronic and syntagmatic/diachronic shifts to illustrate the reversibility of analysis
that occurs at each level of the system. That is, Expression, Perception, and Mean­
ing in the Sr or Sd system are paradigmatic/synchronic shifts, while there is a
simultaneous syntagmatic/diachronic shift between Sr and Sd Expression, Sr and
Sd Perception, and Sr and Sd Meaning. I illustrate this process in Figure 21 by
citing Merleau-Ponty’s categories as they constitute a semiotic phenomenology
of discourse. I have detailed previously Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy of communica­
tion that informs the content of the schematic in Figure 21 (Lanigan 1970, 1972,
1977, 1979a).
In brief summary, let me say that Plato’s dialogue the Sophist (i.367-361BC)
provides a maieutic analysis of philosophical imagination that in large part we
methodologically recognize as the contemporary school of existential phenomenology.
At the same time, however, the dialogue also gives us a discussion of the logic
216 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Sr: Consciousness Sd: Experience

Sr Sd
DESCRIPTION Parole Langue
[Expression] (speaking) (social language)

Sr Sd Sn Sd
REDUCTION Parole Parlante Parole Pa rice
[Perception] (speech) (speaking) (speech) (spoken)

Sr Sd Sr Sd
INTERPRETATION Corps Propre Geste
[Meaning] (person: lived- (gesture: body-
body) lived)

Figure 21. Merleau-Ponty's model of human discourse. AH relationships are combinatory;

this is critical to recall with reference to 'parole parlante’ and parole par lee’.

in human conscious experience that we may readily call semiology. Indeed, the
very argument that I am making for the existence of a semiotic phenomenology of
discourse in the speaking subject {corps propre) comes from the mouth of the Eleatic
Stranger, who tells us (257d): “Knowledge is also surely one, but each part of
it that commands a certain field is marked off and given a special name proper
to itself. Hence language [discourse] recognizes many arts and forms of
cnowledge.”
 19

BROOKE WILLIAMS

History in Relation to Semiotic

i- he time has come for history to be classified within semiotics accord­

ing to its proper characteristics both as a discipline in its own right and in terms
of its transdisciplinary place in the development of a doctrine of signs. Sebeok’s
comment (1979: 67) on the potential of semiotic to integrate the disciplines hits
the heart of the matter as regards current controversy over the question of history:
Precisely how semiotics can function as “an organon” of all the sciences,
and the wide humanistic implications of the assumption that semiotics “pro­
vides a base for understanding the main forms of human activity and their
interrelationship”, since all such activities and relations are mediated ex­
clusively by signs, pose a host of further questions that need to be widely
as well as urgently debated, since, among other consequences, their satisfac­
tory reformulation might lead to badly needed improvement of the cur­
ricula which still inform students of the human sciences worldwide.
The very right to existence of the discipline of history is often called into ques­
tion passionately these days precisely because the as yet underdeveloped logic of
history is neither purely scientific nor purely literary. It seems to have no place
in a contemporary curriculum. It is a semiotic anomaly, seemingly grounded in
neither fact nor fiction. It raises problems concerning the existence of “reality”,
and therewith blood-pressures.
If the logic of history resists, on the one hand, a superimposed semiotic analysis
(e.g., of Haidu 1982), so has it also resisted attempts to develop a formal logic
of history (starting with Hempel 1942). The reasons for the misfit of history are
in both cases the same. It is not, as is sometimes argued, that historians are “ab­
normally stupid”, but that the discipline of history is necessarily rooted in tem­
poral human experience that can best be expressed in natural languages. Histo­
rians, therefore, find the very material itself that they work with resistant to “any
tightly defined system whatever”, precisely because such a definition presupposes
too much: it “leaves out the heart of the matter” (Tillinghast 1972: 13). It is
this “heart of the matter” that needs to be classified logically, and it is this, I
claim, that semiotic enables us to do for the first time.
The social scientists agree with the philosophers that it is analysis and classifica­
tion, rather than the underdeveloped logic of history, that are at the heart of the
matter academically, even in the purely humanistic studies. Given our philosoph­
ical tradition, in favor of knowledge admitting of universal statements, and of
statements set out in the systematic form appropriate to theoretical knowledge—
given, in other words, the mind-set that presupposes that the more abstract and
217
218 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

general concepts of the physical sciences are closer to “reality” (see Conkin 1971:
155) than are concepts of any other sort—it follows that our modern logicians
find it “virtually impossible to describe well the most basic things historians do”
(Gallie 1964: 19).
Historians tend to see history as a mediating discipline that “occupies the
treacherous middle ground between concrete particulars and abstract relations”
(Conkin 1971: 143; see also Marwick 1970: 18). Whereas history once linked
philosophy with poetry, today it links social science with literature. The question
arises as to whether there really is an epistemological middle ground between art
and science, a question that historians have always guessed to be answerable in
the affirmative because the nature of historical material itself suggests such an
hypothesis. The question is, then, whether the “problem” of history simply reduces
to a problem with the humanistic presuppositions of the discipline, as analytic
philosophers have unsatisfactorily tried to show, or whether it can be satisfactor­
ily shown to reduce to literature, as some structuralists intimate. For instance,
Hayden White (1978: 62, emphasis supplied) writes:
In my view history is in bad shape today because it has lost sight of its
origin in the literary imagination. In the interest of appearing scientific and
objective it has repressed and denied to itself its own greatest source of
strength and renewal. By drawing historiography back once more to an
intimate connection with its literary basis . . . we will be arriving at that
“theory^ of history without which it cannot pass for a “discipline” at all.
It appears that what we are dealing with is not mediating” discipline so
puch as an anomaly. Although this discipline is very old, what has come to be
Jiown as “the crisis of history” (Marrou 1959: 12) still persists—mayhap because
.he status of history as a discipline is still unresolved. One historian (Conkin 1971:
135) seems—unknowingly—to detect the right answer only after having given up
on the wrong tracks: “most disquieting of all, so long as competing views of history
retain their ties to mechanistic, mentalist, or vitalistic ontologies, they involve
unbridgeable gulfs open to no intellectual reconciliation.”
It is at this point of no return that a doctrine of signs can step in and bridge
the gulf, pave the way for an intellectual reconciliation. In so doing, semiotic can
at last clarify what it is that historians do.
History need no longer serve as a presemiotic “mediator” between science
and art, nor need history be caught in between these disciplines and squeezed
out of existence by them. What is the source of this “problem”—seen in semiotic
perspective—is that history is intrinsically interdisciplinary because of the nature
of the material which informs the historian’s method. Because the physical, mind-
independent being of historical material stands for mind-dependent human experience,
this material elicits from the historian a human response at the poetic source of
creativity that overflows into the historian’s work as a form of art. But because
historical material consists of mind-independent or physical material that is publicly
verifiable as to its existence, history also elicits from the historian an ordering
of this material that is not only coherent for art’s sake, but is perhaps above all
coherent (in a publicly verifiable way) for truth’s sake, in the same sense that
the scientist seeks truth.
Now the “problem” of history, from a semiotic point of view, is not its rela-
 HISTORY IN RELATION TO SEMIOTIC 219

tion to other disciplines, but that the logic of history has never been properly de­
fined. Some regard it as anomalous to try to combine the imprecision of something
relying primarily on natural language with the scientific notion of an objective
coherence verifiable in relation to things existing that function as signs of a “history”
independent of the historian’s mind. In the perspective of semiotic, history is re­
vealed to be a discipline that resists all attempts to classify it as characteristic of
the modes of reasoning of either science per se or art per se, precisely because history
addresses the interaction and interdependence of nature and mind that seems to
constitute human experience through semiosis. Whatever the public or private
mind-set of the historian, we find we need no longer couch the problem of the
( < objective” world of nature and the “subjective” world of mind as if the relation
were not correspective, or had to be construed hermeneutically so as to preclude
precisely the relation between mind-dependent and mind-independent being.
History as a discipline is thus between science and art precisely in the sense
that it addresses the interaction of nature and mind through the semiosis that
transmits human culture, whether the subject of historical inquiry be, for example,
the transmission of science or of art. The seeming anomaly of history appears
only when this discipline is forced into prevailing classifications as science (“theoret­
ical”) or art (“practical”) or both as a hybrid or mediating discipline. The anomaly
disappears when the “problem” of history is situated in the context of semiotic.
To classify history in this way requires first of all that the logic of history be
seen according to its own characteristics, and, second, that history be seen in rela­
tion to science and art neither as opposed to them, nor as mediating between them,
nor as cut off from them by its proper autonomy (still less as having no longer
a reason to exist), but rather as the relation between mind-independent and mind-
dependent being that underlies the possibility of “history” as a discipline whicJ
is distinct from, but not separated from, science and art—not only because c
an overlap and sharing of techniques, but also because it is as historical creation
that science and art flourish within culture. In other words, history in its proper
being is not first of all a discipline, but is precisely the anthroposemiotic transmis­
sion and generation of culture wherein nature and mind mutually influence each
other in the shaping and constitution of “reality”.
To begin with, history has its own proper mode of reasoning that is distinct,
but not separate, from the modes of scientific reasoning. The logic of history char­
acteristically involves, without being circumscribed by, the logic of question and
answer typical of detection (for fuller discussion, see Williams 1985: 285-287; see
also: Russell 1984; Collingwood 1936-1940: 266-282, 1939: 29-43; and Marrou
1959: 89, 140). This is the logic of abduction as distinct from deductive and in­
ductive modes of inference (in the precise sense explained in Deely 1982: 68-75,
after Peirce; see also Sebeok and Umiker-Sebeok 1979, Eco and Sebeok 1983).
The logic of question and answer characteristic of history is underdeveloped,
and its potential unexploited, because the possibility of such a logic was itself a
non-question in a philosophical tradition wherein realists belittled the reality of
becoming, with the result that they reduced becoming propositions into being pro­
positions (see Collingwood 1939: 28-29; Russell 1981: 179-189; also Merrell 1975:
76). The very arising of the question of the logic of history is itself but a part
of the whole semiotic web in which the question of historical change arose, at
which point the problem of history got structured in terms of the modern realist-
220 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

idealist debate. That is, it is only in relation to the time dimension of the semiotic
web that historical becoming and the logic of history are revealed in the first place
precisely as a question.
Because of an awareness of the time dimension of the semiotic web in which
even the development of logic itself takes place, it can now be seen that the distinct
modes of thinking of history and science need no longer be separated in an arti­
ficial way that cuts them off from human thought in its integral wholeness, wherein
abstract and concrete, speculative and practical thinking, find a common ground
in anthroposemiosis. Far from denying the proper logic of each, a semiotic perspec­
tive admits the richness of human experience and consciousness which integrates
both modes of thought through semiosis.
In contrast to a lifeless propositional logic, what is characteristic of the logic
of history is that it detects, rather than dismisses, the rich web of sign relations
in human culture wherein the part can be understood only in relation to some
whole, and a whole only in relation to the part. This interconnectedness cannot
be observed from without as if the whole and the part were independent entities
whose sign relations to each other were only external, that is, mind-independent
simply. The historian uses the logic proper to history to penetrate to internal—or
mind-dependent—relations that involve purpose and goals underlying external
forces, a knowledge that differs radically from, for instance, the knowledge of a
planetary system. Moreover, human products, such as a Gothic cathedral, form
a semiotic web of temporal and dynamic relationships wherein the later parts of
the whole are not only brought into existence by the earlier parts, but the earlier
parts are themselves affected by the anticipatory internal relations they entertain
to the later parts (see Collingwood 1936-1940: 210-217; Marrou 1959: 58-59;
Tholfsen 1967: 243-244). The historian’s logic must therefore not only apprehend
:oncrete signs, but also universal sign systems as these develop over time.
Thus being and becoming are two aspects of an indivisible single reality (see
Tholfsen 1967: 107), wherein physical, or mind-independent being, and the
physically unreal objects or aspects of objects of thought, or mind-dependent being,
become interdependent insofar as it is cognition that gives them signification—
that is, the use of signs explicitly as signs—in precisely the way in which relations
between natural events, which are only extrinsic, cannot do, even if these rela­
tions also be classified sometimes as “semiotic” (Deely 1978; 1982: 93-123).
What the historian does is to make explicit the structuring process of significa­
tion, not by means of the dichotomous logic of a “before-after” relationship, but
by means of the logic of history which deals with signification precisely as changing
throughout the interval between given slices across, given cross-sections of, time.
Whether a particular historian be oriented toward history as event or as struc­
ture, what cannot be escaped is “the heart of the historian’s problem”, which
is “the transition between coherences, the explanation of radical discontinuity”
(Struever 1974: 404). The historian’s problem must be approached from the
anthroposemiotic standpoint that recognizes the “shifting line” between being
and non-being, or mind-independent and mind-dependent elements wherein these
distinct—but not separated—orders of existence exchange places over time as their
interrelationships change according to human design and accident, as, for example,
in the case of “heroes” who “shape the development of a given culture through
myth and folklore in ways that cannot be reduced to causal lines stemming from
 HISTORY IN RELATION TO SEMIOTIC 221

actual achievements in the order of physical events, just as stories false in their
origin can become true shapers of a course of social events, thus acquiring a reality
which must be dealt with in its own right” (Deely 1982: 64-65).
Thus non-being, or “unreal” relations (in the sense of having no being apart
from cognition), are notions that are founded on “real” relations (in the mind-
independent sense in which things are observed to affect one another in their
physical existence: cf. Poinsot 1632a: Second Preamble, esp. 83/9-16, 95/18-96/36),
and, in turn, by influencing human conduct, these very “unrealities” can ultimate­
ly acquire sometimes the status of “reality” through such consequent incorpora­
tion into the network of real relations (Langan 1983: ix-x; Powell 1983) compris­
ing the world of social interaction or of culture. Hence the inevitability of the
human condition as historical, in the very precise sense of historicity as “the domina­
tion of man’s existence by a total view of reality (culture, Weltanschauung, etc.)
not known to reduce to fact” (Deely 1971: 2).
In the perspective of semiotic, therefore, the old question of whether history
be an art or a science or a mediating discipline between the two need no longer
be approached by attempts to graft history onto the prevailing interdisciplinary
mind-set that combines disciplines without developing the inner logic characteristic
of each. Even the best attempts among historians to classify history according
to its own proper logic succumb to a kind of double vision of history as a split-
level discipline, half art and half science, or some proportion thereof. The noted
historian Crane Brinton (1936) once called history an imaginative reconstruction
of the past, which, while scientific in its methods and findings, is artistic in its
presentation. The question has also been turned inside out: “All sciences are
devoted to the quest for truth; truth can neither be apprehended nor communicated
without art. History therefore is an art, like all other sciences” (Wedgwood 1956:
96).
These approaches to the anomaly of history fall short of resolving the prob­
lem. History deals not simply with external relations, but with internal relations
as well—that is, not simply with some (now mind-independent) fact of the past,
but with the feel of it as well (see Nye 1966: 140). As Johan Huizinga observed
in his 1924 classic, The Waning of the Middle Ages (pp. 14-15):
A scientific historian of the Middle Ages, relying first and foremost on offi­
cial documents, which rarely refer to the passions, except violence and
cupidity, occasionally runs the risk of neglecting difference of tone between
the life of the expiring Middle Ages and that of our own days. Such docu­
ments would make us forget the vehement pathos of medieval life, of which
the chroniclers, however defective as to material facts, always keep us in
mind.
The historian Lynn White (1956: 74) makes much the same point: “Much of
life escaped the documents .... The historian must create his patterns of prob­
able truth less in terms of specific records and more in terms of relationships in­
tuitively evident to him as he deals with the records.”
What needs to be developed in the perspective of semiotic is the logical con­
nection between fact and fiction. Historians have pointed out to one another for
some time that they sometimes “behave more like writers of fiction than they
either admit or know” (Wedgwood 1956: 95). Illustrative of such an historio-
222 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

graphical problem is the question of what took place in the ministries and palaces
of Europe during the days following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdi­
nand which precipitated World War I. As Remak points out (1967: 117), any
narrative of these days must of necessity be partially fictive, or constructed, in
view of the difference between life itself and the logic of the historian:
For what in print is likely to look neat and logical, in truth, more often
than not, was chaotic or at best improvised. Decisions were made with
no time for proper reflection, messages crossed each other, and some of
the most fateful errors were committed from motives no more profound
or sinister than lack of information or sleep.
The logical connection between fact and fiction that still needs to be developed
is the relation between words and ideas that semiotic can clarify (see Deely 1982:
131-142; also Merrell 1975: 101). While the naming process is a creative act of
making something intelligible from the very beginning of historical inquiry, it
is pushing an insight too far to say that the word therefore “creates” the object,
as Kinser asserts (1981: 65): “The verbal formulas used to describe an object
also create it.” The question then arises: What was there in the first place to
describe? A tennis umpire, for example, may call a serve a fault or an ace, but
all the umpire does is create the call, not the serve itself. If a given umpire,
moreover, makes too many “wrong calls” according to public perception, this
umpire will be removed as “umpire”.
To argue that the past does not exist until the historian makes the shots by
calling them, that is, to argue that the historian creates the past simply by his
or her construction of it, sinks history into a kind of linguistic quicksand which
loses all ground upon which to base a semiotically objective inquiry. On the other
hand, to fail to recognize the power of the word, or power of naming, in the shaping
of thought about an object—in establishing the object’s signification—is to fail
to recognize the presuppositions built into the naming process itself, and thus to
fail to recognize any difference between “what really happened” and what we
call “history”.
What we call “history” is therefore, to borrow a distinction that Wilden makes
(1981: 2-3) about language, “both a representation of reality and a part of real­
ity, part of the human context”:
It is the very task of language to bring its structure to the representation
of reality, for where there is no structure, there is no sense. Structure struc­
tures content. And any language can be restructured in both form and
content so as to deal with changing ecological and historical realities.
Thus history as transmitted through language is something flexible: semiosically,
it structures the human Umwelt, but by reordering it continually. While the con­
temporary historian thus shares with the scientist a semiotically objective method
of inquiry, the historian also possesses, because history is structured through
natural language, a kind of poetic license in the crafting of historical reality.
Semiotic in principle thus distinguishes in order to unite the artistic and scien­
tific, practical and speculative knowledge, as these are integrated in the method
of history as historians practice it. The developing logic of semiotic and the here­
tofore underdeveloped logic of history are seen thus to converge toward a doctrine
 HISTORY IN RELATION TO SEMIOTIC 223

of signs that resolves of itself the anomaly presented by history in the presemiotic
context of modern philosophy and science.
This “doctrine of signs”, of which history forms part, is precisely the “semi­
otic that Locke called for in ending his Essay Concerning Human Understanding as
a foundational doctrine of the structure of experience and consciousness. It is this
new logic different”, as Locke put it, and more encompassing, as Poinsot
remarked, than the “logic and critic we have been acquainted with heretofore”,
that provides the perspective required to account for history.
Locke the physician—to draw an imaginary analogy—did not sever the con­
nection between the two hemispheres of the brain; on the contrary, he shows how
the two communicate. Semiotic thus integrates logically what is already integrated
in the historian’s awareness. In so doing, semiotic, in contrast to traditional
philosophy (Deely 1982: 64) opens the door to studying the orders of external
and internal relations, mind-independent and mind-dependent relations, being
and non-being (the “real” and “unreal”), not as if their boundaries were staked
out in advance, but as constantly shifting because of the interaction between these
two orders as the mind participates in what it observes—through the function
of signs. Semiosis thereby structures experience flexibly. It is just this flexibility
publicly verifiable in part but suffused throughout with poetry (the free initiatives
of human creativity)—which is the object of historical inquiry, and which the
method of history is required to accommodate before all else—as, so to speak, its
point of rest.
 20

LUIGI ROMEO

Heraclitus and the Foundations

of Semiotics

If semiotics is accepted as the study, the doctrine, or the science of signs,

the history of semiotics must perforce include investigations into the nature of
the sign as well as into its evolution at various stages of the historiography of
science. While all aspects of history may be relevant to semiotic studies, considera­
1 tions on the development of the sign according to records are more reliable than
speculations on the initial awareness of the sign. That is because such considera­
tions encompass only a relatively short segment of thinkers’ efforts throughout
the ages, i.e., barely twenty-five centuries or so, if we limit our research to the
West. Genesis of the sign, or the initial grasp of consciousness by Homo semeioticus
through speculations reaching back some 50,000 years, however, will doubtless
excite inquiries which, no matter how scientific in nature, will always be tainted
vith conjecture by anthropologists, biologists, archeologists, and semioticists. In
:his essay I shall limit myself to historiographic aspects of recorded “history’
not necessarily true history—stressing “original’’ sources collected and analyzed
during approximately the last hundred years.

General Observations
For the sake of its history, constraints are imposed upon its researchers in­
sofar as the foundations of semiotics are concerned, constraints arising not only
from traditional boundaries of culture, but also from the paucity of systematic
inquiries regarding virtually uncoverable and unrecoverable stages of develop­
ment. In certain cases it is not possible to delve deeply into observable founda­
tions, owing to the interpretation of basic concepts that have been commonly
accepted without the &PXH of meaning having been probed. In other words, key
terms are often employed anachronistically and out of context. It becomes neces­
sary, therefore, for scholars to return repeatedly to original sources in the history
of science in order that those meanings be reinterpreted in the light of contem­
porary findings and tools of work.
In regard to the history of the sign, traditional scholarship (by that I mean
scholarship en vogue) seems to be entangled in a maze of obscure (or at least color­
less) interpretations involving the diverse acceptations in ancient history given
to anything deriving from Grip-, such as aripeiov, OTipatvco, etc. Similar pro­
blems stem from anything related to Xiy- and Xoy-. As a matter of fact, it is dif­
ficult to separate oqp- from X&y-IXoy- in the process of understanding Homo
semeioticus. It is, to say the least, bewildering and depressing to read endlessly
224
 HERACLITUS AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF SEMIOTICS 225

how, for generations, standard meanings have been accepted as dogma in toto
without anyone asking what “logic” supports them in particular contexts. This
phenomenon is not new. In the case of Heraclitus, it began with Plato. And that
is why stress has always been comfortably laid upon post-Socratic doxography
for the interpretation of basic terms when the semantic value was already altered
m accordance with the development of new concepts (mostly for applied purposes)
in logic, medicine, arsgrammatica, and so forth. It is true that terms are sometimes
appropriated to suit a particular intellectual climate and to satisfy a polysemous
exigency. With regard to semiotics, this has also been the case. Such an intricate
state of affairs was further complicated, even in Aristotelian times, by philological
and exegetic difficulties.
A typical example related to Heraclitus’ work is Aristotle’s difficulty in relating
‘dei” to the rest of the sentence at the very beginning of what is now Fragment 1
in Diels’ editions. Punctuations before or after dei can matter a great deal
(changing the accent accordingly) in whether Heraclitus’ X6yo<; is eternal or
whether men will ever understand it. Of course, a third possibility, if intentional­
ly hinted at by Heraclitus in a semiotic key, would validate the oracular character
of his maxims, leaving the reader to interpret it “correctly” after understanding
the meaning of Xoyoc,.
All that we have gleaned to date from the probings of Steinthal 1863, for Xoyoc;
in general, to the painstaking research of Weltring 1910 for OTiJiEiOV in its budding
stage (but after Socrates), deserves—and always will—periodical reanalysis due
to current interest, if not for the sake of questioning repetitive taken-for-granted
interpretations.
As for the history of semiotics (still to be written in a comprehensive way),
its problems are so ancient that it seems almost vulgar to ask why we should returr
to them after twenty-five centuries, starting, at least, with Heraclitus. One logica
answer may lie in that, after all, the pre-Socratic fragments have been analyzed
systematically by only a few generations of scholars periodically disturbed, as they
were, or interrupted by evils concocted by Homo allegedly sapiens—proving, inci­
dentally, Heraclitus’ views contained in Diels Fragment 80, or even 53. Moreover,
each “modem” discipline tends to dissect fragments which emphasize certain fields
or points immediately related. Only recently has semiotics begun to exploit the
fruitful labors of countless philologists and philosophers who, mostly over the last
century, have analyzed Western thought exegetically and at the international level.
It will be a long time before semiotics, as a discipline, can succeed in freeing itself
from the complexity (and the “complex”) of its intellectual longevity and from
a currently factional tendency to stress local and fashionable “politics” oil tout
se tient—e.g., some literary critics in particular, having drained their methodological
resources and historic validations, attempt to use semiotics by forgetting or ignoring
its philosophical foundations (cf. the Fall 1974 issue of Diacritics, A Review of Con­
temporary Criticism, devoted to “Semiotics”).
With a reanalysis of semiotic scholarship, two things become apparent. First,
there appears a tendency, if not a need, to either assign a paternity to someone
(almost to validate contemporary theories) or to seek reassurance in the auctoritas
of past scholars who occupied a central position in the most favorable climate of
opinion. For example, Kleinpaul 1888: 103 was probably satisfied with labeling
Hippocrates as “der Vater und Meister aller Semiotik”, suggesting perhaps a
 226 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

father for the Western community of thought. (Cf. Sebeok 1971; but also Coseriu
1969: 108, in which Augustinus “enthalt die ausfiihrlichste Semiotik der Antike”.
Of course, it is already too late in history for Augustinus, and Hippocrates was
an applied semioticist only.) In parochial schools such as ours in the West, the
tide of “Vater”, or its kindred variants in Germanic “Vaterland” tradition, might
be subject to contention between, say, Europeans for Locke and Americans for
Peirce. No matter what the genealogical tree, whether for the sake of either
pedagogical or aphorismic purposes, the tendencies are understandable; and, while
intrinsically irrelevant, they nevertheless serve to indicate clearly the state of the
art in time and place.
Second, the history of the fragments themselves, i.e., the “fortune” of the
pre-Socratic fragments and how they have been utilized to trigger, consciously
or not, a novel interpretation—not necessarily a sounder one—on the basis of
a different focus [becomes apparent as a semiotic phenomenon].1

Fragment 93 and a Seed for Semiotics

The tendency of claiming the beginning of semiotic studies each time any term
connected with CHlp.- appears is dangerous, but one cannot afford to disregard
a reanalysis of the term and its congeners whenever they surface in earliest historical
times. In our case, long before Protagoras for the sake of philosophy, and long
before Hippocrates for the sake of medicine, the term involving a semanteme (or
free morpheme in American terminology) that contains OT|p- is attested in Hera­
clitus.2 Of course OTjp- is not merely a term, but a seminal concept represented
by it which, if validated, would make its impact felt upon a whole kinship of con­
cepts and their
Now, a basic problem deriving from reanalysis of Heraclitus’ fragments is
encountered in Diels 93 (Bywater 11, and Pasquinelli 83). Because of Diels’ avail­
ability to most scholars in the West over the last two generations, and the con­
tinuous re-edition under Kranz, Diels will remain for the time being as the most
reliable corpus in Greek from a philological standpoint. Nevertheless, in the West
we are in the Diels “paradigm”, and so be it pending acceptance of a new one,
although I am qualmish about humans engaging in a completely new edition of
the fragments. Frankly, I believe it would be easier to put a man on Mars.
Fragment 93 is also, from a history of science standpoint, the most ancient
document containing a semanteme within a cadre of semiotic theory. (For a deriva­
tion of the term semeiotica before semiotics, see Romeo 1977, and cf. Sebeok 1971.)
All other semantemes (or allomorphs) are latecomers and found with increasing
frequency in post-Aristotelian records. Heraclitus’ Delphic aphorism, the most
baffling at First to the neophyte, is recorded as follows: 6 Ctva£, OU TO pavteiov
£oti to 6v AeAxpoiq, outs Xsysi outs KpU7iTSi bXXa oripcuvsi.
First of all, the Heraclitean meaning might seem difficult of immediate abstrac­
tion for various reasons, most of them simply “historical”. But the primary and
most “logical” is that, if after twenty-five centuries we still labor on it, the palm
of success should undoubtedly go to Heraclitus for keeping himself alive among
us at the purely exegetical level. Another reason arises from the fact that the three
verbs in 93 seem to be uttered by the Sibyl in 92, without any trimmings. In other
words, those verbs are intentionally chosen by Heraclitus for proper stylistic and
oracular purposes. Also, it is commonly agreed that in antiquity no one would
 HERACLITUS AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF SEMIOTICS 227

“explain” an oracle through audio-visual aids to morons—else it would not have

been an oracle to start with—and that has not changed in the last twenty-five
centuries. Moreover, it was the tradition of Greek philosophers of the time to
be stenoglottic, incisive, compact, if not lapidary in posse and in esse. The contents
of the fragments, and particularly in the maxims, was intended not for consump­
tion by olive pickers and wine makers, but for an elite who would transmit culture
to another generation.
The other difficulty arises from the danger of taking Diels 93 in isolation and
thus interpreting it in any “literal” manner leading to a flat rendering of incoherent
or contradictory meaning. However, when it is related to the entire corpus of
fragments (especially to those belonging to the same category”) additional light
is shed not only on the single fragment but on the work as a whole. Heraclitus
is, first of all, a master of interrelationships, of correlations, of interdependen­
cies: nothing is in isolation (and there is no need for “structuralism” to verify
this). Indeed, it is not by pure chance that 93 follows 92 in Diels, that they are
11 and 12 in Bywater, and 85 and 86 in Pasquinelli. Besides, any interpretation
must be accepted by taking into consideration not only those fragments immediate­
ly related to each other (as are 93 to 92) but all fragments and anything else sur-
rounding the work, whether in the area of drama, religion, medicine, cookery,
or even erotica, and whether from doxographic sources or pseudo-works.

The Tradition of Translation

Starting with Diels, how does he render the fragment into German? In a literal
way:

Der Herr, dem das Orakel in Delphi gehort,

sagt nichts und birgt nichts, sondern er bedeutet.
Here Diels was over-hasty, and a few generations of “translators” from German
erred with him. Let us analyze the fragment. In both Greek and German
the syntax is plain enough to be used for homework after a couple of weeks
elementary Greek or German. There are no structural complexities or punctua-
tive disfunction leading to Aristotelian or sophomoric variants. The problem is
merely semantic in terms of correlations among the verbs Xsysi, KpU7tT£l, and
otipatvei.
According to Diels’ literal interpretation as if made in Aristotelian times, the
contents are somewhat obscure, which is why, after twenty-three centuries, Hera­
clitus continued to be labeled “dunkel” (the term originally used by Aristotle
in his De Mundo might have been understandable twenty-three centuries ago, but
it is preposterous to employ it still, when there is actually nothing obscure in
Heraclitus). The verb X,Eysi rendered by “sagt” is parochial, and OTlp.CtlV8l by
“bedeutet” extremely ungrammatical for semantic and syntactic reasons. In fact,
Diels translates roughly:
The Lord, . . . says nothing and hides
nothing, but means.
Naturally I am aware that, although in German it might be more wholesome,
no matter how allotropic (even admitting “signifies” instead of “means”), the
sense one derives from Diels is zero, since the logic behind that interpretation
228 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

is tenuous. First, is the oracle to be understood as a function of magic or of religion?

In magic, people demand an answer which must be clear especially in terms of
positive/negative results. In religion, however, as in the case of the oracle in those
times, people askedfor, not demanded, an answer. An answer was always given,
but how to interpret it was the mystery of the oracle’s intercourse with humans.
(Even later in the Roman tradition, the answer to Ibis redibis non moneris in bello
depended on how the intonation or pause was imagined. The oracle did not use
“commas”, a latter-day luxury.) Too, an oracle must always say something, if
not very much; but at the same time it must not hide everything in order to mean
something. Otherwise, as in Diels’ interpretation, how could it bedeuten? One should
also ask: What does it bedeuten? Undoubtedly, the equation oqpiaiVEl = bedeutet
is the literal admission of a generally accepted dictionary listing, without probing
into the whole corpus but remaining within proper chronological parameters. Nor
did Diels correlate the archaic meaning of XEyETCti with that of OT|pcuv£l.
As for ourselves we should also bear in mind the maxim <J>UOic; 8e KO0
’HpolkXeitov KpU7iTEO0ai (piX.£i (Diels 123), that nature loves to hide, yes, but
not to remain eternally concealed from the inquirer. In other words, does intimate
nature love to hide in order to trigger a seeking action in the human who must
Find an answer in himself (Diels 101: £5i^r|adpr|V £p£COVTOv)? By going into the
realm of “English” interpretation, things become necessarily more Delphic. Take,
for example, one of the most popular English translations with which a whole
generation of young minds have struggled (Freeman 1948: 31; but cf. also Freeman
1946):
The lord whose oracle is at Delphi neither
speaks nor conceals, but indicates.
In essence, Freeman’s version is a translation from Diels’ German interpreta­
tion, and thus in it one still faces identical problems that are compounded by “in­
dicates” which, according to normal syntax, calls for a direct (and potentially
for an indirect) object. In other words, what does it indicate, and to whom?
It is obvious that the meaning of oqpaivco suffers from hyperdefinition, since
in similar cases its interpretation does not vary. Hyland, one of the latest inter­
pretations in a century-old tradition, falls into a similar trap (1973: 151), although
methodologically he was quite close to grasping a less pallid meaning. Indeed
Hyland, along the line of Pasquinelli’s innovations, had grouped at least four
fragments and tried to obtain the Heraclitean signifie of Xoyoc; through Fragments
18, 54, 123, and 93, quoted as follows (italics added):
Unless you expect the unexpected, you will never
find it. For it is hard to discover and difficult.
A hidden harmony is better than an apparent one.
Nature loves to hide.
The lord whose oracle is at Delphi neither speaks
nor conceals, but gives a sign.
Here “gives a sign” is more etymological though more fallacious than in
previous cases, because semantically the entire sentence lacks color. It is the result
of Hyland extracting medical (or clinical) semantic values of later times, as in
Galenus, or even earlier in Hippocrates. Surely one can supply a genitive of some
 HERACLITUS AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF SEMIOTICS 229

kind to the last verb, as Sanctius might have done later; but is the whole maxim,
then, satisfactory in terms of “logic”?
There are fortunately less literal interpretations. In French, the one more con­
sonant with Heraclitus’ archaic meaning is from Burnet 1919:
. . . l’oracle de Delphe qui n’exprime ni ne cache
sa pensee, [il veut] la faire voir par signe (Rey 1933: 313).
The “French” tradition continues until the most recent rendition by Ramnoux
(1968: 302):
Le Maitre a qui appartient l’oracle, celui de Delphe:
il ne parle pas, il ne cache pas, il fait des signes.
The only improvement here is that in Burnet the oracle makes one sign; in Ram-
noux’s time, he makes several.
Another example expressive of a more “logical” force of thought and mean-
ing, almost with semiotic overtones, is Pasquinelli (1958: 189):
Il signore che ha l’oracolo in Delfi
non dice e non nasconde, ma accenna.
This “Italian” tradition continues with few stylistic variants, as in Salucci and
Gilardoni (1968: 38):
. . . ne dice, ne nasconde . . .
So the difference between a French and an Italian Apollo is that in French
he does not speak, and in Italian he does not say (anything). Nevertheless, like
everyone else, Pasquinelli is still bound to the most used later meaning of
“I say”, but he almost hits the nail on the head with “accenna (“he hints”
“he alludes” or “he intimates”).
At this juncture it would serve no purpose to devise a typological inventory ol
Western language translations. I have read two dozens in West European cultures,
and all of them follow the German interpretation given by Diels. How, then, can
one place the oracle’s answer into a “logical” and semiotic framework? By con-
sidering several frames of reference before validating the final answer. It is, thus,
important to reflect upon the following points of reference in mutual correlations:
(1) The archaic meaning of Xeyco related to an oracle.
(2) The semantic charge of KpU7tT(0 as antithetical to (1) within Heracli-
tean thought.
(3) The interpretation of aripaivco outside vocal language.
(4) The assumption that intimate nature loves to hide.
(5) The solution suggested by Heraclitus—to seek within oneself—antici­
pating the concept of Homo mensura much before Protagoras’ pETpov.
(6) The implied answer that man himself is an oracle when he searches
within himself.
Before reflecting on the points listed above, however, it is necessary to take
into consideration certain oracular traditions.

The Oracular Tradition in Greece

In order to correlate the meaning of the three verbs among themselves and
the “whole” work, it is important to remember the function as well as the types
230 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

of the oracles in Greece. At the same time, one should recollect the power that
divination exercised not only on the individual but also on society at all levels.
Divination through the oracle was, then, the strongest psychological tool in the
hands of any individual or group. It was actually “institutionalized psychiatry”.
But in my particular assumption of the “intuitive” aspect of the oracular func­
tion, it is known that in Greece the divination through the oracle could be ac­
complished in two ways. One was based on external (visible, acoustic, sensible)
“signs”. This was actually “inductive”, and indeed the Greeks called it TEXV'K11
since it implied the technical knowledge of practical devices in order to interpret
the will of the gods and thus know the future.
The other way was performed by the god’s direct inspiration to either the local
psychiatrist (i.e., the priestess) in charge of the oracle or to the individual seeking
an answer derived from the meaning of internal “symptoms”, without external
tools of interpretation (axexvoQ). In our specific case, although it is on record
that all oracles could function through either inductive or intuitive means, Delphi’s
oracle was not only the most prestigious one in Greece but operated exclusively
in an “intuitive” manner. In other words, Delphi’s oracle was “endosemiotic”
and thus more human in resources. It was also the most sophisticated, aristocratic,
and learned. It is no wonder that Heraclitus, himself an aristocrat, chose Delphi
from among a hundred oracles in Greece alone. (See Bouche-Leclerq 1879-1882
in connection with the religious role of the oracles, and Ferri 1916 for their classi­
fication.) For Delphi was, indeed, since Homeric times, the seat of Apollo, a god
who knew everything in the past, present, and future (cf. Homer C.700-600BC:
III, 277), as any standard classical mythology manual will amply illustrate.

Toward a Semiotic Solution of Diels 93

Consideration is now directed to the six points listed above, in an attempt
to solve the Heraclitean “riddle”.

(1) The sixth century meaning of Xeyetv can be analyzed, in Diels 93, either in­
dependently or in connection with “Xoyo<;. Since A.oyoc; will be discussed at length
in another paper, I choose to dissect Heraclitus’ “Aiysi” independently from his
obsession with XoyoMoreover, I believe Diels 93 contains all data necessary
for a solution. Although already in the sixth century XsyElV had also, if not primar­
ily, the meaning of “to say”, “to speak”, and related synonyms, there were other
coexisting meanings including, naturally, the archaic ones and the newer ones,
derivatives of “to say”. Before scanning basic literature of Heraclitus’ time, a
brief etymological review would refresh our memory regarding Xsyeiv, and not
Xoyot;, as a basic semanteme—for the verb is the fundamental form since Homeric
times. Etymologically, and thus historically, Xeyco meant simply “I put things
together”, “I select”, “I gather”, “I separate (one from a group)”, ‘‘I enum­
erate”, and so forth. When viewed within Indo-European, it corresponds to Latin
lego having similar meanings, in addition to that of “I read” which was not so
in Homeric Greek (cf. Latin legio, -onis, and Oscan leginum corresponding to Latin
legionem). (See, among many, Boisacq 1916: 563, for a comprehensive presenta­
tion of the I.-E. situation.)
The archaic meaning of Xeyco, especially when analyzed in relation to
derivatives and compound forms, leaves no doubt as to the original acceptation
 HERACLITUS AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF SEMIOTICS 231

devoid of “to say” (even Scapula 1637: 934-950 [see gloss in References on Scapula
1579-1580] lists hundreds of attestations, starting with the Iliad [Homer c.700-
600BC]). An entire book could be written on the subject; hence I find it irrele­
vant to transcribe here what one can see for oneself consulting “original” sources
for pre-Heraclitean times.
At this stage, therefore, since the key to the oracle lies in the archaic meaning
of three verbs (and Heraclitus would employ nothing but the most archaic semantic
charge), let us assume as a frame of reference Diels’ interpretation which lingers
in each and every “translation”:
The lord, who . . . , neither Xeyei nor KpUTtTEi but otulouvei.
t is now only a matter of “substituting” English for the Greek, and, although
tins reptaecmcm can be done singly at any of the three positions, I prefer to follow
1 e linear ’ progression, not only because it must have been the manner Diels
chose by generating “sagt”, but because Xeyei seems to have troubled everybody
since Diels’ interpretation. Thus,
selects
gives
unfolds
. . . neither -J (something) nor Kpuntei but orijicuvei.
discloses
unveils

(2) Once any of the archaic semantic values for Xeyei have been accepted, it should
not be an arduous task to find the oracular meaning of KpUTtTEi because, by
< < logical” tenets, it must be the opposite of XeyEl and because it is dictated by
a reading of the whole corpus of Heraclitus’ fragments. Moreover, if we remember
Heraclitus’ philosophical views on opposites, and apply basic rules of logical syn­
tax, the second step should be as follows:
selects mixes
gives holds
unfolds folds (something) L but cnipmvEl.
. -. neither _J (something) nor hides
discloses
unveils conceals

(3) At this point the selection of a semantic force for onuatvet is pleasant not
only because of its own characteristics that can be uncovered indepen ent y o
the preceding two verbs, but also because of the base for its archaic meaning per
se. This is especially so for the reason that, in the oracle, vocal language is ex
eluded, and hence meaning must be conveyed by non-verbal expressions, gain,
even in Homeric times, OTlpcrivG) might have meant an infinitude of things—
from “I mark with a sign” to “I reveal” or “manifest something through signs ,
in addition to “I make a sign”, “I indicate through signs”, etc. Note that sign
or “signs” can be physical, natural, sensible, conceptual, internal, external, im­
aginary, real, etc. Once more, it would be redundant to quote from standard
literature the archaic value of oripaivco.
Later meanings were derived and applied for various purposes in medicine,
philosophy, economics, military science, astrology, meteorology, and so forth.
It was a matter of “applied” semiotics in its infant stage. Thus, it is dangerous
 232 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

to construct, according to popular tendency nowadays, a whole semiotic theory

based on, say, the literature of medicine.
Even the term “semeiotics” itself (via Latin ars semeiotica from lex'll
OTipeiOTiKq) is a late result of “applied” science. But to make this paper short,
let us consider the last stage, where I assume once more:

selects mixes
gives holds
unfolds folds
. . .neither —I (something) nor (something)
discloses hides
unveils conceals

} manifests
reveals
indicates
...but (something) L with or through signs
shows
speaks of

The selection can now be made by knowing that the direct object contained
in any verb must be the lord’s thought on the matter solicited by the inquirer
(thought being in keeping with the pair Xsy-/Xoy~):

The lord, who has the oracle in Delphi, neither discloses nor hides his
thought, but indicates it through signs.

The problem now is what we should understand by “signs”, obviously not

external ones such as smoke or noises. Thus, if the interpretation above is valid,
a whole semiotic theory can be formulated—especially if orjpaivsi is understood
as “the oracle speaks through signs”, a verb that could not fit any traditional inter­
pretation where oute Xsyei is rendered “neither speaks”. The oracle does indeed
speak, and says a lot to one who knows how to listen. That is what an oracle is for.

(4) The considerations made for (l)-(3) above, leading to the suggested solution,
when correlated with Heraclitean conceptions on human nature, are corroborated
by the view that such characteristics do not yield anything (or any answer) so
easily. But, before continuing, one should first understand what human “nature”
means. It is assumed that Heraclitus’ fragments are those remaining from his
work entided On Nature; therefore the “behavior” of one’s nature must be of prime
consideration. This quality is uniquely characteristic of humans, not of rocks,
and not of beasts. Therefore, it is the nature of Homo sapiens, oeconomicus, intuens,
in short, Homo semeioticus, and as such may be subject to self-analysis. Thus,
“hides” is not to be construed as an innate permanent feature of human nature.
That is to say, nature loves to hide (but notice the verbal aspect of KpU7tTEO0ai
(pitel indicating the desultory and periodical “present” tense); however, again,
to linger in the depth is part of its natural “behavior”. One has to seek within
himself in order to elicit something that was already latent in Homo intuens (Diels
101: 68l£Tia(XHTlv £p£CDUTOV “I searched within myself’). The reason for searching
 HERACLITUS AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF SEMIOTICS 233

arises from the condition of something being hidden. Finally, this deep seeking
is correlated with Diels 99: ei pf] qAioq rjv, eveKa xd)V a\\(OV aoxpcov eutppovq
&v fjv—“If there were no sun there would be no night”.
Heraclitus, thus, appears clear to anyone who knows that he must rely upon
his own intrinsic resources. This is not to suggest that Heraclitus enjoys shifting
all the responsibility onto his own or man’s intuition. He does not even trust himself
since, rather than painstakingly researching within his mind, he would prefer to
trust his five senses, as evident in Diels 46, 101a, 107, and 63, whenever coping
with “reality”.

(5) The implications from Diels 101 are fundamental for the problems of cogni­
tion. It is evident that, the intimate nature of things being hidden in all of us,
each person must analyze himself on the basis of internal signs (as well as exter­
nal ones that might act only as catalysts), i.e., in relation to the reasoning powers
which distinguish Homo semeioticus from non-Homo. There is another implication,
however, that required a longer time to be formally declared by another aphorism.
This implication was caught later by Protagoras, who did not hesitate to declare
that 7tdvxcov XPfipdxcov pexpov 6ax(v &(D0p(D7lOC, but the concept of Homo men-
sura is already in Heraclitus. Indeed, in semiotic matters Protagoras was to
Heraclitus what in logic Aristotle was to Plato. If man is the measure of everything,
then all his answers are to be found inside himself merely by seeking the meaning
of his own signs, i.e., by intuitions.

(6) If all of the above is valid, each human being has his own built-in oracle
as part of his mind. Heraclitus indeed speaks of “ij/uxeq”. This is consistently
and erroneously interpreted, since Diels’ translation of Fragment 115 as “soul’
(“Seele”): “\|/u%ec; 6cm \6yoi; eauxov au^cov”, which I interpret simply “The
mind has its own nature to expand itself’. The problem is that since Hera-
clitean times man still has not fully exploited the potential of his mental capac-
ity.
To those who put forward non-Homo speculations Heraclitus replies very clearly
indeed (Diels 82): 7ci0tik:cov 6 KdAAioxoc; aiaxpoc, av0pco7tcov yevei auji(3dAAeiv
“The most beautiful ape is horrible when compared with humans”. Heraclitus
did not have to read Darwin to single out the uniqueness of Homo semeioticus, for
only in Homo (Diels 113): £uvov 6oxi Ttaoi xo (ppov6etV “The faculty of reason­
ing is common to all”. At last the anticipation of Protagoras’ pexpov attests the
primacy of Homo semeioticus through Diels 116: av0pd)7toiai 7taai pexeaxi
yivcoaKeiv 6couvxouc; Kai acotppoveiv “Every human being has the faculty not
only of knowing himself but also of reasoning rightly”, and reinforces Fragment
113. Both fragments 113 and 116, among many, lie at the foundations of theoretical
semiotics.

Conclusions
In the realm of semiotics there actually cannot be any conclusions, especially
if an attempt is made to base them upon the thought of pioneers whose work,
already twenty-five centuries old, remains still at an infant stage. However, if
in the history of semiotics there may be an dpxfi in nuce, it must be found in
Heraclitus and in his Delphic oracle, properly correlated with virtually his entire
234 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

corpus. There is no doubt that the three Delphic verbs constitute the semiotic
synthesis of a thesis-antithesis statement leading to the formulation of signs in­
side and outside of Homo semeiolicus. We are at the dpx^ of semiotics, and in it
Heraclitus is one of the thinkers climbing a lonely path, fencing only with
Parmenides in an infinite world replete with interior and exterior signs. There
is so much to be done for the study of these semioticists that the task may well
intimidate anyone attempting to dissect in a semiotic framework the period en­
compassing the sixth and the fifth centuries. But in spite of the long road ahead,
if there is at this stage any Voter, he is Heraclitus—not Hippocrates, a rather tardy
heir to theoretical tenets on which applied aspects of semiotics were later based.
And I should not be surprised if, someday, the label of Voter were to be lifted
from Heraclitus and laid upon another. For, in the history of semiotics (also a
history of mankind), every Voter must have a previous Father, and the ultimate
will inevitably be Homo semeioticus.
 V

The Name and Its Direction

 21

JOSEPH RANSDELL

Semiotic Objectivity

TThe central purpose of this paper is to explain a conception of objectivity

which may be taken as a liberalized conception of what it means to be scientific,
and to argue that what I call “conventionalist semiotics” cannot lay claim to objec­
tivity, in the sense explained. The conception of objectivity is not itself argued
for here, though I hope it has enough prima facie plausibility to generate some
reflective response. Since successful sciences usually generate technologies as a
matter of course, the conceptions of the scientific and the technological are often
confused. For that reason I spend some time making clear that it is not a techno­
logical semiotics that I am attempting to promote, though such a thing is by no
means impossible. In fact, it already exists. Some of my remarks in this connec­
tion are motivated by a belief that there is a very real possibility that the present
semiotics movement will mistakenly come to conceive itself as a movement toward
a technological semiotics, particularly when it becomes clear that conventionalist
semiotics (which has dominated in contemporary semiotic theorizing) is an essen­
tially empty enterprise—a realization which will occur quite apart from anything
I have to say.

I
The popular conception of science as a form of magical power, the unrestrained
exploitation of the technologies which successful sciences normally generate, and
the highly successful attempt of positivistic philosophy of science to establish the
belief that the value of science can only be technological or instrumental, have
combined to give to the term science conceptual and emotional associations which
make me hesitant even to suggest that semiotics should be scientific to academi­
cians largely humanistic in orientation. For, as I understand it, semiotics is a move­
ment toward a comprehensive theory of communication, construed in terms of
interpretational response to meaning-properties, and it seems likely to me that,
if the present movement is intellectually successful, it will generate technologies
of human control fully comparable in power to the technologies the “hard” sciences
generate. The question is whether semiotic technology will, and must be, yet one
more deadly weapon in the hands of fools, or whether it can instead be a path
leading us out of our foolishness. It is only because I think it can be the latter
that I find it possible to encourage the development of semiotics along scientific
lines.
But as I construe the term science, following the conception of the scientific
which Charles Peirce developed, it really means much the same as could other­
wise be expressed by talking of objectivity, as that term is applied to an inquiry
236
 SEMIOTIC OBJECTIVITY 237

or cognitive quest. By objective inquiry I mean inquiry which incorporates in the

form of its practices, procedures, or methods, the idea of arriving at publicly stated
conclusions based on publicly observable data, such conclusions being put forth
as conclusions with which any other competent and devoted inquirers into the
same subject matter, with the same explanatory aim, will or would agree in due
time. This involves the idea that every scientific assertion implicitly involves a meta-
statement of the inquirer to other inquirers into the same matter, attesting that
the conclusion drawn is a result of observation mediated by inference, with an
indication of what was observed and what was observed about it, and with further
indication of the inferential mediation which led to the conclusion, both sorts of
indications being articulated sufficiently as to allow the other inquirers to attempt
to replicate” the observation/inference/conclusion sequence. By observation I do
not mean sensory perception. I mean rather an active acquaintance with something
which results in a belief that it had certain properties. Observation thus primarily
means the activity of observing, or becoming acquainted with, something insofar
as this activity eventuates in a belief about it. This may be a highly inferential
process itself, and perhaps always involves some inference, but the scientific func­
tion of observation is to provide starting points for inferential development.
As regards the meaning of “being acquainted with”, I will explain by indi­
cating my usage of it, which I think you will find similar to your own. Thus I
consider myself to be very well-acquainted with some things, fairly well-acquainted
with others, not well-acquainted at all with still others, and to have no acquain­
tance with a good many things. And I suppose you would say the same about
yourself. I couldn’t tell you what this last class of things consists of (the things
I have no acquaintance with), because whatever I told you about them would
imply an acquaintance with them, in the sense of “acquaintance” I have in mind.
It may even be an impossible class. If so then I would say that my acquaintance
with things ranges from extensive to practically nil, and I suppose you woule
say the same for yourself. The things in question may be individual objects,
laws, rules, fictional beings, real beings, illusions, ideals, abstractions, emotions,
thoughts you name it, or otherwise identify it, and you are acquainted with
it ipso facto. (This raises the question of what it is to identify something, a ques­
tion I will discretely evade here.) Now, observation is getting acquainted with
something, or perhaps I should say getting better acquainted with something, inso­
far as this takes on the form of an intentional activity. An observational datum is
something believed to be true of that thing as the result of observation of it, func­
tioning logically in the form of a premise for a conclusion asserted as such in a
scientific claim.
An observational datum is a starting point, but its status as a datum is purely
contextual: it is a datum for this inference; but it may itself be a conclusion from
observational data, and, so regarded, it is no longer a datum. There are no ab­
solute observational data, no ultimate first premisses from which we all must begin:
one person’s datum is another’s conclusion, and vice versa. So in putting
something forth as an observational datum functioning as a (partial) basis for a
conclusion, one is assuming that others either have found or will in due time find
it equally acceptable as a starting point—perhaps because their observations yield
(have yielded, will yield) the same result, or perhaps because they are willing to
accept it on trust, at least provisionally, because they respect one’s ability and
 238 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

scrupulosity as an observer (a far more important factor in the establishment of

a data base than is usually acknowledged). In any case, though, a scientific asser­
tion will be a waste of words if it does not rest upon observational data acceptable
to others, for whatever reason or cause.
I believe you will see that this conception implies nothing about the kind of
subject matter involved or the logical use to which the conclusions may be put.
It does not imply that the subject matter is physical or sensory, for example, nor
does it imply that the conclusion is descriptive or predictive in function, as opposed
to critical or evaluative. It consigns no intellectual interest to the domain of the
unscientific. For it is not what something is about which makes it scientific or un­
scientific, but rather how one goes about it. One of its root ideas is that an objective
inquiry is one which exhibits in its procedure the assumption that whatever the
inquirer claims about or attributes to the subject matter is to be regarded as being
true of it, or false of it, as the case may be, independently of the claim itself, and
indeed independently of what any individual or finite set of individuals claims
or thinks it to be. For it only involves a belief that others will agree about the
matter if they start from a certain point and move in a certain way towards a
conclusion. Whether they will indeed be willing to start from that point, or infer
in that way, is of course another matter. Even if they do, however, there is no
implied guarantee that the resulting agreement will be the truth; so the truth about
the matter is never constituted by any such actual agreement. On the other hand,
what is agreed to be the truth about the matter may well be the truth. So the
truth claims are not in vain. They serve the function of achieving further agree­
ment (sometimes) on what is true, among those willing to work from the same
tarting points, and such agreements may well capture the truth.
Nothing is assumed about the kind or kinds of inference involved: deductive,
inductive, hypothetical, or any other varieties there may be. An experimental
report from a physics lab will explain the role of the physical activities and the
instrumentation involved in the inferential process in one way, and a literary critic
will explain his inferential moves in quite another. Poor inferential moves may
be made. No matter, so long as they are made public for the possible criticism
of the other inquirers. Objectivity is not a matter of results or even of types of
inferential procedure, but rather a matter of the recognition in one’s communica­
tion with other inquirers that where one started from, and how one got to the
conclusion (or how one thinks one can get to that conclusion), may be capable
of being corrected by them, and hence are to be shared so that they can be sub­
jected to the real possibility of such a correction. The metaphor behind it is that
of the communal hunt: “Hey, everybody! I think it went that way! Look; here are
the signs. Now I interpret them to mean that . . . .” But it really is no metaphor.
Human beings were hunters before they were warriors or growers even, and we
will always be on the hunt for something. Objectivity is the form of the communal
hunt for the truth, and it seems to me that this is what scientific should be con­
strued to mean as well.
I should emphasize that, although this conception of objective inquiry may
be regarded as an analysis of what is implicit in making a responsible truth claim
in a scientific context, it does not constitute a criterion for distinguishing a truth
from a falsehood. That is, the fact that an objective method of inquiry is followed
does not imply that any particular conclusion drawn in accordance with it is thereby

S
 SEMIOTIC OBJECTIVITY 239

a truth, or even that the conclusion can be assigned any determinate likelihood
of being true. Objectivity is not an algorithmic decision procedure. (I might add
that nearly every discussion of Peirce’s analysis of truth errs in supposing that
his shift to a methodic conception is an attempt to provide a criterion for truth
in the form of a method, whereas the essence of Peirce’s approach lies in the aban­
donment of the idea that there is any such thing as a criterion of truth. It is re­
markable that the quest for a criterion still absorbs the energies of epistemologists
when reflection upon the actual practice of inquiry in any area will show clearly
that no such thing is either used or missed.) The analysis is based rather on the
idea that a scientific truth claim amounts to saying something like this:
I have done my best to come to the same conclusion anyone else would
come to about this matter, were they to enquire into it with the same ex­
planatory aim as I. Here is my conclusion, of which I am sufficiently con­
vinced to be willing to take the responsibility of putting it forth publicly,
well aware of the fact that anything publicly asserted may be taken as a
basis of thought and action by others, thereby helping or harming them
in their own pursuits. My belief is that this conclusion can only be helpful
in increasing our common understanding of the matter in question. And
here is an indication of the way I arrived at this conclusion: see if you find
yourself similarly compelled to draw this same conclusion, provided you
think my starting points, and my way of moving toward a conclusion, are
acceptable as such. If you do not find yourself in agreement with me, please
state publicly your reasons for this so that I and others can reconsider the
matter and see if we can come to an agreement with you.
Perhaps my formulation is not exact, but it can be regarded as an attempt
to capture the logical force of a claim made in the context of a scientific or scholarly
journal, or other such context. In an era when “publish or perish’’ is the work­
ing ethic of academia, it is based on the opposing ethic that one should perish
before publishing anything—which is to say, before asserting anything formally
and publicly to one’s intellectual colleagues—which could be misleading, without
having done one’s best to make sure it will not have that deleterious effect, taking
due account of the practical constraints and limitations upon all of us in our pur­
suit of a reliable and fruitful understanding of what mutually concerns us.
As a final remark, let me urge that semioticians should, above all others, be
sensitive to the multiple techniques of communication that are available for convey­
ing starting points, inferential processes, and conclusions. I am not thinking here
primarily of non-verbal media—though they are pertinent, too—but rather of the
various possible uses of language in cooperative inquiry. Some things are best
conveyed in one way, some in another. Research reports are best for some things;
poetry best for others. “What? Scientific claims made in the form of poetry? i >
I don’t see why not. But of course the poet has to bear in mind the poetic inter-
pretational capacities of his or her fellow inquirers, in deciding whether it is best
put in that form. Such interpretational skill is not very widespread at present,
for example. Philosophy—much of which is semiotics—has been done in a varie­
ty of idioms: poetry, drama, letters, notebooks, confessions, meditations, formal
proofs, even intentional non-sense, as well as the forms favored in the professional
journals. Plato wrote philosophy in the form of plays, for example, and, to a large
240 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

extent, at least, I think I understand what he is talking about, what he takes as

his observational data, how he draws his conclusions, and what his conclusions
are. That is, I began to understand these things when I began to respond to his
works as plays. And I find these things far clearer in him than in much material
I read in professional journals, which often exhibit a pseudo-objectivity because
their authors do not grasp that they have to situate themselves in a real communal
hunt in order to make clear where they are really starting from and what they
are talking about.
There is much else that could be said about this conception of objectivity; but
perhaps this is sufficient for present purposes, and will indicate that this concep­
tion of the scientific is one according to which science is primarily a code of conduct—
something rather more like a code of honor than like a linguistic code—which
is constitutive of an ideal and shared form of life, that ethic being derived logically
from an analysis of how we must relate to one another communicationally if we
are to achieve our common goal of a shared understanding of our subject matter.
It is, if you will, a semiotic conception of objectivity and science. I cannot defend
this conception here, and can only commend it for consideration on the basis of
its prima facie plausibility, but it is not one which is being put forth in a divisory
or exclusionary spirit. If it seems to be remote from science, as you understand
it, perhaps it is because you are accustomed to thinking of the scientific in terms
of its subject matter (e.g., something quantifiable) or its results (e.g., instrumen­
talities of practical use) or its subject-specific methods (e.g., the use of special
physical instruments, mathematical calculi and conceptions, etc.), rather than in
terms of its being a shared form of thinking and communication: in short, an
ethics of the intellect.
The conception is Peirce’s, as I understand him; and I think it is worth remark­
ing in this connection that Peirce was himself an adept in nearly every science
of his time, working in the forefront of several of them, and doing so always with
a sustained focus on the question: “What does it mean to be a scientist? What
does it mean to devote one’s life to the service of the discovery of truth?” When
the truth about Peirce’s life and accomplishments becomes generally known, it
will be perceived that he was not only the most omnicompetent scientific mind of
his time, perhaps never subsequently to be equalled, but also a moral hero of the
intellect, of the stature of Socrates: a veritable icon or paradigm of philosophia—
which really means devotion to the search for truth, not philosophy, as that is
currently conceived in academic orthodoxy. In any case, Peirce’s conception of
the scientific is not that of a dilettante, but that of a person whose qualifications
for advancing such a conception are far higher than those of the amateurs who
have dominated philosophy of science during this century. This does not imply
that his conception is thereby the superior one, but it does mean that one is well-
justified in taking what he says seriously, regardless of how it may appear prima
facie, for he certainly did not arrive at his conception on the basis of a naive un­
derstanding.

II
In working toward an effective semiotic theory we are working toward the crea­
tion of a human enterprise the value of which could be so deleterious as to insure
definitely the destruction or permanent degradation of human life. I think such
 SEMIOTIC OBJECTIVITY 241

a Doomsday semiotics is possible, even likely, if no attention is paid to the alterna­

tives, and their practical implications, at this early stage in the present movement.
For although a semiotics that works in the service of human interests is also possi­
ble, there is more than a little danger that it will never be actualized. It may seem
odd to talk about alternatives, as if one could choose between competing theories
a priori, and on a moral basis at that. If it were a question of a physical theory
I would make no such suggestion, but the fact is that we do have a latitude of
choice about how we are to conceive human life which is not available to us in
respect to our conception of the physical order. This is not a “conventionalist”
thesis: I am not saying that we can conceive things any way we decide to con­
ceive them (assuming we wish to arrive at a valid understanding) by simply de­
fining them according to our whims. My point is rather this: human life is not
fixed in its overall form, due to the fact that reflection upon it can enter into
the determination of its form, such that the conclusions drawn in such reflection
have (at least to some extent) the power of self-actualization and, thereby, self­
validation. For example, a person who conceives of himself as a helpless pawn
in the games of others will tend to be such a pawn in the games of others; a per­
son who conceives of himself as unattractive to others will tend to be unattractive
to others; a person who feels himself to be a loser will tend to be a loser. That
is, there are tendencies for self-perceptions to validate themselves, though of course
I don’t mean that there are no exceptions, or that “the power of positive think­
ing”—the popular phrase for this idea—is anything miraculous. The basic idea
is simply that, by and large, we will live within the range of what we conceive to
be possible—or necessary—regardless of what the actual possibilities and necessities
are.
This is why ideologues of every stripe are so bent on convincing us that such-
and-such is inevitable, and in fact characteristically speak so much of what is
desirable as of what must happen, anyway. We will accept nearly anything, re­
gardless of how unattractive to us at the beginning, once we become convinced
that we have no real alternative. I recall watching an interview with a certain
physicist some years ago concerning weapons-policy, a matter on which he had
(at that time at least) extraordinarily rigid views. It became clear in due time that
the man was literally incapable of entertaining alternatives about what will happen:
the future was as fixed and determinate for him as the past, and his beliefs about
it simply unquestionable, at least insofar as it bore on the point at issue. Thus
the interviewer several times said: “Yes, but what if. . . ?”, whereupon he would
simply say, in effect, there are no “ifs” about the matter. I had not until then
realized that fanaticism is not an extreme case of moral commitment, but rather
an abandonment of the moral perspective altogether (through the abandonment
of alternatives), and that it is in this abandonment that the power of the ideologue
lies; moreover, that in a very real sense this stance toward human reality has some
genuine logical force, because the very fanaticism or dogmatism supporting the
belief actually increases its likelihood of turning out to be true, at least under some
conditions. (This is what William James was trying—confusedly—to express in
his paper on “the will to believe”, which, like nearly all of James’ philosophical
ideas, is a bowdlerization of something he learned from Peirce).
A case more directly pertinent to our purposes here is that of B. F. Skinner
whose psychology can be interpreted as a form of semiotics, and who has been
 242 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

attempting to convince us that he has discovered the only possible way in which
human life can be understood, and therefore the only way in which it can be lived.
From this supposed necessity he infers that he—that is, some likeness of himself—
should be put in charge of us as our keeper. Now it would surely be a mistake
to think that a life “beyond freedom and dignity” is not possible for human beings,
or to think that Skinner does not know what such a life would be like. Moreover,
when he says that this is what all human life really is, he comes far closer to the
truth than those who oppose him are usually willing to recognize. The fact is that
the modern world is much as he says it is, and the modern consciousness is large­
ly constrained within the purview of the possibilities he recognizes. Take what
he says not as a metaphysical/political doctrine, but as a description of the
dominating tendencies in our life and thought, and Skinner’s confused and
amateurish philosophizing reveals a valuable insight about our current situation.
A conception of what human life (intellectual or practical) can only be has a
tendency to validate itself by driving out other possibilities from our awareness,
so that, in due time, it is the only model available and, consequently, the only
kind of life there actually is. Might really does make right, in this sense. Though
he undoubtedly never thinks about it this way, Skinner wants to rule the world
because that is a part of his method of verification: he will make his theory true,
if he can, simply by persuading us that we have no option. But when I refer to
Skinner here I really mean Skinner the sign, not Skinner the person: Skinner as
index of the present state of our intellectual culture, and Skinner as icon of a form
of life “within which we live, move, and have our being” (Bishop Berkeley’s defini-
ion ofGod). For Skinner’s theory of human nature is nothing new. On the com­
mon sense level, his psychology is just what we all began to learn in the cradle
as we learned about the effects of reward and punishment in the control of others.
All his theory does is to sophisticate that common sense idea.
In western philosophy he was first clearly identified by Plato, who called him
“Gorgias” and pointed out that his follower was Callicles, a demagogic politi-
cian who is the Thrasymachus of the Republic under another name. Plato knew
that Skinner was not just wrong: people are pigeons (a con man’s name for a sucker,
by the way) and those who know the secrets of the carrot and the whip can reduce
people to mere button-peckers, whether from desire for the carrot or from fear
of the whip. The key to their success is that we keep believing them when they
tell us:

Get wise! You’re nothing but a pigeon, but some pigeons are more equal
than others, namely, those pigeons who learn the science of pigeon-training.
You’ll be amazed to learn how much more positive reinforcement you can
get once you are in charge of the pellet-dispenser. Now if you show a lot
of aptitude for pecking, we’ll let you control the dispenser every now and
then. And who knows but what we might reassign you permanently to
this exalted position? Why, all of us trainers were once mere button-peckers
ourselves!
We forgot the reports of those who have told us that there is a world outside of
the laboratory where pigeons can actually fly. A flying pigeon is still a pigeon,
to be sure, but there may be more to being a pigeon than is dreamt of in the
philosophy of button-peckers and pellet-dispensers.
 SEMIOTIC OBJECTIVITY 243

The relevance of this to semiotics? Skinner’s theory is a kind of semiotics, or

can be so construed, and I am thinking of it from that point of view here. In Peirce s
terms, it is a semiotics in which only the indexical meaning of things is recog­
nized, and the other basic semiotic functions—the symbolic and the iconic are
reduced to special cases of the indexical, which is to say that they are eliminated
as theoretically distinct functions. Now, an actual reduction in our abilities to
respond to the various meaning-potentials of things can be effected to a greater
extent than is usually recognized—not completely, to be sure, but sufficiently to
seem to validate the thesis that there is but one type of meaning. Our capacity
for iconic interpretation is already badly atrophied: we hardly even try to see the
meanings in things: we only focus on them long enough to identify their indicative
properties, their indexical meaning, which points us away from the things
themselves to other things, which in turn point us to other things, which . . .
“Say, conductor, where and when does this train stop?” “Sir, this train never
stops; you are on The Indexical Express. But isn’t it great to travel and see all
the sights? Look quickly, now, and you’ll catch a glimpse of the famous Leaning
Tower of Pisa between those two buildings. Isn’t it—whoops, there it went! —
wasn’t it exciting?”
What is meant by iconic interpretation, by seeing the meaning in things? Well,
what is the meaning in the following anecdote?
I went to the World’s Fair in New York, back sometime in the early 60’s.
Michelangelo’s Piela was on exhibit there, and let me tell you of the wonder­
ful efficiency with which the authorities handled the problem of the vast
crowd that flocked to see this Great Work of Art (rumored to be just as
great as the Mona Lisa, that is, worth just as much money.) The way they
handled it was to put the spectators on a conveyor belt which conveyed
us right by it, not so slowly that we had time to get bored, but not so quickly
as to blur the vision.
There is a meaning in this anecdote which is much the same as the meaning in
the story of The Indexical Express, and in both there is something about the
atrophy of our capacity to interpret things iconically, according to what they can
intrinsically reveal.
Indexical meaning is at the foundation of our understanding of the causal order
of the world, and therefore at the foundation of our ability to control portions
of it. Technology is indexical sophistication, and the technological society of
which the United States is the most extreme case—is one of which human life
is controlled much as the physical order is controlled. In such a society it becomes
increasingly difficult to imagine how human life might be otherwise controlled,
although control by the manipulation of indexical meaning is not in fact the only
option. For example, control by tradition is an alternative, and such control is
based primarily on iconic rather than on indexical meaning: myths, rituals, models,
heroes, folk art, and so on, are primarily iconic control techniques, the basic
principle being that of mimesis or imitation. People model themselves on more
or less unchanging forms, and act primarily with an eye to achieving a formal
correctness and identity through the roles they play. Getting things done is not so
important as being this or that sort of person. The reason why the technological
or indexical mode of control has triumphed so totally in the United States is obvious

-
244 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

enough, I think: as a nation of immigrants of diverse origins we not only have

no traditions universally shared, except at the most superficial level, but natural­
ly tend to look upon anything traditional with great suspicion, seeing in any given
tradition the potential for divisiveness. Epluribus unum—but one what? Hence the
technological or indexical type of control meets little opposition and seems, in
fact, to be the only method really viable for us. I am not urging tradition against
technology, but only attempting to convey that the Skinnerian view of life—the
technological view, indexical semiotics—is not the only possibility, while at the
same time pointing out that it can become—and indeed largely has become—the
only possibility we ever see actualized. From a semiotic point of view, this can be
expressed by saying that although our capacity to respond to several different types
of meaning can never really be eliminated, the fact is that it is possible for one
of these—in this case the indexical interpretational capacity—to so totally dominate
in practice that the others become atrophied to the point where we cannot achieve
a clear vision of what these others actually are. On the theoretical level, the result
is that we try to reduce these other capacities to being special cases of the
dominating one (which is precisely what Skinner’s Verbal Behavior is all about, for
example).

Just as the intrinsic meanings of things (their iconic potential) can be nearly
obliterated by the cultivation of habits of thought which simply ignore that semiotic
dimension, except on the most superficial level, so also with the symbolic mean­
ings of words, that is, that dimension of the meaning of words which makes them
distinctively linguistic. Now words do not have only symbolic meaning, and adver­
tisers, politicians, public relations experts, and other demagogues and tricksters
specialize in the destruction of the symbolic by exploiting the indexical meanings
which words bear, while at the same time so conjoining them that no coherent
overall interpretation of their symbolic dimension is possible. What is said may
add up to nothing, but at the same time the words keep pointing us, involuntarily,
to this or that other thing (feeling, image, whatever) which it is advantageous
for the manipulators to keep pushing our thoughts towards. This is a radical over­
simplification of the techniques of trickery involved in the sophist’s art; but the
essence of sophistry lies in inducing confusion on the symbolic level while at the
same time stimulating involuntary indexical interpretation advantageous to the
sophist or his client. The result is that what seem to be words are not really words
at all. One gets the impression that words have been said, when nothing in fact
was said, though something was certainly being done with these word-imitations.
The capacity to interpret symbolically, in a sophisticated way, is an art which re­
quires continual cultivation, and our self-control is a function of this development.
Sophism is the attempt to destroy this art, and it is no accident that there is no
conception of self-control in Skinnerian psychology, and that from the time of
John Watson to the present the psychologists of this school have frequently moved
into the world of advertising and other forms of professional sophism.
In sum, my point is that there is a special logical feature of semiotic inquiry
which arises from the fact that human self-perception has a causally determining
efficacy in respect to its subject matter: as we conceive ourselves, so shall we be,
to some extent at least. Now there is certainly a logical fallacy involved in a claim,
such as Skinner’s, that human life can only be as he describes it. No empirical
 SEMIOTIC OBJECTIVITY 245

hypothesis can claim itself to be the only alternative; for this is a meta-judgment
about the hypothesis which can draw upon no empirical evidence in its support,
inasmuch as all such evidence is already logically appropriated to the hypothesis
itself. Minimally, such a claim is just empty, and any attempt to justify it a priori
would produce a self-contradiction since it would involve a simultaneous claim
that the hypothesis is and is not an empirical one. However, there is a certain
peculiar logical force to such a claim in the sense that, by causally determining
how its subject matter actually is, it tends to validate itself. I am unable to deter­
mine whether or not my definition of objectivity in Part I of this paper rules out
the exploitation of this peculiarity; as it stands, I believe it does not, but it may
be that a more sophisticated formulation of the same idea would do so.
But however that may be, the fact is that we, as theoreticians, are engaged
not merely in trying to understand human life (among other things) but also in
making it something thereby. Our power in this respect is certainly limited, but
it is sufficient to make it obligatory upon us that we consider the effects of the con­
ceptions we develop and not delude ourselves that we are only finding out the
facts, as if those facts are altogether causally independent of our ideas of them.
If we conceive semiosis in such a way as to preclude anything but a Skinnerian
vision of life then we are simply helping to insure that such a vision will be the
true one. Indeed, it already is largely true and, in my opinion, the reigning tenden­
cies of our time—tendencies that have been continually on the increase since the
Renaissance—are such that its truth is on the increase, in the sense that his typ*
of theory actually does account for more and more human behavior as time goe
on, and is true of more and more people, as the technological or manipulativ
mentality it expresses spreads to every culture on the globe.
In the rest of this paper I will be concerned with another type of semiotics,
which I will call a “conventionalist’* semiotics, and I will be arguing that it clearly
does violate the principle of objectivity, as I have formulated it. This second type
of semiotics often sees itself in opposition to the Skinnerian type—as is well-illus­
trated in Chomsky’s justly famed review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, for
example—but I contend that there is an unrecognized alliance in practice between
a manipulative semiotics of the Skinnerian type and a conventionalist semiotics
of the type I will be discussing next, this alliance arising from the fact that the
implicit authoritarianism in the latter is itself technologically sterile; so that it will
always in practice draw upon the semiotics of manipulation to put its visions into
effect.

Ill
I think it will generally be agreed that, in semiotics, we must work minimally
with a distinction between an entity which bears some meaning or significance
of some sort (a sign) and a possible response relative to that entity as bearer of
that property (an interpretant). Some semioticians are primarily oriented toward
the relationships which signs do or can stand in to one another, others more toward
interpretational considerations; but a distinctively semiotic approach is, I take
it, one in which both sorts of factors are ultimately to be regarded from a unitary
theoretical point of view. Let us restrict our attention here to sign-interpretation
processes, which I will call semiosis processes. An analysis of meaning properties
and relationships may have no overt reference to any interpretational process,
246 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

but there would be no point in referring to it as a distinctively semiotic analysis

unless it was thought of as being concerned with entities implicitly relative one
way or another, to such a process.
Semiotic theorizing and analysis is itself a form of semiosis. Semiosis processes
such as human beings engage in have the capacity to become reflexive or self-
reflective: semiosis takes the form of semiotics and thereby takes itself as part of
its subject matter. It was this which was at the base of the considerations dis­
cussed in Part II of this paper; and just as it gives rise to a certain logical peculiarity
pointed out there (self-validating theorizing), it also puts limits upon how semiosis
is to be conceived if we are to allow for the possibility of semiotic inquiry having
the property of objectivity. For the basic conception of semiosis put forth in a
semiotic theory must either allow for the possibility of semiosis taking on the form
of objectivity or else it disqualifies itself from entering into an objective inquiry
process as a guiding theory. A theorist cannot (validly) deny the possibility of
objectivity (implicitly or explicitly) if that very denial is put forth as being made
within the context of objectivity. To put it another way, that which is asserted
cannot (validly) contradict what is implicit in the very act of asserting. The kind
of contradiction involved here is, to be sure, one which involves a relationship
between two “logical levels”, and I cannot adequately explicate it here; but I
think it is clear that there is a logical impossibility involved. Note, though, that
this does not prove that there is any such thing as objective semiosis, or that
semiotic conceptions which do not allow for such a possibility are false. It only
proves that any semiotics which wishes to be objective must abandon any con-
ception of semiosis which does not allow for that possibility. My thesis is that
a type a semiotic theory which I call conventionalism, and which is quite wide­
ly held at present, is in this sense incompatible with the achievement of objec­
tivity in semiotics. The scientific pretensions of such theories are therefore quite
bogus.
Does the semiotic value of the sign, that which constitutes it as a sign, that
is, its meaningfulness or significance, accrue to it because of any particular act
in which it is interpreted, or is it a property possessed by the sign independent
of any given interpretation? Any theory according to which any sign acquires its
meaning through any given interpretant of it (regardless of the number of per­
sons participating in it) is, insofar, a conventionalist thesis, as I conceive it here.
This formulation is unusual, but I think you will see the point to it if I explain
it in terms of linguistic signs, in particular, which are commonly regarded as being
conventional signs.
Take any word: the English word table, let us say. The meaning of this percep­
tual configuration is no doubt arbitrary in the sense that it has the meaning it has
only because it just happened to have entered into an activity or practice of some
people (just as, say, mesa or Tisch happened to have entered into similar activities
or practices of other peoples). Perhaps accidental would be a more exact word for
arbitrariness, in this sense. In any case, though, there is nothing about the con­
figuration itself which makes it mean what it means linguistically. Only considera­
tions of history and convenience, of no logical import, seem to account for its
having this property. But note that the arbitrariness here is not a property of the
configuration but rather of thcfact of its having acquired that linguistic meaning
rather than some other, or none at all, and of that meaning having been given
 SEMIOTIC OBJECTIVITY 247

to it rather than to some other configuration. Since such meaning-properties come

and go across time, it seems, therefore, that there must have been a point in time
prior to which this configuration had no such meaning, and subsequent to which
it did, which suggests that there must have been at that point in time an act of
meaning-bestowment, or something logically equivalent to an act. For even if the
meaning-relation is thought of in terms of an habitude or rule, there must have
been a moment at which such an entity (the rule or habitude) came into existence,
and it is difficult to see how that is to be construed except in terms of an act of
relating that configuration to whatever it means, though of course the act may have
been unreflective and the exact moment at which it occurred undiscoverable, prac­
tically speaking. Thus the arbitrariness is ultimately to be predicated of the act of
meaning-bestowment, which is “unmotivated” in the sense that no property of
the physical configuration as such necessitated that it, rather than some other con­
figuration, be the recipient of that meaning. In glyphic writing, for example, the
likeness of a sign to something is often a valuable clue to its linguistic meaning
for the archaeologist, and the providing of such clues was undoubtedly an aid
to the remembrance of the meaning of such signs for the persons who originally
wrote and read the glyphs; but that likeness is not constitutive of their meaning
(except for their iconic meaning), and thus has a purely auxiliary function, relative
to linguistic decipherment. That is, such configurations are motivated psycho­
logically, but not logically.
This seems to me to be a fairly precise statement of what is meant in saying
that linguistic signs are conventional. The use of the term convention—which is
perhaps more widespread in philosophy than in linguistics—originates in the idea
of a convening of persons for the purpose of an explicit act of meaning-bestowment,
a laying down of the law, as it were; and it is fundamentally the same idea as
that of the social contract theory of the state. (Thomas Hobbes’ theory of mean­
ing and his social theory are almost exact isomorphs of one another, for example.)
Of course, hardly anyone—perhaps no one—holds to a literal social contract theory
of meaning, according to which linguistic signs get their present meaning by an
actual historical convening of linguistic legislators who unanimously decided to
give words the meaning they have, any more than political versions of the con­
tract theory are couched in historical terms nowadays. However, logically
equivalent views are very widespread, at present, I believe, in both domains. For
any view is logically equivalent to this which holds that (a) the meaning of linguistic
signs is a function of codes or rules, and that (b) these rules or codes exist at a
given moment, such that (c) acts of interpretation or use at that moment are correct
or incorrect depending upon whether they do or do not conform to those co-existing
rules. More simply, any view according to which an act of linguistic interpreta­
tion or use is correct or incorrect in virtue of agreement or disagreement with
a co-existing rule is equivalent to a social contract or conventionalist theory of
meaning.
Why? Because a rule or a code is essentially a trans-temporal entity, that is, it
essentially extends across time; hence, if it is supposed that it exists at a moment
of time it must be supposed to exist in the form of an act, since there is no other
way in which a rule can be conceived to exist at a moment. In the case of this
particular sort of rule, moreover, it must be conceived as an interpretational act
constituting the meaning of the sign, relative to which any other non-constituting
248 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

interpretation of the same sign (qua configuration) is right or wrong, depending

upon its agreement with the constituting act. That is, the meaning-constituting
interpretational act which is the rule at a given moment must be supposed to be
somehow authoritative relative to the non-constituting interpretations, the agent
or circumstance somehow having the power to make the sign meaningful in this
way. But this is the social contract theory, assuming a plurality of agents.
Let me state this in a slightly different way. I pointed out that the point in
time at which a linguistic habitude or rule came into existence must, it seems, be
thought of as the time of an initial act of relating', subsequent to which, and in
virtue of which, the relation exists. Suppose, then, that for a certain word the date
of that supposed occurrence can be roughly fixed at one hundred years ago. If
that word has that meaning now, it is clearly quite irrelevant to its having that
present meaning that originally received it one hundred years ago: all that counts
now is that it is now so related. Its possession of that meaning now is logically
equivalent to its initially receiving that meaning now, for it means what it means
now regardless of how long it has had that meaning. Its relation is logically
equivalent to a present relating; the presently existing habitude or rule is logically
equivalent to a present act of habitude—or rule—adoption: the logical upshot is
the same in either case, as regards its present meaning. It is as if the fictional
convening of the legislators is actually an act repeated at every successive mo-
ment, so long as the word has that meaning. Indeed, it is difficult to understand
how an original act of relating can establish a temporally enduring relation,
anyway, unless we think of the latter as equivalent to a series of trans-temporal
acts of relating. (Descartes’ idea that God is continually re-creating the world,
at each successive moment in time, this being the only way it can be sustained
in existence, is a theological analogue to this, by the way.) We can say, at a given
time, “Let the meaning of this configuration henceforth be but what
logical force can such a fiat have? The Doomsday Machine might go off in the
next moment, or we might suffer a lapse of memory, or we might change our
minds immediately, and so on. So how can the relating bring about the enduring
relation, in a logical sense? The relation must, then, be regarded as if it were
an ongoing series of acts of relating, each prior act devoid of present logical force
precisely because it is prior. In other words, the historical factor is really quite
irrelevant, except of course when we are concerned with what something used
to mean, as distinct from what it means now.
Conventionalism originated as a thesis about linguistic signs in particular, and
some conventionalists either explicitly restrict the thesis to linguistic signs or are
concerned only with signs of this type, anyway. However, the dominant tenden­
cy of the past few decades has been to attempt to extend the thesis to all significa­
tion or meaningfulness whatever, so that both “natural signs” (indexical signs)
and signs by likeness (iconic signs) are also regarded as conventional. The basic
rationale for extension— sometimes called “linguistic imperialism”—lies in the
tenuousness of the distinction between “truths of meaning” and “truths of fact”
(sometimes also called the distinction between “analytic truths” and “synthetic
truths”). A truth of meaning would be one whose truth is ascertainable by reference
to a linguistic meaning-rule (meaning-convention): for example, All swans are birds
is supposedly true because there is a rule to the effect that whatever swan applies
to bird applies to also. (There are a variety of ways in which the rule could be
 SEMIOTIC OBJECTIVITY 249

stated.) A truth of fact is one which is not so ascertainable—for example, if All

swans are white is true, it is so on some basis other than a rule of meaning (the
other basis usually being thought of vaguely in terms of conformity to the facts,
or something like that). In semiotic terminology, this distinction would correlate
with a distinction between linguistic and “natural” signs: swan is a linguistic sign
meaning bird (in part), but being a swan, though perhaps a “natural” sign of
whiteness (an indicator or index of it) is not such because of any rule of meaning,
but because of a regular factual correlation.
However, a variety of considerations can be adduced which suggest that there
either is no such distinction, or else that the distinction is itself a conventional
one m its application. For example, it may be pointed out that the ability to inter­
pret natural signs is culturally learned, just as is the ability to interpret linguistic
signs; or it may be claimed that even in the highly controlled context of scientific
inquiry definitional statements are often indistinguishable from supposedly em­
pirical hypotheses and that the distinction between theoretical and empirical pro­
positions is impossible to draw in principle; or that there really is no such thing,
m scientific practice, as absolutely “hard” empirical fact which can refute a con­
tradicting theory, it always being a matter of decision as to whether to treat an
apparent diversification as a real one; and so on. (I cannot here do justice to the
sophisticated arguments in question but only hint at them.) In general the idea
is that what is treated as conventional is itself a matter of convention; hence even
a truth of fact” is such only by a conventional agreement to regard it as such,
which, in effect, makes the “truth of fact” into a special case of a “truth of mean-
,ng . Thus, to treat All swans are white as factual in import is to permit This is
a black swan to be an acceptable locution; but whether such a decision is actually
made depends upon what is contextually at stake at the time of the appearance
of an apparently black swan; hence a “truth of fact” is really only a combinatioi
of words for which no corresponding rule of meaning has yet been established.
It thus functions as a truth only on the basis of a tentative acceptance of it; but
this is tantamount to saying that its truth is a matter of convention. (Perhaps the
point would be clearer if I were to say that the idea is that there really is no distinc­
tion between “truths of meaning” and “truths of fact”; the apparent distinction
is really due to the fact that the theory in question is not fully determinate relative
to rules of meaning at a given time: the “truths of fact” are the presently indeter­
minate parts of it.)
In any case, the result is the same: a conventionalist model, originally set up
only with linguistic meaning in mind, is extended to cover all sign phenomena
whatever. Everything semiotical in character is to be understood in terms of rules
and codes, everything is an expression of a language or something logically
equivalent to a language, and the meaning of everything is arbitrary, in the sense
in which language is arbitrary. The continental semiotic called “semiology” illus­
trates this very well in its movement from Saussurian linguistics to structuralist
analyses of literature, fashion, music, myth, and so on. In this country, the move­
ment has been retarded owing to the relatively late appearance of Chomskyan
linguistics (I’m thinking here of Chomsky’s “rationalism”, not his innovations
m the representation of rules), which is its natural base in Anglo-American
linguistics. Also, Chomsky’s own reticence about hyper-enthusiastic extensions of
his approach, in addition to the existence of a powerful empiricist opposition here
250 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

in the social and psychological sciences, has kept the Schwarmerei under some con­
trol. But the theoretical groundwork has long been laid in philosophy of science
for the absorption of all of science within the sphere of linguistics, as it has become
nearly an article of faith among the avant garde that a scientific theory is a language,
and that everything in a language is conventional in one way or another—which
means there is no reason in principle why the Universal Grammarians aren’t
already giving kindly advice to physicists on how to construct their theories. Inter­
estingly enough, as this “linguistic imperialism” advances it keeps locating the
ultimate conventions at ever deeper levels of the psyche, and the conventions begin
to appear as the whims of a God-like universal esprit rather than as the results
of human choice (as in Levi-Strauss’s anthropology), so that a doctrine whose
original appeal was surely due in part to a vague idea that it recognized human
freedom, now begins to appear in the form of a determinism beyond anybody’s
power to alter. I think myself that Chomsky’s “innate ideas” doctrine is cut from
the same cloth as Levi-Strauss’s doctrine of the determining esprit, but Chomsky
would deny that this doctrine is itself conventional, and I cannot try to show the
contrary here.

IV
My argument to the effect that conventionalism is incompatible with objectivity
in semiotic inquiry is based on the impossibility of asserting a convention to be
a fact. Since a conventionalist semiotician must make such assertions if any sub­
stantive statements are to be made about the subject matter, it follows that no
conventionalist semiotics is possible that is also objective, in the sense of the term
I have explained here. It is not denied that a conventionalist may say something
about conventions, but whatever the force of such sayings may be, they do not
have the force of a claim functioning in a context of objective inquiry.
Perhaps the most effective way to show this will be to work with the idea that
a sign system can be given a “synchronic” description, an idea generally taken
for granted among linguists and widely believed to represent a Great Leap For­
ward in linguistic theory. The idea is intrinsic to conventionalism in one form
or another, I believe, since the basic idea of conventionalism is that a sign has
the meaning it has at a given time by virtue of a co-existing rule of meaning or
interpretation, and it should therefore be possible to describe these rules, some
way or another, as existing at the moment when the signs in question exist as
signs (as meaningful configurations). I will discuss this only in terms of linguistic
meaning, but the same considerations apply regardless of the type of signs involved,
assuming that their meaning is supposed to be conventional.
A sign system is supposed to be a set or code of rules, present in behavior
as temporally (though temporarily) enduring habitudes of a sign-using community,
and a synchronic description is one which would “slice across” the language at
a moment in time, revealing, as if in a cross-section, the structure of the rules
(/habitudes) constituting the language at the moment of the “slice”. This is often
spoken of as yielding a “state-description” of the language (langue) at a moment
in time. It is supposedly on the basis of two or more such state-descriptions of the
Langue at different times that the “diachronic” or historical study of a language
is possible. There is a massive confusion here. A state-description of the world,
or any part of it, at a moment in time, would contain no descriptions of rules as
 SEMIOTIC OBJECTIVITY 251

such; for such a description could only contain singular propositions, whereas
any statement of a rule will be universal in logical form. All that could appear in
such a description would be parole instances: a langue cannot be synchronically
described. The usual answer to this is that the “synchronic slice” can be regarded
as extending across a small amount of time (rather more like a cucumber slice,
it would seem, than a cross-sectional cut). But this won’t do either. For the only
evidence that a rule holds across any finite period of time would be constituted
by singular occurrences of its actualization during that time period (whatever form
that actualization might take); but since the time period is finite so also will be
the number of its actualizations, which means that the rule inferred can only be
construed to be logically equivalent to the sum total of its actualizations, and the
description of it is therefore logically redundant and eliminable: the rule is its ac­
tualizations, and nothing more than that, during that period, no matter how thick
the slice. So, again, there is nothing to be revealed by a “synchronic slice” (even
one having thickness) except parole occurrences.
What the linguists apparently have in mind is not really a “state-description”
but rather a list of rules, all of which are supposed to hold or be in effect at a certain
time. But what does this mean? Such rules supposedly function to constitute the
linguistic (or, more generally, the semiotic) identity of the signs, that is, give them
their distinct meaningfulness or significance or sign status. Since the rules change
across time, the fact that a given rule holds at a moment t, thereby giving semio*’
identity of some sort to an occurrence at t, implies nothing about any prio-
subsequent moment; hence, the only thing that could be meant by saying
such a rule holds at t is that, at t, a meaning-constitutive interpretation o<
(or it is as if it occurs), in virtue of which any similar configuration at Ms a
(a meaningful configuration), and such that an interpretation of the latter can
assessed as correct or incorrect depending upon its agreement or disagreem
with the meaning-constitutive interpretation. Thus a state-description at a tinriv
must either be supposed to include a description of a (probably fictitious but
possibly actual) meaning-constitutive act of interpretation for every rule that sup­
posedly holds at that time, or else a description of only those corresponding to
actual instances of interpretation which occur but are non-meaning-constitutive,
and which thereby require the simultaneous occurrence of meaning-constitutive
interpretations in order to be genuine instances of interpretations of signs (as distinct
from meaningless configurations). The first alternative would appear to be
pointless: it is stretching things far enough to posit fictional acts when necessary
to account for something, and surely going altogether too far to posit them when
these ghosts have no logical role to play. The state-description at t, then, must
be supposed to contain, for every description of a non-meaning-constitutive in-
terpretational occurrence, at least one (possibly fictional) meaning-constitutive
interpretation.
Let us suppose that interpretational act A1 at t is a meaning-constitutive act,
and a second act, A2, is a non-meaning-constitutive interpretation of the same
configuration (that is, of something having the same configuration). Now, what is
the force of assigning to A1—and denying to A2—the property of being meaning-
constitutive? (Bear in mind that this is, according to my argument, the only sense
we can give to the claim that a rule of meaning exists or holds at that time.) This
would have to be due to some logical condition which A1 meets but A2 does not.
252 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

What could that be? Would it be something like, say, the condition of being an
interpretation made by the Pope ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals, the
satisfaction of which condition guarantees its canonical character? Or would it
be the condition of being a conjoint interpretation of the entire linguistic com­
munity, exclusive of the person who utters A2? Or would it be the condition of
being uttered by a “fluent speaker of the language”? Regardless of what it is,
the linguist who identifies A1 as having the favored status of being meaning-consti­
tutive must claim that it is meeting that condition that gives it that status. But
in that case what he is saying is that it is a rule that if condition C is met, then
an act, A, which satisfies it, is a meaning-constitutive act, which means that the
linguist is himself affirming a general conditional rule for meaning-bestowment.
But the affirmation of such a rule is not the description of a fact, for if it were
then the bestowment of meaning would not be conventional or “unmotivated”
but rather contingent upon a certain factual condition being met by the inter­
preting act, which would in turn be a relational property of the interpreted con-
figuration. Hence the affirmation can itself only be a conventional act, a fiat, and
it turns out that the linguist is the legislator. But, to legislate conventionally is not
to assert anything. Hence the linguist can make no assertion about his subject
matter, and therefore cannot participate in a process, such as objective inquiry,
which is essentially assertive in character.
Let me recapitulate the basic argument more formally. The linguist must be
able to make assertions about his subject matter, predicating of individual parole
instances (utterances) that they have this or that linguistic property. Such an asser­
tion must be capable of being true or false, depending upon whether the linguist
ascribes to them properties which they actually have or not. To say that any such
instance, P2, has such a property is to say that a linguistic rule applies, somehow,
to the case of P2. Since such rules come and go, and historical considerations are
essentially irrelevant, a given rule in effect at a given time need neither have been
in effect the moment before or the moment after, so the rule being in effect at
that time is equivalent to another parole instance, PI, occurring at the same time,
which has the same configuration as occurs in P2, being assigned a property—
though not by assertion, as this would imply the possibility of error—thereby being
the one relative to which the other is to be assessed for actually having the pro­
perty asserted of it. PI is indisputably and paradigmatically what P2 may or may
not be. To say, therefore, what property P2 has, say F, is to say that it is thereby
like PI, and that PI is not simply F, but is in some sense indisputably F (defini-
tionally F, necessarily F, paradigmatically F, whatever). But what is the force
of this latter part of the claim? It can only be that PI meets some condition, C,
in virtue of the nature of the interpreting act, Al. (It cannot be in virtue of the
configuration because the meaning-property would then be a “motivated” one.)
So Al must meet some condition C. But whatever that condition is, Al’s satisfac­
tion of it is also a relational property of PI (for it is the act of interpreting which
meets the condition). But this paradigmatic parole instance is not “unmotivated”
or arbitrary or conventional if the condition, C, is a factual one. Hence, in saying
that the paradigmatic instance meets the condition, the linguist cannot be assert­
ing a fact. He can only himself be issuing a fiat (with what right I do not know).
In that case, though, the claim that A2 has F is based on an unasserted premise.
But no conclusion can be drawn from a premise which is unasserted. The conclu-
 SEMIOTIC OBJECTIVITY 253

sion (that A2 has F) therefore cannot be asserted. Hence the linguist can assert
nothing about his subject matter, and therefore cannot engage in an objective
inquiry.
Without elaborating further on it here, let me simply say that this argument
is not intended to show or suggest that linguistic meaning is not a function of
rules, but only that it not a function of conventional rules, as that concept has
been defined here.

V
I remarked, in Part I, that my definition of objectivity is not being put forth in
a divisory or exclusionary spirit, but my criticisms of technological and conven-
tionalist semiotics may seem to contradict that. They do not, however. My objec­
tion to technological semiotics (as exemplified by Skinner’s type of psychology)
is directed only at its misguided pretensions to being an adequate conception by
itself: a claim which cannot possibly be justified empirically, which is deeply alien
to the scientific spirit (which attempts to find out rather than to rule out), and which
is made in the service of a conception that is disastrously inadequate to the human
need for self-understanding and self-control. I have not attempted to justify this
last point here, however, and I put it forth chiefly in order to obviate any possible
confusion between my conceptions of the scientific and the technological.
As regards conventionalist semiotics, I have concentrated on its incompatibility
with objectivity, because I think its pretensions to being scientific have perhaps
constituted its chief appeal. I believe it is also a product of the technological mental­
ity, as is suggested by the ubiquity of the machine analogy in the writings of it'
theorists, the machine-image in this case being a computer model: conventionalism
is the expression of the “soft-ware” technologist, whereas indexical semiotics
the expression of the “hard-ware” technologist. But the former is utterly empt
apart from its ultimate connections with the latter. To paraphrase Kant: Chom­
sky without Skinner is empty; Skinner without Chomsky is blind. Together they
mutually compensate. The conventionalist legislates under the guise of descrip­
tion, but his legislations are idle without the engineer to pump substance into
him. For those who don’t see immediately why I associate them as I do, I suggest
a careful reading of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, and pondering the force of his
comment that “convenants without the sword are but words, and of no strength
to secure a man at all.”
But I’m concerned with deflating groundless and irresponsible theories and
meta-theories, not with the substantive progress that has been achieved by those
who have worked within their distorting and misleading perspectives. For the fact
is that all of the first-order thinkers in these traditions—such as de Saussure, Levi-
Strauss, Chomsky, Skinner—have produced valuable work that will survive their
methodological and meta-theoretical nonsense, as have numerous others who have
worked under their aegis. Just as Kepler’s informing vision of the divinity of
the sun motivated him to achievements that nobody now regards as having
theological reference, or denigrates on that account, so also these mistaken images
of man of the technologist will in due time be largely forgotten, while the sub­
stantive achievements of their proponents will survive, thereby demonstrating again
what has been demonstrated often in the history of human thought: that a bold
error is often more valuable than a pedestrian truth. I recall in this connection
254 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

a story (the source for which I cannot now locate) about a Taoist sage who said
that wise persons never feel resentment or disappointment because someone has
not told them the truth; for to one who knows how to read signs, all signs reveal
only the truth. But this depends upon not taking signs as having only the value
which the sign-producer puts on them.
What, then, can a genuinely fruitful, comprehensive, and objectively informed
semiotics be? Well, I believe it can be the realization of the Delphic Oracle s
“Know thyself’: but in order to realize this possibility the other inscription at
Delphi, “Nothing in excess’’, must be heeded. These tendencies to monomaniacal
exaggeration of what are really only one or another aspect or kind of meaning,
to the exclusion of the rest, are the chief hindrances at the present time, which
is a time of fanaticism, Schwarmerei, “tunnel vision’’, hybris. Skinner seizes upon
indexical meaning, and everything is to be reduced to that. The conventionalists
seize upon symbolic (distinctively linguistic) meaning, and everything is to be
reduced to that. The third type of meaning, the iconic, has had no similar fanatical
development thus far in our century; but it, too, is susceptible of being the bearer
of this disease of lack of moderation, and the sign of its emergence as ideefixe will
be the exaggeration of the role of the mythical, the mystical, the poetic, and the
religious as the be-all and end-all of human life.
The history of humanity could be read, I believe, in terms of the radical and
ever-shifting imbalance in the relations of these three types of meaning to one
another: Eidos, ergon, logos; form, act, word; icon, index, symbol. How can they
be brought together in a triadic coordination? That is, I suggest the fundamental
task for semiotics, both practically and theorectically. It is necessary for this,
however, to get control of ourselves by recognizing our limitations, both as indi-
viduals and as a species. We are not gods and these blasphemous dreams of omni­
potence in whatever guise they take—must be forsworn. This brings us to a third
dictum of the Delphic Oracle: that Socrates was the only truly wise person in
Athens because he was the only one aware of his own essential fallibility and limita­
tions as a human being (for that is what Socratic wisdom actually is). Semiotical-
ly interpreted: no sign is ever given its meaning by anyone’s interpreting act,
no matter who it is or how many collaborate in that act. That is, in addition to
the sign and the interpretant, a third term of the relation must be recognized:
the object. Signs make objects available to us by providing a basis for interpreta­
tion. If we interpret aright, then the object is revealed to us in our interpretation.
But we can never be certain, beyond any possibility of doubt, that any given in­
terpretant rightly reads the meaning of the sign. This is no cause for skepticism:
about many things there is no actual doubt and no reason why any should be
_____
raised. But that third term must be borne in mind. It signifies our fallibility, which
is the human condition, the recognition of which constitutes the daimon of
philosophia, the guiding spirit of the communal hunt for truth. My definition of
objectivity here is merely an attempt to state certain implications of the theoretical
adoption of that triadic relation as basic in semiotics, which is, of course, Charles
Peirce’s conception of the fundamental form of semiosis. The line of thought in
this paper can thus be regarded as an argument for its adoption in lieu of the
essentially dyadic conceptions of semiosis held in common by the types of theories
I have criticized here.
 22

THOMAS A. SEBEOK

cc
Semiotics” and Its Congeners
... a long-standing result oj linguistic study, oj whatever period
or school, is the denial of the existence of perfect
synonyms. . . . Synonyms are the most probable substitutes, in
any given situation—but in one situation only, which is
an important limitation.
—Hill 1958: 412—

A theory of signs was variously developed on the part of the Epicureans,

and especially the Stoics, as a way of proceeding by inference from what is im­
mediately given to the unperceived, and was thus analogous to a doctrine of evi­
dence, particularly medical. Bodily motions were interpreted as a sign of the soul,
blushing as a sign of shame, and fever as a sign, viz., symptom—later considered
as an “unintended index”—of a disease. Since none of the many works of the
Stoic logicians and semanticists, those of Chrysippos (c. 280-206BC) included,
nor a full account of their Epicurean critics [cf. also Philodemus c.54 BC], is
extant—their ideas are known to us largely through such surviving sources as Sex­
tus Empiricus and Diogenes Laertius, that postdate by nearly half a millennium
their greatest period of efflorescence—the detailed nature of their philosophy of
language remains “the most tantalizing problem in the history of semantics”
(Kretzmann, 1967: 363; the fullest relevant exposition is Weltring’s 1910 disser­
tation). In any event, the Greek doctrine of signification, with strong medical over­
tones (in special reference to Galen), acquired the designation semeiotike, from sema
“sign”, s'emeiotikos “observant of signs”.
At the end of the 17th century, the Greek word semeiotike was injected into
the mainstream of English philosophical discourse by John Locke (1632-1704).
Locke declared the “doctrine of signs” to be that branch of his tripartite division
of all sciences—namely, logic, physics, and ethics—“the business whereof is to
consider the nature of signs, the mind makes use of for the understanding of things,
or conveying its knowledge to others” (1690: Bk. IV, Ch. XXI, 4). Specialists
like Aaron (1937: 309) find Locke s use of semeiotike for that part of philosophy
which is logic rather perplexing, because the Gassendists seemingly made no use
of the term, and because there is no evidence, either, that Locke, who was a physi­
cian by profession, came across the word in his medical studies and converted
it to his own uses (he certainly does not explicitly connect it with symptomatology).
L. J. Russell (1939), however, has convincingly argued that Locke adapted
semeiotike from neither logical nor medical writings, but from writings on Greek
music. His immediate source was probably John Wallis’ 1682 edition of Ptolemy’s
Harmonics (although Russell does not mention this, the fact that the word does
255
256 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

not occur in Locke’s first draft of the Essay, in 1671, strengthens his argument).
Wallis, Locke’s friend and former mathematics professor in Oxford, appears, in
turn, to attribute the term semeiotike, as the art of musical notation, to Marcus
Meibomius, with two references to the latter’s Antiquae musicae auctores septem
(1652).1
The English word, and some of its congeners, first apppear, nearly two cen-
turies later, in the works ofC. S. Peirce (1839-1914), as semeiotic (c.1896: 1.444),
rarely semeotic (1908: 8.377), but most commonly as semiotic (never, however, as
far as I have been able to determine, as semiotics). Moreover, he also uses semetosy,
“or action of a sign” (c.1906: 5.473), and, of course, semiosis, pluralized as semioses
(ibid.: 5.490) (he claims that its variant, semeiosis, “in Greek of the Roman period,
as early as Cicero’s time, if I remember rightly, meant the action of almost any
kind of sign” [ibid.: 5.484]). Peirce undoubtedly took the term “ semiotic (semeiotike)”
over, with attendant definition as the “quasi-necessary, or formal, doctrine of
signs” (c.1897: 2.227), directly from the usage of Locke, of whose work he had
written elsewhere: “The celebrated Essay Concerning Humane Understanding contains
many passages which . . . make the first steps in profound analyses which are
not further developed” (1878: 2.649). In a famous remark, Peirce viewed himself
as a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in the work of clearing and opening
up what I call semiotic, that is, the doctrine of the essential nature and fundamen­
tal varieties of possible semiosis . . (c.1906: 5.488).
Although Peirce makes repeated references (e.g., c.1903: 4.353) to J. H.
Lambert (1728-1777), he seems, puzzlingly enough, not to have explicitly men-
tioned the latter’s ten masterful chapters on “Semiotik oder Lehre von der
Bezeichnung der Gedanken und Dinge” [“Semiotic, or the Doctrine of the Significa­
tion of Thoughts and Things”] (Lambert 1764: 5-214), where the cardinal principles
of communication and signification are well grasped and lucidly set forth in a
consistently semiotic frame (cf. Soder, 1964), prefiguring his own opus in several
important respects, including his very use of the term semiotic.2 In fact, as was
pointed out by Resnikow (1968: 189), despite Lambert’s interesting contributions,
“beeninflussten seine Arbeiten die Entwicklung der logisch-semiotischen Problem
kaum” [ “his work hardly influenced the development of logical-semiotic problems ”]. In com­
mon German usage, until lately, Semiotik continued to mean symptomatology.
To cite only one example, Rudolf Kleinpaul, the author of one of the first and
most comprehensive books on nonverbal communication, employed the term with
its conventional meaning: “Die Mediziner haben eine Wissenschaft, die sie Semiotik
nennen, die Lehre von den Kennzeichen der Krankheiten oder, wie wir gewohnlich
sagen, der Symptomen ...” [“Physicians have a science they call semiotic, the theory
of the characteristic signs of illness or, as we usually say, of symptoms . . . ”] (Klein­
paul 1888: 103), although, he quickly added, “Es ware nun wohl schon, wenn
. . . auch die Gesundheit ihre Semiotik hatte” [“It would indeed be a fine thing if there
were also a semiotic of health”] (106). Husserl, on the other hand, equated Semiotik
with “Logik der Zeichen” [“The Logic of Signs”], as spelled out in his important
essay on the subject written in 1890. The usage of Hermes (1938), who meant
by Semiotik pure general syntax, in contradistinction to descriptive syntax, seems
highly idiosyncratic. Nowadays, the impact of American Pragmatism, especially
of Peirce, and of quasi-behavoristic social science, namely, semiotic, particularly
as represented by Morris, is such in Germany that Semiotik has come to be equated
 “SEMIOTICS” AND ITS CONGENERS 257

overwhelmingly and, it would seem, conclusively, with the “Allgemeine Theorie

der Zeichen” [“General Theory of Signs”] (cf., e.g., Bense 1967).
Meanwhile, back in America, semiotic became commonplace in philosop
usage, and beyond, through the incentive and persuasive stimulation Pro
by Charles Morris in a series of publications dealing with various aspec * , .
general theory of signs, particularly his now classic 1938 monograp , oun
of the Theory of Signs, and his more elaborate 1946 book, Signs, Language and Be
(both included, among others, in Morris 1971). According to ( . ’
neither semiotic nor semeiotic had appeared in print during eirce s i etim ’ *
of course, he did use variants of the term, ca. 1908, in his correspon e”
Lady Victoria Welby (a part of which was first published in Og en an 1
1923: 28If.; cf. Peirce 1908: 8.342). Read cites a Polish mathematician,
Chwistek, as having actually used semeiotics, rendering in English his_ oerm
Semantik, in 1924; but semiotic was not truly launched in printed ng is
appearance in the work of Morris. ,
Morris (1971: 106) told his readers that “ ‘Semantics is perhaps the most
widely accepted name for the discipline which studies signs. emiotic , ®
here chosen, was used by the Stoics, John Locke, and Char es eirce.
and logicians restrict ‘semantics’ to a part of the whole fie , name y,
which deals with the significata of signs. Hence we use semiotic as a g
term; ‘semantics’ will be employed for that part of semiotic which deals witn
significata.” Morris’ terminology was immediately and prestigiously ]propag;
by Carnap (1942: 9), who assigned “The whole science of language . consisting
of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, a tripartite distinction previously introdu
y Leaving asidT here a detailed treatment of the entangled historical ‘n'erplay

of sem(e)iotic with semantics, and most of their multifarious riv s some o

icographical aspects are expertly discussed by Read (1948) it oes see™
while to enumerate, in this connection, at least those that can e trace
Greek semeion: sem(e)iology, the only terms in the set I retu™ e ,
Semasiologie (1S39-), in English, semasiology (1877-); Benjamin H. Smart s
(1831-), and the perhaps independent coinage of Biihler, Sematologte (1934 34L)
which, employed by the latter with a meaning very close to that ofs™0*”’ ha
both more or less disappeared now; and Noreen s semology (c . tz • > ’
currently popular in certain American linguistic circles (e.g., Joos
1966: 3If.). One should also mention, in passing, Lady Welby s senses (1B96)
and her much better known signifies, that, in 1917, b^an^ * e r Y
group of Dutch scientists calling themselves the signfict ( an"°UI7 i r
Then there is the curious case of semiotics, which belongs to the form class of
~ics words” that once preoccupied Hill, who demurred t at a e p
the confusion which learners experience in handling t e ",^wor s * * *
by the fact that no dictionary makes clear that the final-Jin es^'v°r ’ , • ,
what its origin, is not identical with the familiar plural morp e HP’
happens to be homonymous with it” (1948: 11). As I have rea Y ® ’ lr^e
never used semiotics at all, and neither does Morris, w o, in ac , qu e
editor of the Approaches to Semiotics series, in which his collected wntmgs were recent­
ly republished to add a special “Terminological note”
for the divergence between his usage and that of the series (Morns 1971. 9-10).
 258 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Almost every true semiotician—another Morris coinage (1971: 81), to label a prac­
titioner of the art—working in the Peirce tradition, notably, the philosophers
clustering around the Charles S. Peirce Society (see the eleven volumes of their
Transactions 1965-), as well as such prominent linguist partisans and promoters
of Peirce as Roman Jakobson (1971 passim), assiduously shun semiotics, which
they tend to regard as a barbarism. Nevertheless, the term has cropped up in
print all along, including in some peculiar ghostly manifestations: thus, in the
Index of Subjects to the 5th volume of the Peirce papers (p. 425), there is an entry
“Semiotics”, but in the paragraph referred to (488) this form does not occur;
perhaps the same gremlin is responsible for the identical entry in the Index of
Subjects to Bochenski’s monograph (1954: 134), but the sole variant that I have
been able to locate in his text is semiotic (30ff.). Each of the sporadic occur­
rences of semiotics, since the 1940s, must be presumed to have been impelled by
an identical mechanism of analogical recreation on the model of what Hill has
called the -ics words of English, most probably semantics (Michel Breal’s late
19th century coinage of which was itself anticipated, in 17th century English, by
semantick). Its eventual diffusion and, since the mid-1960s, its increasing accep­
tance, or as Hermann Paul might have put it, the summation of repetitive shifts
in idiolects culminating in a novel Language Custom, must surely be ascribed
to the forceful intervention of one individual, Margaret Mead, who, on May 19,
1962, in the final moments of the first American conference ever held on aspects
of the emerging field, announced: “It would be very nice if we could go away
from here with at least a preliminary agreement on the use of some phrase that
we could apply to this whole field. ... If we had a word for patterned com­
munications in all modalities, it would be useful. I am not enough of a specialist
in this field to know what words to use, but many people here, who have looked
as if they were on opposite sides of the fence, have used the word ‘semiotics’.
It seems to me the one word, in some form or another, that has been used by
people who are arguing from quite different positions” (Sebeok, Hayes, and
Bateson 1964: 275). I then wrote in the editorial Preface: “Implying the iden­
tification of a single body of subject matter, this summative word was incor­
porated, overburdened as it is, and not without remonstrations from several
quarters, into the main title of our work”, that is, Approaches to Semiotics (Sebeok,
Hayes, and Bateson 1964: 5). This same phrase was later selected to serve as the
over-all title of a series designed to accommodate book-length contributions to
the theory of signs (Sebeok 1969). On the other hand, at the formative meet­
' ing, on January 21, 1969, of what was to become the International Association
for Semiotic Studies (IASS), the issue what to call the Association’s journal
was hotly debated, in part because of its intended bilingual character, but in
part also because the by then very real rivalry of the synonyms semiotic/semiotics
had become acute. The matter was ingeniously resolved by naming our fledgling
■ journal Semiotica. My impression of the present state of affairs is that semiotics
has made irreversible inroads over its competitor, and is likely to entirely re­
place semiotic within a decade or so, in spite of a residue of strong, variously
rationalized, scholarly predilections in this regard. Furthermore, a minute holdout
dismisses both, in favor of semeiotics, on the argument that “the spelling is better
etymology than semiotics, and it avoids the ambiguity of semi-. Semi-otics would
be nonsense” (Count 1969: 76n.).
 “SEMIOTICS” AND ITS CONGENERS 259

In broad strokes, then, it can be recorded that the family of labels that has
become attached to the theory of signs is sem(e)iotic(s). In the Soviet Union,
where the discipline flourishes with unmatched concentration and distinction
(Meletinsky and Segal 1971), and where the first colloquium devoted to its foun­
dations was held in 1962—almost coincidentally with our own intiatory efforts—
the favored terms are likewise semiotic(s). It is interesting to note, however, that
the famed center of semiotic studies, established about 1964 at the University of
Tartu, where lectures and summer courses on the structural study of second­
ary systems giving rise to models are offered at regular intervals, publishes its
Proceedings under the revivalistic banner Semeiotike (subsequently echoed in the
title of Kristeva, 1967), subtitled, in Russian, “Works on Systems of Signs”,
which is then explicitly rendered, both in English and Estonian, on the verso
of the half-title page, as “Works on Semiotics—Tood semiootika alalt” (Lotman
1964). In Poland, a country which has contributed heavily to the advancement
of the theory of signs, and where the impetus for the LASS actually germinated,
a clear preference is shown for semiotics', cf. the name of the International Con­
ference on Semiotics (convened in Poland, in September 1966), and M. R.
Mayenowa’s report about “Semiotics Today” (reprinted in Kristeva el al. 1971:
57-62), or the usage of Polish logicians, as reflected, e.g., in the studies of Pelc
(1971, passim) and his associates. The situation is much the same throughout the
rest of the Slavic world; and the word used in Hungarian is likewise szemiotika)
(cf. Voigt 1969a: 337f.).
In contrast to what might be called the “Locke-Peirce-Morris pattern”, out­
lined so far, that prevails generally in America, as it does, too, in both Northern
and Eastern Europe, there exists quite another tradition, widespread throughout
the Romance areas, but not confined to them, since reflexes of it occur in English,
particularly British. This tradition, that I shall refer to as the “Saussure pattern”,
actually has two different sources: originally, Greek medicine; then, superim­
posed much later, the direct heritage of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). Syn-
chronically, we are dealing here with the simultaneous multilingual interplay of
polynymy (involving several similar forms) and polysemy (involving several con­
nected meanings). Let French serve as the Romance prototype (data from Robert
1967: 1633): there are two forms, a. semiologie and b. semeiologie, both with two
definitions, 1. “Partie de la medecine qui etudie les signes des maladies” [“The
part of medicine which studies the signs of illnesses’>), and 2. “Science qui etudie la
vie des signes au sein de la vie sociale” [“The science which studies the life of signs
at the heart of social life”], or “Science etudiant les systemes de signes (langues,
codes, signalisations, etc.)” [“The science studying systems of signs (languages, codes,
ways of signaling, etc. ”], in brief, 1., meaning symptomatology, dated 1752 (Die-
tionnaire de Trevoux), and 2., meaning the general theory of signs, illustrated by
a quotation from Saussure, dated about 1910. This information can be displayed
as a simple matrix:

Forms b.

Meanings 2.
260 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

There are also two additional forms, dated 1555, c. semiotique (Ambroise Pare,
livre XX bis, 23),3 and d. semeiotique, both with essentially the same two defini­
tions, 1. “Semiologie” [“Semiology* % and 2. “Theorie generale des signes”
[“General Theory of Signs’*), or reconverted into an expanded matrix:

Forms c. d.

Meanings 2.

The situation is, mutatis mutandis, the same in the other Romance languages: in
Italian, however, forms c. and d. are polarized in respect to meanings 1. and
2., that is, semiotica has come to refer to the theory of signs, whereas semeiotica
continues to be confined to the medical context; in Romanian, on the other hand,
semiologie means only “parte a medicinii care se ocup& cu diagnosticarea bolilor
dup£ simptomele lor” [ “a branch of medicine that deals with the diagnosis of illnesses
from symptoms”], whereas a Romanian form c. is used for a meaning 2. (e.g.,
Golopentia-Eretescu 1971; on increasing activity in this field in Romania, cf. also
Pop 1972); in Brazilian Portuguese, the preferred term is semiotica, with an
awareness that “Na Europa, a Semiotica e chamada de Semiologia . . [“In
Europe, semiotics is called semiology . . . ”] (Pignatari 1971: 27).
Meaning 1. need not detain us (cf. Barthes 1972); our prime concern is with
semiologie in the secondary sense, which, as every linguist knows, was launched
by Saussure. In one variant, the key citation read (Saussure i. 1906-1911: 46-49
[Baskin trans. p. 16]):
La langue est un systeme de signes exprimant des idees, et par la, com­
parable a l’ecriture, a Valphabet des sourds-muets, aux rites symboliques,
aux formes de politesse, aux signaux militaires, etc., etc. Elle est simple-
ment le plus important de ces systemes.
On peut done concevoir une science qui etudie la vie des signes au sein de
la vie sociale: elle formerait une partie de la psychologie generale: nous la
nommerons semiologie (du grec semeion “signe”). Elle nous apprendrait en
quoi consistent les signes, quelles lois les regissent. Puisqu’elle n’existe pas
encore, on ne peut dire ce qu’elle sera: mais elle a droit a Pexistence, sa
place est determinee d’avance. La linguistique n’est qu’une partie de cette
science generale, les lois que decouvrira la semiologie seront applicables
a la linguistique, et celle-ci se trouvera ainsi rattachee a un domaine bien
defini dans Pensemble des faits humains.
[Language is a system of signs that express ideas, and is therefore comparable to
a system of writing, the alphabet of deaf-mutes, symbolic rites, politeformulas, military
signals, etc. But it is the most important of all these systems.
A science that studies the life of signs within society is conceivable: it would
be a part of social psychology and consequently of general psychology. I shall call it
semiology (from the Greek semeion “sign”). Semiology would show what con­
stitutes signs, what laws govern them. Since the science does not yet exist, no one can
say what it would be; but it has a right to existence, a place staked out in advance.
 261
“SEMIOTICS” AND ITS CONGENERS

Linguistics is only a part of the general science of semiology; the laws discovered by
semiology will be applicable to linguistics, and the latter will circumscribe a well-
defined area within the mass of anthropological facts.]

After the word semiologie, the Cours has a footnote reference to a book by NaviJle
(1901: 104), who recorded this early version of his Geneva colleague’s views on
the subject: Saussure insists on the importance “d’une science tres generate, qu’il
appelle semiologie, et dont l’objet serait les lois de la creation et e a trans orma
tion des signes et de leur sens. La semiologie est une partie essentie e e
sociologie. Comme le plus important des systemes de signes c est e angage con
ventionnel des hommes, la science semiologique la plus avancee c est a ingu
tique ou science des lois de la vie du langage” [“of a very genera science w ic e
calls semiology, and which would have for its object the laws governing t e creation an
transformation of signs and their sense. Semiology is an essential part of socio ogy. ince
most important of the systems of signs is the conventional language of men, t e r^)Si a .
semiological science is linguistics or the science of the life of language ] (c • ° e
181). The notion, and its designation as semiologie, appear to ^
recorded in a note of Saussure’s, dated November, 1894 (Godel 1 - )• eS1
ning 1916, and especially after the monographic treatment of e su ject y
Buyssens (1943), the word spread throughout French scientific viz linguistic
discourse, and is now featured in such standard texts as those by art es ( ,
Mounin (1970), and Guiraud (1971). However, this seemingly straightforward
story has recently become considerably muddled by a double crossover, w
semiologie has come across the English Channel, in the guise of semio ogy, meani
“semiotic”, semiotic has travelled in the opposite direction, returning across tn
Atlantic, by a zigzag track, to revitalize semiotique, meaning semiologie .
Barthes’ influential essay, Elements de semiologie, was published in ng an (
(and subsequently distributed in America [1968] as well) under t e tf e» 6171671
of Semiology, and this is the term that, reinforced by the prestige o arisian i
tellectual life, now turns up regularly in British newspapers and magazines, sucn
as The Times Literary Supplement, and in an outpouring of volumes on the mo
diverse verbal and nonverbal arts, ranging from architecture (‘ Semiology oi Arcm-
tecture”, Part 1 of Jencks and Baird 1969; in a comparable context see opams
semiologia, in Gandelsonas, et al., 1970) to cinematography, a njce i us ra 1
the latter emerges from the contrast of an English chapter, on e
of the Cinema” (Wollen 1969: 116-62), with an American essay, published simul-
taneously, on “The Development of a Semiotic of Film (Worth 1969). At
same time, semiotique occurs with such frequency in Frenc (e.g., c . ris eva e
al. 1971), that one scholar has even issued a prescriptive caution: for semiotics,
“La meilleure traduction frangaise reste: semiologie. Le terme semio ique a pene re
en frangais . . . pour designer la semiologie en general usage a econse er • • •
[“The best French translation is: semiology. The tern semiotic has made.tsway mto French
. . . as a designationfor semiology in general—an ill-advised usage. . ]( oumn,
57n.)! Summarizing once more: in British English, the form semiology seems to
be firmly established, whereas its success in American English, in competition
with semiotic(s), appears negligible; in French, semiologie now has a rival in 5*m-
iotique, with the eventual outcome of the competition still m ou t.
Even in the narrow sense. excluding, that is, their medical uses, semiotic,
262 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

semiotics, semiology, to mention only the three most common English congeners,
are by no means wholly interchangeable. While every contributor to Semiotica—
to stick with a parochial illustration—may indulge his personal taste when attaching
a label to the theory of signs, his terminology within the same piece of discourse
will not oscillate ad libitum, for his initial selection will have signaled to his sophis­
ticated readership whether he has chosen to align himself with the Locke-Peirce-
Morris tradition, the Mead variation, or the Saussurean pattern of thought and
action. And while these words may—though they need not, of course—all share
the same denotatum, the intellectual ambiance evoked by each is so different that
Hill’s dictum about synonymy, featured in the epigraph to this article, is recon­
firmed once again.
A few scholars have deliberately kept the denotatum of semiotic distinguished
from that of semiology. Such was the eventual English practice, notably, of Hjelmslev
(1943: 85, 87), who provided these formal definitions: for semiotic (Danish
semiotik)—“hierarchy, any of whose segments admits of a further division into
classes defined by mutual relation, so that any of these classes admits of a divi­
sion into derivatives defined by mutual mutation’’; and for semiology (Danish
semiologi)—“metasemiotic whose object semiotic is a non-scientific semiotic’’.
Hjelmslev, moreover, used semiotics as well, although casually and informally (ibid:
69), and was responsible for the introduction, with formalization, of metasemiotic
(vs. object semiotic) and metasemiology. His select followers seek to perpetuate the
cleavage: “The independent science that is sought turns out to be rather an im­
manent semiology—the science that studies semiotics [jir], or sign systems in
general” (Francis Whitfield, in Hill 1969: 258); and, sporadically, others: “It
may be useful”, a social anthropologist pleads, “to retain semiology to describe
the study of semiotics, used as the plural [!] of semiotic. In its turn, a semiotic is a
sign system” (Ardener, 1971: lxxxvi, n. 16). In French, denotata of semiotique
and semiologie are variously distinguished from one another, for instance, by
Kristeva (1967, 1970), and by Mounin, who, as already mentioned, objects to
the designation of “la semiologie en general” [“semiology in general”] by the term
semiotique [semiotic], although he would appear to be content if the employment
of it were restricted “pour designer un systeme de communication non linguisti-
que particulier: le code de la route est une semiotique, la peinture en est peut-
etre une autre, etc.” [“to the designation of a specific non-linguistic communication system:
the code of traffic signals is a semiotic, the code ofpainting is perhaps another, etc. ”] (Mounin
1970: 57n.). In Italian, the meaning of semiologia on the one hand is sharply dif­
ferentiated from that of semiotiche on the other, by the author of the most in­
teresting textbook on the subject so far, not at all on the basis of existing usage,
but, so to say, ex cathedra, in order to establish a convention—how viable this
will be remains to be seen—intended to clarify ensuing discussion (Eco 1968:
384).
In conclusion, I should like to adjoin, very briefly, two sets of observations:
1. In 1963, I set afloat a new compound, zoosemiotics. Since its first appearance
in Language, I tried to keep track of its passage from a linguistic context to all
sorts of other scientific texts and, eventually, to fiction and comic strip, as well
as of its transmutation from English into other Indo-European and Finno-Ugric
languages, and Japanese. My accounts of these events (Sebeok 1968, 1970) can
be regarded as companion pieces to this article.
 263
“SEMIOTICS” AND ITS CONGENERS

2 A comment on another related term, asemasia: Jackson, in his paper on af-

ctions of speech, expressed reservations about the term aphasia, on the cogent
grounds that “there is, at least in many cases, more than loss of speech; pantomime
ls impaired; there is often a loss or defect in symbolising relations of things in
X » anc^ went on to say that “Dr. Hamilton proposes the term Asemasia,
p ,c seems a good one” (Jackson 1932: 159). His somewhat recondite reference
Y 1<L oIan ^c^ane Hamilton, a prominent neurologist who practiced in New
r lly» an<^ who had written a book on nervous diseases, wherein he remarked:
1 as occurred to me that the word ‘aphasia* as at present used, has too restricted
a meaning to express the various forms of trouble of this nature, which not only
consist of speech defects, but loss of gesticulating power, singing, reading, writing,
311 ot er functions by which the individual is enabled to put himself in * com-
munication with his fellows. I would, therefore, suggest ‘asemasia’ as a substitute
(Hamilton 1878: 161n.). It is possible, asjakobson claims (1971:
289), that Hamilton not only proposed but actually coined this term as a cover
r t e general deficit of semiotic activities beyond the merely verbal, but, if so,
£ ^ as anticipated by Steinthal, who had recognized, at least by 1871, that “die
P asie . . . erweitert sich . . . zur allgemeinen Mangel an Erkenntniss von
CIC en> Asemie” [“aphasia can be expanded to a general theory of the understanding of
Slgns: ‘utmia”] (Steinthal 1871: 458).
 23

JOHN DEELY

Semiotic as Framework
and Direction

It is a cliche of current intellectual culture that we have entered upon a post­

modern” phase of society and culture. I say this is a cliche because, everywhere
repeated, the phrase is nowhere defined. Nonetheless, it says something true, some­
thing widely felt toward the exact expression of which we are still groping.
One of the characteristic features of self-consciously “post-modern discourse”
is a rejection, usually ill-defined and often virtually incoherent, of the “subject-
object” dichotomy. What is sound about this rejection is the notion of dichotomy
as applied simply to the relation between what is being cognized and what organism
is doing the cognizing. What is also sound about the rejection is the implicit
understanding of objectivity that has become common today, as meaning either
“detachment” on the side of some “observer”, or, at the other extreme, a sup­
posedly independently existing domain of physical being.
What I want to suggest here is that semiotics constitutes the transdisciplinary
amework which makes the idea of a “post-modern” development intelligible,
just the way that modern thought provided the framework which made the
Jea of a “post-medieval” and “post-renaissance” development intelligible; and
that, in addition, the development within semiotics of the foundational doctrine
of signs—semiotic, in precisely the sense outlined by Poinsot (1632a) but named
by Locke (1690) and undertaken full-scale only by Peirce (1867 and after) in our
own day—already points out the direction in which this post-modern develop­
ment is bound to reach its mature and fully recognizable form by way of contrast
to the idealism of typically modern thought or the realism of typically pre-modem
thought.
It has been a mistake of the self-proclaimed post-modern (but pre-semiotic)
prophets to think that they could somehow do away with the notion of objectivity
altogether. In fact, what is needed rather is a new understanding of objectivity as
it is properly an irreducible feature of any communicational relationship. The
object/thing distinction, never properly developed in modern thought, as Cahalan
has shown in a somewhat devastating manner (1985 throughout), becomes almost
impossible to mistake at the heart of semiotic development. I will develop this
below.
But alongside this new notion of objectivity—semiotic objectivity, in Ransdell’s
phrase (1979)—and, indeed, of a piece with it, a new appreciation and notion
of history itself is called for, not the common notion of history as calendar of events,
or the typically modern notion in philosophy of history as list of errors, but rather
264

■
 SEMIOTIC AS FRAMEWORK AND DIRECTION 265

a full-scale development of the notion of history as laboratory of thought first sug­

gested by Gilson (1937) and brought into mainstream semiotic development with
the fine descriptive expression of Umberto Eco, who showed (after Zumthor and
Vance 1977) how the “archeology of concepts” is at the heart of any perspective
or method fully semiotic (Eco 1980 lecture series; comments in Deely 1982: 1-3).
Dr. Leach (lecture of 9 October 1984) has already taken the position that in
fact none of us—with the possible exception of Dr. Sebeok—are semioticians, on
the ground that each of us has a specialized training in the traditional disciplines.
Semiotics, he has said, is something peripheral, that yet somehow helps the
specialties and is common to all of them.
These remarks require considerable qualification to be acceptable—and yet
they are not so far wrong. His exasperation at the effort to define semiotics as
a distinct domain of inquiry is understandable, but it is perhaps the impatience
of the man too long used to the compartmentalization and specialization that have
become the hallmark of intellectual life in the age of science, that is to say, since
the great revolutions so intimately associated with the 17th century. The habits
of thought engendered by this perspective over some three centuries now run deep,
and yet, in spite of them, Dr. Leach also advises us that there is something com­
mon to all our pursuits, something that is in need of being given a common
language.
My remarks are made from the perspective of a philosopher, familiar equally
with the traditions of his discipline both before and after the magic 17th century
equally, that is, at least in what concerns the Latin tradition and the national
language traditions which supplanted it in the later modern times. From this
perspective, it seems to me that what is “new” about semiotics is really new,
both in its foundations and as a superstructure or explicit notion and theme
developing in the academies that have generally become unable to envision the
possibility of unity to intellectual life, or to recognize the importance of tradition—-
history—at the very center of intellectual life even in its most purely scientific
and perhaps mathematical constructions. What is new is the frame of reference,
or perspective, if you like, in which the sign is seen to mediate knowledge over
time (eo ipso historically) regardless of the logical methods characteristically em­
ployed by the given discipline, be it humanistic or scientific; and the realization
that semiosis is a correspective process, a process structured by and structuring
of “reality”.
The dialectic between humanistic and scientific modes of inquiry to which
Dr. Sebeok has recently directed attention in his Indiana University seminar (Fall
of 1984) is at the heart of the matter. For one thing that did not change in the
17th century as scientific understanding came to displace philosophy from the
central role in the academies and culture of Western civilization was an uncom­
promising sense of “reality” as a natural world prejacent to and independent of
the human mind, a world governed in its interactions by laws which form the
proper object of human understanding, laws and interactions which formed the
object and goal of understanding of the natural philosophers from the remotest
times in their pursuit of a science called by the Stoics and Aristotelians alike
“Physics”, i.e., scientia seu philosophia naturalis.
What changed in the 17th century was not at all this notion of reality as the
mind-independently real, or “given”. What changed was only the methodological
266 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

conviction about how this world of nature could best be penetrated by human
understanding. In the ancient physics, Stoic or Aristotelian, the emphasis was
on an intelligible content superior to what the senses could attain even in the most
refined achievements of perception, imagination, and estimation of material pos­
sibilities, a content given the general designation of “being” (ov), and refined
discursively (Xoyoc;) in the science of metaphysics or ontology. The modem physics
abandoned not the goal of knowing reality (the “mind-independently ‘given’”),
but only the emphasis on being as distinct from the observable and the methods
of dialectic and deductive logic as the way to bring out for the understanding the
proper content of the real. In place of dialectic they recommended observation,
and in place of deduction (“syllogismus”) mathematical inferences which would
make possible precise calculations of consequences and expectations in the realm
of what can be observed.
“Reality”, however, remained the unquestioned final goal of the inquiry. Only
the means had changed. This simplifies the picture somewhat, but is true in its
essential lines. It was no accident that Newton labelled his watershed work (1686)
Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis—“philosophia naturalis” being the
favorite Latin expression for the “physica” of Aristotle. Of course, the control-
ing principles in a science mathematical in form and experimental in its matter
are of a radically different character from whatever knowledge of nature may be
possible in the guise of intelligible being unfolded by the understanding accord­
ing to the form of logical principles resident in the structures of natural language,
as Jacques Maritain in our own time has best explained (1941a; 19591). But my
point is that, despite this misunderstanding which for a long time masked the
differences between the ancient and the modern physics under the label of “natural
philosophy”, the guiding idea of reality as the prejacently and mind-independendy
given provided the common fixation of the two ages.
If we turn to the side of philosophy, we find that the break from classical and
Latin traditions takes the form of a substitution of discourse for being at the center
of philosophers’ preoccupations, a shift from ontology to epistemology, as it appears
in hindsight. Originally, this shift took the form of a search for new methods, an
obsession of sixteenth and seventeenth century philosophers dissatisfied by scholas­
ticism and made forever memorable by the title of one of Descartes’ most endur­
ing works, the Discours de la methode of 1637. In its original context, however, this
work was but a preface to his works of “natural philosophy”, which were of a
scientific character so primitive that they have long been forgotten. But the shift
soon came to focus on the presuppositions of the new types of inquiry into nature,
with the curious result that, without exception, the modern philosophers both in
England and on the Continent found themselves absolutely baffled when it came
to explaining how the realist pretensions of the new sciences might be justified
at the level of the theory of knowledge. Thus rose with Berkeley idealism in the
distinctively modern sense of that term, and with Hume skepticism also in the
modern sense. Kant, the master of all the moderns in philosophy and the system-
atizer of an idealism so ruthless as to strangle even the hope of a knowledge of
whatever of nature be in any sense prejacent to and independent of human think­
ing, nonetheless took it for a scandal in philosophy that no proof of the existence
of a mind-independent natural world had so far been given. He set his considerable
genius and energy of mind to remedy this situation, aiming to overcome idealism
 SEMIOTIC AS FRAMEWORK AND DIRECTION 267

in modern thought, with what success the subsequent history of philosophy plainly
tells—in a word, none.
Andre Lalande, meeting with the group concerned to produce the marvellous
Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophic just after the turn of the century (from
1902-1923), arrived at perfectly clear definitions of “realism” and “idealism
in philosophy, but considered that realism in whatever form was definitively sur­
passed by the typically modern development of philosophy, which has been, to
be sure, idealist to the core and for the most part solipsistic.
To all this semiotic provides a welcome and long-overdue alternative, an idea
whose time has come. I cannot emphasize this point too strongly. The rise of
semiotic consciousness today seems to me to be absolutely revolutionary respect­
ing the past of philosophy and science alike. It is at once an antidote for the un­
bridled and atomizing specialism of academic pursuits that science has brought
in its wake, and a restoration of historical thought to its properly central place
in humanistic inquiry.
The reasons for this claim stem directly from the peculiar character of the pro­
cess in nature which is at least as old as life and doubtless in some sense as old
as the universe itself, the process labelled by Peirce “semiosis”, which process
semiotic inquiry studies in its multifarious manifestations (see my Introducing
Semiotic, p. 65—the diagram illustrating the contrast between semiosis as process
and semiotic as study thereof). The results of such study lead inexorably far beyond
the confines of human language and consciousness, into the depths of nature itself,
which reveals itself more and more intimately, and throughout, as a network or
web of sign-relations, to borrow the felicitous analogy of Thomas Sebeok.
Semiosis, in the simplest terms, and at least in the sphere of living things,
is the process whereby experience is developed and structured by means of sign
relations. It is this building process that provides with its products in various ways
the common object of semiotic inquiries, and it is something remarkable in nature.
Glimpses of this process occur scattered throughout the medical, philosophical,
and theological literature of ancient times, glimpses we seek to recapture and
systematize, for example, in our “Neglected Figures in the History of Semiotic
Inquiry” Sessions which have become a regular part of the Annual Meeting of
the Semiotic Society of America, to the astonishment (and in fact consternation)
of those who fail to appreciate the antiquity of these questions, and their com­
plexity.2 For to tell the truth, there is almost no figure who cannot be considered
“neglected” from a thoroughly semiotic point of view.3
What is remarkable about semiosis as a process in nature is twofold. In the
first place, it involves but does not consist in exchanges of physical interaction.
That is to say, it lies outside the order of efficient or “productive” causality in
Peircean terms, it belongs to the order of thirdness. Second, and as a consequence
of this, it proceeds with a certain indifference to physical reality in the classical
sense characterized above.
To explain and to foreground these characteristics of semiosis in the living
world, Dr. Sebeok has taken over from Jakob von Uexkull the concept of Umwelt
and its correspective Innenwelt. Deeply rooted in classical German philosophy—
that is to say, Kant—von Uexkull had a lively sense of the role of mental con-
struction in our experience of any “reality”. But, unlike Kant and fortunately
for us, von Uexkull was a remarkably attentive observer of the world of plants
268 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

and other than human animals. Out of these two preoccupations von Uexkull
forged some of the most remarkable and semiotically fruitful notions available
to us for understanding the phenomenon of semiosis.
Umwelt, by all accounts, is difficult to translate. What this means, however,
is that there is no equivalent vocabulary standard in French or in English, etc.,
to facilitate the rendering of von Uexkull’s text. Of course, this should not obscure
the fact that his Umwelt is an original term in the use he makes of it in German
to begin with. So the problem is not so much a problem of translation as it is
a problem of understanding. It is not that the term is lucid in German but that
the other national languages are deficient. Already in von Uexkull’s German,
a new understanding of the animal world is at stake and being forged, and it is
this that is semiotically important and interesting for the present context.
The easiest way in my opinion to explain what is central to the notion of Umwelt
is to revive a term of Renaissance scholasticism that fell into desuetude around
the time of Descartes, namely, the term objective being. Pay attention to what I
say here, for the notion of “objectivity” I wish to bring to your notice is a purely
semiotic one. Christine Hasenmueller (presentation of 10/9/84) insisted on the
“textuality” of art as against its “objectivity”. The “objectivity” of which I am
about to speak, however, is precisely what she calls textuality, but so conceived
as to be free of the glottocentric analogy at the base of “textual” notions. For
the Latins, an objective being is something that exists only in awareness. It is some­
thing existing precisely as and insofar as and only insofar as it is known. The sun or
the sea, for the Latins, as parts of our experience of nature, are objective beings;
they are also physical beings, but it is not as physical that they are said to be objective
beings. Objective beings, as such, are something known: they need have no other
status. The celestial spheres of Plato (c.427-347BC), Eudoxus (c.400-347BC),
Ptolemy (fl. 127-145), John of Sacrobosco (d.1256), these were objective beings
thought—wrongly—to be physical beings as well. Ether and phlogiston, constructs
of the scientific understanding seeking to explain nature at an earlier time, turned
out to be pure fictions of a would-be understanding which nonetheless served to
support and promote inquiry into nature along definite “scientific” and cultural
lines. Like true unicorns and centaurs, they are purely objective beings, but were
once believed in and exercised a control over behavior within the human Umwelt.
Within experience, all beings, therefore, by definition, are objective beings.
Not all, however, are physical beings. Experience consists of an irreducible ad­
mixture of the two. I say that this admixture is irreducible: it is not that we can­
not sometimes tell the difference between the purely objective and the objective
that is also physical or that also has a physical embodiment or dimension; we
can—sometimes. The point is rather that experience depends, root and branch,
upon signs, and signs by their nature make things objectively present even when
and in ways that are wanting physical counterparts. Signs, that is, establish net­
works able to sustain in experience what does not exist with as much facility as
what does—where “existence” carries the meaning of physical existence or,
classically, existence independent of human thought and interest.
Thus, something can exist—physically—and yet not exist at all—objectively—
for some particular organism or observer. Again, something may not exist at all—
physically—and yet exist as a matter of central importance and interest—objec­
tively—for some observer or group.
 SEMIOTIC AS FRAMEWORK AND DIRECTION 269

If these points are well understood, we are in a fair position to see that “real­
ity”, so far as experience is concerned, is not first of all something given pre-
jacently to human understanding. On the contrary, reality, as experienced, con­
sists precisely in an admixture of objective elements and factors, some of which
come from the physical environment in its proper being—nature, if you will
and others of which come from the beliefs and customs of the community assimi­
lated through the normal processes of socialization—nurture, if you will (and pro­
vided you understand, contrary to the impoverished anthropology brought to the
colonies by Radcliffe-Brown, the irreducibility of enculturation to socialization,
the latter of which is independent of language whereas the former is not).
If we now translate Umwelt as objective world, we are also in a fair position to
see the significance of this notion for the understanding of semiosis as a unique
process in nature. An Umwelt, von Uexkull tells us, is the physical environment
as filtered or transformed by the given organism according to what is important
or “significant” to it. Elements of the physical environment are networked objec­
tively, i.e., so as to establish the sphere of experience as something superordinate
to and strictly transcending, all the while containing partially and resting upon
aspects of, the physical environment in its “natural” or “mind-independent”
being. Umwelts thus are species-specific: No two types of organisms live in the
same objective worlds, even though they share the same physical environment.
What the bat seeks (nourishment) the moth avoids (providing nourishment for
bats), and conversely. “The differences of things as things are quite other than
the differences of things as objects and in the being of object”, was the statement
of a so-far neglected figure in the history of semiotic inquiry, the 16th century
Thomas Gaeta. It is this insight that Poinsot saw as foundational to the doctrine
of signs, and that von Uexkull recaptures and extends to the understanding of
zoosemiotic phenomena with the notion of Umwelt, at the same time expanding
it to show that objective structures are total networks or webs of relationships
redistributing the physical environment so as to make it habitable and improve
its habitability for the species.
The differences between the human Umwelt or Lebenswelt consequent upon the
“tinker-toy” structure of true language in its primary modeling role (as opposed
to its exaptation [cf. Gould and Vrba 1982] in speech for communicative pur­
poses, which is strictly derivative and secondary) and the Umwelt of animals which
communicate but without the sort of critical control of objectivity required for
language in the human sense, lie beyond our point here. Suffice it to say that
the Umwelt as such is objectively structured cathectically according to positive and
negative affect into the desirable and to be sought, the undesirable and to be avoid­
ed, and the indifferent. The human Umwelt, or Lebenswelt, as I prefer to call it,
adds over and above this basic trichotomic differentiation all the further
differentiations—infinite, practically speaking—made possible by the recognition
of differences in objects obtaining as a result of what they may be or are in­
dependently of their relation to us and our desires.
Our point here is to realize that reality, so far as it is a matter of direct public
experience and not just of hypothesis or inference, is an objective affair superordinate
and strictly irreducible to what exists independently of human thoughts and actions.
The physics unable to account for the role of the observer is a pre-semiotic science,
hardly paradigmatic for human understanding, as positivist and most analytic
 270 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

philosophers of science continue to believe. Human understanding must account

first of all and in the final analysis for the objectively real, not just for the physically
real, and not just for what the prejudices of a given time label as “real”, Real-
ity” is not the physically given, it is the semiosic total of which physical being
forms a part. The Mississippi River physically is not the boundary between Iowa
and Illinois, but it is so objectively. Ronald Reagan physically is not President
of the United States, but he is so objectively. More to the point, Thomas Sebeok
is not physically a semiotician, but only objectively; in fact, he is a kind of legend
or myth, much more interesting than a mere physical organism, and pretty much
independent of one too as far as the future of semiotics goes.
There is a real problem here, as Williams details in her Prefatory Essay (1985a)
to the new edition of Sebeok’s Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs, and as Herzfeld put
it in his remarks opening the “State-of-the-Art” conference (10/8/84), of making
semiotics serve positivistic goals by the manipulation of antipositivistic rhetoric.
Should we seek to develop a science of signs or, as Locke and Sebeok suggest, a
doctrine of signs? A would-be science of signs, in the modern sense of science, buys
in to the now sterile and stale debate in philosophy between “realisms” and “ideal­
isms”. What Locke calls for, however, and what we find in Poinsot, Peirce, and
the best of Sebeok, is the unfolding of an objective discipline, not a discipline
having at its primary focus the physical environment as such. This discipline
belongs to a higher order of human understanding, of which scientific understan­
ding forms only a substructure. The dialectic of scientific and humanistic modes
of understanding is the dialectic of an understanding ordered to the grasp of
physical reality in its proper being and an understanding which also seeks to ac­
count for the objective elements of experience irreducible to physical being. It
is, in a word, a semiotic enterprise, beyond realism and idealism.
What then are we left with—field or discipline? In its foundations, by explicat­
ing the nature of the sign as making present in experience what the sign itself is not,
semiotics is a kind of discipline, but a discipline which uncovers the structure of ex­
perience in all its parts, not just in those which have a conveniently physical identi­
fication. Umberto Eco maintained (1980) at the first Toronto ISISSS that semiotics
is therefore a philosophical discipline, and I would agree with this, except to wonder
whether there is point in assimilating semiotics to a discipline which has abandoned
its heritage and become as sterile as philosophy today has become. Perhaps this
future thought, as Heidegger suggested (1947), should no longer be called philosophy.
More important is its function in identifying and exploring a process that cuts
across all the possible lines and fortifications of the “specialists”: the inherently
transdisciplinary nature of semiosis inevitably imposes itself upon those who come
to study it, that is to say, semioticians. We have reached, in the MacCannells’
fine expression (1982), “the time of the sign”.
It is no accident that semiotics has moved so far from its early glottocentric
biases, at a rate roughly proportional to the increasing number of inquirers. Nor
is it by chance and fashion alone that Peirce has increasingly been recognized
as the true modem pioneer of semiotics, far greater in general importance for
semiotics than the linguist Saussure. In fact Peirce is not a “modern” philosopher.
He is the beginning in philosophy of something new, as I have tried to indicate
(1985: 492-498), something radically philosophical and transdisciplinary, but better
than philosophy in any form it has taken so far, namely, semiotics.
 SEMIOTIC AS FRAMEWORK AND DIRECTION 271

The semiotics movement is a movement toward establishing new foundations

for and a redistribution of the traditional areas of academic specialization. Semiotic
consciousness is rooted in the realization that the ideas by which any debate is
joined are already signs, not paths to what is independent of observation so much
as perspectives making observation possible in the first place and elevating the
physical to the level of experience which redistributes the physical to make the
world habitable as well as “given”, and to further within nature the highest pos­
sibilities, not the least common denominator, of physical existence and life.
It is in such a direction that the development of semiotics points, and it is
such a framework that semiotics can become, if we continue to bring out the re­
quirements of its object, the semiosic aspects and processes present and at work
throughout the natural world, as including our species.
Notes
(to page ix, 18)

Notes

Notes for Editors’ Preface:

“Pars Pro Toto”
1 Much of what follows in this Section I of the Preface is abstracted from a longer treat­
ment by John Deely, “A Context for Narrative Universals or: Semiology as a Pars Semeioh-
ca”, presented first as an ISISSS 84 Evening Lecture (Toronto, June 21) and scheduled
for publication in The American Journal of Semiotics 4.2.
^ What we here call “the Poinsot-Locke-Peirce tradition” is substantially identical with
what Sebeok, looking more at the contemporary inspiration than at the foundational develop­
ment historically conceived as such, earlier called “the Locke-Peirce-Morris tradition ,
in contrast to “the Saussurean pattern of thought and action” (p. 256 above). See the
updated discussion in “Challenging Signs at the Crossroads”, Williams’ Preface (1985a)
to the reprint of Sebeok 1976; see also Sebeok 1982. Doctrinal links between Peirce and
Poinsot, as they appear in Locke’s doctrinal perspective, are spelled out in Deely 1985:
491-498.
Notes for Reading 2:
John Deely, “The Coalescence of Semiotic Consciousness”
1 Let us ask whether ideas as semiotically conceived, that is, as (formal) signs, might not
be simply states of our nervous system. The answer is that ideas and neural conditions
cannot be so identified, for the reason that brain states are in principle (under appropriate
instrumentation) directly sense perceptible, while, by contrast, ideas in principle—that is,
in order to be ideas and to function according to the rationale of their admission as real
are not sense perceptible, but are rather that on which every sense perceptible object as
actually perceived here and now depends. Let us call them “mental events’ in contrast
to “physical events”, that is, in contrast to items of possible sense apprehension. Thus,
in a semiotic perspective, the same reasoning that leads us to affirm the reality of ideas
as mental in contradistinction to brain states as physical, also requires us to preclude the
reduction of the mental to the physical, and to preclude as well identification of the mental
with that of which we are directly aware in cognition. The reduction and identification
are alike incompatible with the semiotic (sign) structure of apprehension itself as under­
lying all observation and constituting its ground.
Moreover, this analysis removes the principal ground on which behaviorists and analytic
philosophers have repudiated the existence of ideas, namely, the ground that we have no
direct awareness of them in our experience as something distinct or separable from the
objective “physical” being of the marks seen and expressions heard. Indeed, the thrust
of this argument is heuristically just what the semiotic analysis of ideas would lead us to
expect. In short, the line of argument from which contemporary Anglo-American analysis
of language rejects the existence of ideas in the modem sense, supports the acceptance
of the existence of ideas in the semiotic sense, i.e., as making present in our consciousness
objects which they themselves are not. The recent attempts of mainstream philosophers
to explain away the mental somehow in terms of the physical is shown by semiotic analysis
to be misguided. That same line of analysis demonstrates the wrongheadedness of the more

273
274 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS (to page 18, 28, 31, 37, 41, 68)

enduring modern tendency to close thought within its own constructions, with the result
of making experience of communication unintelligible or merely apparent at best. What
the analysis of cognition from a semiotic point of view quickly reveals is that the solipsistic
and reductionistic tendencies of mainstream modern and contemporary philosophy and
psychology have as their common root an inadequate understanding of the phenomenon
of signifying which is at the heart of cognitive life.
The counter to both these tendencies, accordingly, and the opening of a new era of
understanding, can be found in a careful establishment of the foundations of the doctrine
of signs (semiotic in the strict sense) and in the extension of such an analysis to all the
phenomena of which signs make up part (the interdisciplinary field of semiotics). The
possibilities of such a work and perspective seem to have been first secured systematically
as early as 1632a in the Treatise on Signs ofjohn Poinsot, while the actual project has begun
to go forward only in most recent times, especially under the influence of Charles S. Peirce.
Thus the dominant interest of Poinsot’s Treatise is the prospective significance of a seminal
treatment, illuminating possibilities of a future age. “Poinsot’s thought’’, commented Sebeok
(1982: x), belongs to the mainstream of semiotic discourse “as the ‘missing link’ between
the ancients and the moderns in the history of semiotic, a pivot as well as a divide between
two huge intellective landscapes the ecology of neither of which could be fully appreciated’’
prior to the publication of his Treatise in a modem edition.
2 “It should now be apparent how great is the too frequently committed blunder of
representing the opposition of the syllogism and induction as the simple opposition of two
movements proceeding in contrary directions on the same road. Such a representation
betrays a complete misunderstanding of the true nature of this opposition and even risks
confusing the syllogism with descensus. The opposition between the syllogism and induc­
tion is much deeper: it is a fundamental opposition. The very paths which they pursue
are different. One moves entirely upon the intelligible plane; the other leads from the plane
of sense experience to the intelligible plane, from the plane of the particular or the singular
to the plane of the universal (or inversely). The syllogism is based entirely upon the con­
nection of two terms with a same third term (the middle term). Induction replaces the
middle term by an enumeration of parts and is entirely based upon the connection of
individuals or of parts with the universal whole” (Maritain 1923: 267).
3 If this is understood, it will also be seen that, far from providing a tool for adjudicating
philosophical disputes, as has been commonly supposed, philosophical dispute precisely
is tacitly set aside and taken as settled whenever and as long as one has recourse to logistic
methods, notably propositional functions and quantifiers. This point is beginning to be
recognized among contemporaries, so that one may hope its importance will eventually
sink in. (For extended discussions from very different standpoints, see Strawson 1952: esp.
193-194; Deely 1975a: esp. 266-267, 1985a; Kung 1967: 8-9.)

Notes for Reading 3:

Thomas A. Sebeok, “The Doctrine of Signs ”
1 The reasons therefor were forcefully argued by Karl R. Popper in his 1977 book on The
Self and the Brain, with John C. Eccles.
2 This man-sign analogy, and implications of the semiotics of identity more generally, con­
stitute the central themes of Man’s Glassy Essence, an important new book by the distinguished
Chicago anthropologist, Milton Singer.

Notes for Reading 6:

Umberto Eco, Roberto Lambertini, Costantino Marmo, and Andrea Tabarroni,
“Latratus Canis, or: The Dog’s Barking”
1 Aquinas introduces under “non significativa” a twofold distinction—litlerata/non litterata
and articulata/non articulata—which poses some difficulties. Aquinas seems to have gotten
(to page 68) NOTES 275

s own

(C 'xhispoim' is'important in the history of semiotics, because there jsa rather di^ren,
use made of these same expressions among the Latin grammarians, r (o
to the modistae, and these materially overlapping but formally ivergc character
tify semiotically two cultural heredities among the Latins, one of a logico-hn^istic c
in which the bark of the dog has a fixed place of marginal,<y. ano,^r °f »
character in which the bark proves to occupy a position which is neither fixed nor y

None of the Latin predecessors of Priscian present a scheme according to the pp

tions articulata/inarticulata litterala/illiterate. For them, ^.s simply
the one hand and confusa (seu inarliculata) on the other. If one turns o , prjscjan’s
however, at least three passages are known which present a c ear par c 100-200)
treatment “De voce** in hisInstitutions, the earliest in ,ApoUon.u. Dyicohi. (.^00 200),
and two later ones in Ammonius (loc. cit.) and John Damascene (i. commentary
Ammonius, probably writing against Apollonius Dyscolus, expresses, eram-
on the Dr Interpretation^ an irritation with the incongruity of ‘he dassificaut»n of h<= gram
manans (“...risibile utique erit”) which arises from their way of drawing
tion in question, which may be summarized in the following ta c, a p
classification introduced into Latin grammatical tradition by nscian.

articulata inarticulata

littcrata quae possunt scribi coax (the bellowing of an ox)

ct intclligi ut “homo” era (the cawing of a cow)

illitterata sibilus hominis mugitus (mooing of a cow)

gemitus crepitus (croaking of a frog)

In this way of drawing the twofold distinction, the articulatio of t e vox is identified with.
its significatio, a point on which Priscian is followed, as we have sai , y a t e
grammarians. In a more complete discussion of this research (Eco, Lam er ini, *
and Tabarroni 1984: 9-12), a possible reason for this identification is conjectured
problems about the internal coherence of this way of drawing the matrix are nnoI
it is enough to note that, if we view Aquinas from the standpoint o whereas to
understand why the voces arliculatae don’t coincide with the voces sigmfic , ,
speak of non-signifying and articulated sounds is a contradiction in terms. *f "hefram!
this classification in the hands of the philosophers has in common withi that ofj^gram
marians only some homonymies, such as to create an impression o ove'_P ® p
unbearable confusion when an effort is made to place them in a com , reature
Aquinas the feature ‘ ‘litterata’ ’ is a grammatological or graphematic one’ . , • » p h

a samao.k faalo.a.) Thus wa hnUousssIvssuuTs.-ud-uwssd.U^ 5lalus

semiotic traditions each of which as,s'8n“°ctlv dependent on the lessons of Ammonius
In the log,co-philosoph,cal tradition directly^epe ,he articulali, continues to be

How ,h,s affects .ha baric of .ha dog '".hiToa of Prisaian. ,ha bark of .ha

Wsrtszss*• - °r
276 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS (to page 68, 72, 73, 91)

It is perhaps natural for a grammarian that the only interesting things are the sounds articu­
lated by a man, according of course to a grammar, in order to express meanings. The
sounds of animals, therefore, have no interest whatsoever. And so it is that in the texts
of the grammarians one sees that the bark of the dog goes to occupy positions always more
marginal.
At this point the tradition of the grammarians no longer interests us. It is obvious that
the grammarians are concerned exclusively with the grammar of human languages, and
not with general semiotics, not to mention zoosemiotics. What interests us instead is the
tradition of the philosophers who continue to grant to the dog a certain honorable and
labile position in the classification of signs; the philosophers also interest us because, beyond
the classifications they stretch out from the reserves of the Aristotelian De Interpretations,
they are continually inclined to make supplementary observations, such as those of Aquinas
to which we now return.

2 It is not immediately clear why Bacon distinguishes the signs of type 1.1. from those
of the type 1.3. It would seem that while in the type 1.3. there is a clear relation of cause
and effect, in those of the type 1.1. there is only a relation of concomitance between events,
certain where the concomitance is a necessary concomitance, uncertain where the con­
comitance is merely likely or probable. Yet it remains obscure why the wet earth, as a
probable sign of rain in the past, is not classified among the vestigia. Even more curious
is the locating of pictures and images, intentional products of man, among the natural
signs. Bacon reasons that what is intentionally made is the object (statue or portrait), but
the resemblance between the real person and the representation is owing to a kind of
homology between the form of the signans and the form of the signatum\ Augustine had
been much more subtle in his De doctrina Christiana (11.35.38-39) with his perception of the
widely conventional nature of images and mimetic representations.

3 Intentio is assumed by Bacon in its epistemological sense developed by the Scholastics,

as a turning of the soul toward a cognitive object, as distinct from any act of will (cf. Vescovini
1965: 64-69). It is thus clear how there can be intentio even in cases absent reason and will;
for it is enough that there be an immediate impulse of the sensitive soul “quasi subito
per privationem temporis sensibilis”. Thus those signs ordered by the soul without any
deliberation of reason or choice by the will—type 2.2—are said to function “naturaliter”,
but they have no connection with the natural signs of type 1. These natural signs—type
1.—are called “natural” with reference to nature as substance, while the naturally func­
tioning signs of 2.2. are called “natural” because they are born from an impulse of the
soul in the order of operative quality. In any event, the distinction is clear: the signa naturalia
of type 1. perform their function without regard to any intention, while the signa naturaliter
ordinata of type 2.2.—the wail of the infirm and the bark of the dog, etc.—are considered
precisely as springing from an intention, an impulse of the sensitive soul tending to ex­
press that which the animal, human or not, feels. So it is that in this classification the bark,
without finding itself next to Holy Scripture and separated from the wail, as in the pro­
vocation of Augustine, yet comes to stand more or less on the same side with the other
signs (type 2.1.) emitted by and with deliberate intention of reason and will.

4 For the wrong attribution to Marsilius see A. Maieru 1972.

Note for Reading 9:

Martin Krampen, ”Phytosemiotics”
1 Editors’ note: In the original publication of Krampen’s essay, this section was preceded
by a technical section titled Measurements of oxygen and carbon dioxide. The omitted section
contains a technical discussion summarized in a series of tables, and aims “to demonstrate
the meaning of plants to human life and to point out the necessity for further investigation
in phytosemiotics”. Considerations of space required the omission of this quantitative discus­
sion in reprinting the essay for general readership in the present volume. Readers interested
(to Page 91, 99, 100, 101, 107) NOTES 277

in the technical details are referred to Krampen 1981: 197-203. The opening sentence of
the present section has been edited to smooth the transition.

Notes for Reading 10:

John Deely, “On the Notion of Phytosemiotics”
1 “ii me semble, quand je suis a Fontainebleu, que je sympathise de toutes mes forces
avec la vitalite puissante des arbres qui m’entourent. Quant a reproduce jusqu’a leur forme,
je suis sans doute trop encroute dans la mienne pour cela; mais, en y reflechissant bien,
il ne me parait pas deraisonnable de supposer que toutes les formes de l’existence dorment
plus ou moins profondement ensevelies au fond de chaque etre; car sous les traits bien
arretes de la forme humaine dont je suis revetu. Un oeil un peu percant doit reconnaitre
sans peine le contour plus vague de Vanimalite, qui voile a son tour la forme encore plus
flottante et plus indecise de la simple organisation: or Tune des determinations possibles de
l’organisation est I’arboreite, qui engendre a son tour la cheneite. Done la cheneite est cachee
quelque part dans mon fond, et peut etre quelquefois tentee d’en sortir et de paraitre a
son tour dias in luminis oras, bien que l’humanite, qui a pris les devants sur elle, le lui defende,
et lui barre le chemin.”
2 Liber II, lect. 9, n. 347: “Definit ipsam primam animam, quae dicitur anima vegeta-
bilis; quae quidem in plantis est anima, in animalibus pars animae. . . . Ad cuius defini-
tionis intellectum, sciendum est, quod inter tres operationes animae vegetabilis, est quidam
ordo. Nam prima eius operatio est nutritio, per quam salvatur aliquid ut est. Secunda
autem perfectior est augmentum, quo aliquid proficit in maiorem perfectionem, et secun­
dum quantitatem et secundum virtutem. Tertia autem perfectissima et finalis est generatio
per quam aliquid iam quasi in seipso perfectum existens, alteri esse et perfectionem tradit.
Tunc enim unumquodque maxime perfectum est, ut in quarto Meteororum dicitur (8), cum
potest facere alterum tale, quale ipsum est. Quia igitur iustum est, ut omnia definiantur
et denominentur a fine, finis autem operum animae vegetabilis est generare alterum tale
quale ipsum est, sequitur quod ipsa sit conveniens definitio primae animae, scilicet
vegetabilis, ut sit generaliva alterius similis secundum speciem”
3 Sebeok 1974a: 108-109: “le fond du probleme de l’analogie entre code genetique et code
linguistique est en realite tres different quand on le prend d’un point de vue linguistique.
Le langage est un mecanisme tres particulier, organise de maniere hierarchique. Cette
organisation hierarchique est generalement designee sous le nom de dualite, mais en realite
ce terme prete a confusion car il signifie essentiellement que Ton a un ensemble de sous-
systemes, et que le sous-systeme de base comporte un repertoire universel de traits binaires.
C’est ce que les linguistes appelent des traits distinctifs (distinctive features), traits qui sont
en eux-memes depourvus de signification, mais a l’aide desquels on peut fabriquer un
nombre infini de phrases, lesquelles forment un autre sous-systeme. Pour ce qui est de
l’ensemble des systemes de communication des organismes, ceci constitue un phenomene
unique, car nulle, part ailleurs dans le monde animal on ne trouve trage d’une telle organisa­
tion hierarchique. Le code genetique, si je le comprends bien, fonctionne de maniere
analogue. On a quatre unites de base qui sont en elles-memes depourvues de signification,
mais qui se combinent en des unites plus grandes, lesquelles se combinent en unites en­
core plus grandes qui, finalement, donnent lieu a un nombre infini de suites. C’est la le
coeur de 1’analogic, mais Jakobson est alle encore plus loin et a trouve des analogies beaucoup
plus fines, et je suis un peu gene de devoir ajouter qu’il se refere la explicitement a Monod.’*

Notes for Reading 11:

T. L. Short, “Life Among the Legisigns”
1 For example, in writings of as late as c.1907 (MS 318) Peirce identified the emo­
tional/energetic/logical trichotomy with the immediate/dynamic/final trichotomy of inter-
pretants, despite the fact that he based these trichotomies on different principles which,
 278 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS (to page 107, 108, 109, 110)

if consistently followed, lead us to the view that the two trichotomies are not identical but
intersect, yielding nine types of sign in all. Similarly, Peirce explicitly identified the final
and ultimate interpretants even in the same paragraph, where he defined them quite dif­
ferently (1905: MS 298). I believe that keeping these distinctions distinct gives us the best
systematic reconstruction of Peirce’s most mature thought. It seems to me, especially, that
Peirce’s late (1908) division of signs by 10 trichotomies into 66 classes depends upon there
being emotional, energetic, and logical examples of each of the immediate, dynamic, and
final types of interpretant. And it seems to me that Peirce’s view that pragmatism is a
theory of meaning and not of truth requires him to admit that final logical interpretants
may occur in verbal as well as in ultimate form and that some ultimate interpretations
may be less than final. For details, see Short (1981).
2 The late Douglas Greenlee suggested (1973: 48) that because a qualisign, in itself, is
only a possibility, it is not a sign but “only an aspect or factor of any sign’’. Peirce of
i»
course admitted that a qualisign “cannot actually act as a sign until it is embodied . . .
(1903: 2.244). But he goes on to say that “the embodiment has nothing to do with its being
a sign”. The point is that even if it cannot function as a sign until it is embodied, the
quality is itself significant. Hence, the quality is an embodied sign and not just an aspect of
an embodying sign. (It will of course be the latter also; for the fact of embodiment is signifi­
cant, too. But that constitutes another sign—a sinsign—with another significance.) Despite
their being significant in themselves, Greenlee was right when he said that qualisigns are
aspects of all other signs; for no sinsign can be such without qualities, and every legisign
is a type of sinsign.
3 The ground of a sign is not to be confused with the significance which it grounds: these
are two distinct relations of sign to object. Even in the case of symbols there is a distinction
between the rule that specifies its interpretation and the interpretation thus specified. It
follows that while significance is irreducibly triadic, the ground, in itself, need not be. When
the ground is itself triadic and semeiotical, Peirce described the sign as “genuine” and
all other signs as “degenerate”. Symbols alone are genuine signs (1885: 3.359-363). Several
commentators have thought for this or for other reasons that Peirce either held or should
have held that symbols are the only real signs. But Peirce always included degenerate signs
among his classes of signs. For more details, and for references, see Short 1981: 221 n. 5.
4 The principles referred to in this paragraph have been discussed in print by Weiss and
Burks (1945: 383-388), and by Lieb (1953: Appendix B). Where Lieb differs from Weiss
and Burks, I find that I agree with Lieb.
5 Greenlee (1973, 88) claims that “Since the sign cannot represent its object solely by virtue
of dyadic action, we must look elsewhere for the ground of the sign-object relation. And
again, as in the case of the icon, we shall find this ground in a symbolic connection.” But
mere symbols, which are always general, could never serve by themselves to pick out an
individual thing. Therefore, indexical significance is irreducible to symbolic significance,
and our application of symbols to individual things can only occur by means of indices.
Greenlee bases the claim quoted on an example of pointing to an object; but as I explain
in the text, such pointing requires a cooperation of pointing as an index of direction with
other sorts of signs, and hence, does not prove or illustrate a reduction of indexical to sym­
bolic significance. Another argument Greenlee makes for his claim is that indices signify
dyadically if at all, while significance is triadic. But this confuses the ground of significance
with significance itself. The ground can be dyadic, but the possibility of forming an inter­
pretant on such a ground brings in a third factor.
6 Peirce indicates otherwise in 1904: 8.335, where he says that a symptom of disease in
general is a legisign. But this would make the general type of any sign a legisign; so I think
we must conclude that Peirce slipped here.
7 “ Meaning” is not a technical term of Peirce’s semeiotic, and those commentators who
ask, with respect to Peirce’s semeiotic rather than with respect to his pragmatism, “What
 (to page 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116) NOTES 279

is Peirce’s theory of meaning?” are not asking a very helpful question. The same can be
said of the question, ‘‘What is Peirce’s theory of reference?” This is not to say that Peirce
did not use the words “meaning” and “reference” in presenting his theory of signs; but
he used them informally, sometimes to refer to one thing, sometimes as meaning another.
Still, if we insist on finding a theory of reference, it would be in Peirce’s account of the
relation of a sign to its dynamic object: for that is what answers to what most philosophers
have in mind when they speak of reference. And in the case of meaning, Peirce did come,
eventually, to give “meaning” a technical definition as being the interpretant of a sign
(c. 1907: MS 318, 00238). The occasion for this seems to have been his semeiotic refor­
mulation of the pragmatic theory of meaning, beginning in about 1903. However, Peirce
sometimes spoke of the immediate interpretant and other times of the final interpretant
as being the meaning of a sign, and sometimes of all three types of interpretant as three
different types of meaning (c.1907: MS 318). On Peirce’s view, then, “meaning” is best
defined as referring to an effect which the sign is fit to produce or does produce or would
eventually produce. Meaning is thus entirely different from reference.
8 I have been privileged to read in typescript portions of Professor Jarrett Brock’s exten-
sive and careful work on Peirce’s theory of what Scarle and others call “speech acts”. For
the tip of this particular iceberg, see Brock 1981.
9 A rigid designator will continue to refer to the same thing under any counter-factual
condition under which it refers to anything at all. Thus, “Ronald Reagan” is a rigid
designator whereas “the President of the United States in 1981” is not; for the former
would still refer to the same person under the supposition that Jimmy Carter was re-elected,
whereas the latter would not. Rigid designators cannot be symbolic or iconic; for then they
would refer to whatever satisfied the general type they either describe or exemplify. Hence,
they must be indexical legisigns. They continue to refer to the same things under counter-
factual conditions because their significance has been established by existential connec­
tions in the actual world. It is the actual person actually named “Ronald” to whom we
refer even under the supposition of various counter-factual conditions, such as that he lost
the election or such as that he is really named “Sylvester”. I do not mean to suggest that
Peirce anticipated the important implications which Kripke has drawn from his account
of rigid designation. See Kripke (1980, passim).
18 Peirce’s commentators have been none too clear about legisigns and symbols. For
example, Greenlee argues (1973: 85) that all legisigns are symbolic; in particular, while
Peirce classified demonstrative pronouns as indexical legisigns, Greenlee argues that they
are symbolic because . . it is by virtue of a convention that a demonstrative pronoun
is used demonstratively; dynamical connection appears to be an unnecessary condition . . .
But this overlooks the distinction between a convention which tells us to attend to a dynamic
connection and a convention which establishes significance without further ado. One cannot
know to what a pronoun refers only by hearing that pronoun and knowing the convention
that governs its use. One has also to notice with what this individual instance of the pro­
noun is connected.
11 See my discussion (Short 1981) of “existing for a purpose” and “acting for a purpose”.
^ Thus, discourse itself appears to commit us to certain aims. For a related view of the
ethical import of semeiotic, see Krois 1981.
13 While I would not dare to ascribe any of the views I express here to Professor I. C.
Lieb, such little sensitivity as I have to the present topic (of arguments, propositions, etc.)
is due to courses I have been privileged to take from him.
14 In this way, Peirce’s semeiotic leads to a unified theory of rationality in thought, and
conduct, without reducing either form of rationality to the other. But this theory remains
to be developed. See also the penultimate paragraph of the present paper.
280 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS (118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124)

15 J. L. Austin once wrote (1961: 87 n.l), “With all his 66 divisions of signs, Peirce does
not, I believe, distinguish between a sentence and a statement.” But Peirce’s analysis of
assertion as a particular way of replicating certain legisigns does make that distinction,
in effect. For the legisigns assertions replicate are, typically, declarative sentences, and
assertive replications of these are statements. Ironically, Peirce’s analysis of assertion, as
making oneself liable to penalty if proven wrong, is echoed nearly to the word by Austin’s
own, later analysis of what is done in saying, “I know . . .” (ibid.: 66-71).
16 All the parts of Peirce’s confusion about propositions can be seen in MS 517, which
has recendy been dated 1904 (Fisch, Ketner, and Kloesel 1979: 17). This manuscript, which
is peculiar in representing all signs as having replicas and, therefore, as being legisigns,
has been published by Carolyn Eisele (Peirce 1904a).

Notes for Reading 12:

Floyd Merrell, “Structuralism and Beyond: A Critique of Presuppositions ”
l The basic premises of structural linguistics were first articulated, albeit rather sketchily,
by Ferdinand de Saussure (i. 1906-1911). This formulation may be understood primarily
as a reaction against nineteenth century historical studies of language. Consequently,
Saussure’s concerns lie chiefly in the realm of synchronic aspects of linguistic phenomena.
During the 1930’s N. S. Trubetskoy (1939) and Roman Jakobson (1931) of the Prague
school of linguistics attempted to account for historical change in language without dis­
carding the fundamental tenets of Saussurean linguistics. More recently, the Danish linguist
Louis Hjelmslev (1943) set the foundation for future linguistic studies by reformulating
the “structuralist” conception of language in an elaborate methodological scheme.
2 For a perceptive critique of the particular methodologies of Lacan, Levi-Strauss, and
Piaget, see Wilden 1972.
3 I do not include in my generalizations the “genetic structuralisms” of Piaget and Lucian
Goldmann, since their methodology constitutes a departure from the “static” variety of
structuralism which I scrutinize. Nevertheless, on another level, “genetic structuralism”
can be subjected to a similar line of inquiry.
4 However, see Emile Benveniste’s influential critique (1966) of Saussure’s concept of arbi­
trariness.
5 This intransigent synchrony-diachrony opposition is part of the Saussurean conception
of language. On the other hand, Jakobson was one of the first to suggest (1931) that this
opposition is to a large degree illusory, that it is a convenient device for analysis rather
than a particular mode of being.
6 This presupposition leads directly to the “principle of immanence” which limits struc­
tural analysis to that which occurs in the mind, a tentative basis for the accusation that
structuralism in general, and Levi-Strauss’ structuralist methodology in particular, adheres
to a Kantian approach to man and his cultural products (Dubois 1969: 46-60). It is signifi­
cant, therefore, that Paul Ricoeur (1963: 596-652) refers to Levi-Strauss’ structuralist method
as Kantism “without a transcendental subject”.
7 Levi-Strauss proposes (1964: 13) that it is “immaterial whether ... the thought pro­
cesses of the South American Indians take shape through the medium of my thought, or
whether mine takes shape through the medium of theirs. What matters is that the human
mind, regardless of the identity of those who happen to be giving it expression, should
display an increasingly intelligible structure as a result of the doubly reflective forward
movement of the two thought processes acting one upon the other, either of which can
in turn provide the spark or tinder whose conjunction will shed light on both.
8 Similarily, Wylie Sypher, in his study of modern art and literature, maintains (1968:
78-79) that an overemphasis on the visually perceptible qualities of art tends to “spatialize
 (to page 124, 125, 126) NOTES 281

time”. Henri Lefebvre (1966: 121-76) alludes to this “spatialization” in Levi-Strauss’ variety
of structuralism as a ‘‘new Eleatism”. It can be provisionally concluded, then, that this
static quality of orthodox structuralist methodology, as well as any other analogous view
of reality, is the result of an implicit ‘‘spatialization”.

9 See also, for instance, Greimas, who maintains (1970: 13-27) that the scientific concep­
tion of the universe is that of a great ‘‘semiotic hierarchy”.

10 There has, however, been controversy concerning the respective positions of each system
in the total hierarchy. For instance, Saussure originally forwarded the notion that the
linguistic system is subordinate to general semiological systems. Barthes inverts this for­
mulation suggesting the primacy of the linguistic system over all aspects of human activ­
ity. These two central propositions are antithetical, but tenable on their own grounds, as
are the Kantian antinomies of thought. The argument could go on forever.

11 Capek (1961: 299) attempts to demonstrate how this tendency of human thought to
follow the ‘‘pathways of least resistance” is a psychological phenomenon and that psychology
for this reason cannot be divorced from epistemology. He believes that epistemological
conventions can become ingrained in the “subconscious” such that it is well nigh impossi­
ble to go beyond these conventions to view reality in a different light. The Newtonian
paradigm has over the centuries become ingrained so as to “condition our minds” and
prevent us from eliminating it overnight. Newtonian subconsciousness is incompatible with
the conscious convictions of those modem physicists who outwardly profess allegiance to
the relativity theory. These subconscious barriers must fall. Hence, the epistemology of
modern physics “would profit enormously from a sort of ‘psychoanalysis of knowledge’
in Gaston Bachelard’s sense which would unmask the inhibiting influence of our Eucli­
dean and Newtonian subconscious in the minds of those physicists who sincerely believe
themselves to be entirely free from them.” In conjunction with this view of the cultural
“embedding” of ideas, see Bateson 1972.

12 This line of reasoning follows Bertrand Russell’s theory of logical types. To paraphrase
and simplify (I hope without doing violence to a sophisticated and quite complex theory),
all entities referred to in a corpus submitted for analysis may be thought of as a macrosystem
which includes systems of systems, all arranged in a hierarchy of classes, or types. An in­
dividual of a particular class cannot be considered as the class itself, and conversely, a
class cannot be a member of itself. To do so introduces paradox. The paradox of Epimenides
the Cretan who said that all Cretans were liars effectively illustrates Russell’s point. In
this statement a member of a particular class is considered on the same level as the class
itself and the sentence is for this reason rendered nonsensical. In the context of the present
commentary, to treat, as does structuralism, myths, the mind, dress cedes, narrative texts,
etc., as if they were language is to establish language as a model. However, whereas the
explanatory model for structural linguistics is binarism, structuralism generally adopts
binarism as a sort of “second order” model, language being the primary model. Therefore,
the binary principle is for linguistics the model while for structuralism it is a metamodel,
the model of a model. It is the use of this model of a model that constitutes a violation
of the boundaries separating logical types and brings about a fundamental methodological
problem.

13 This is an apparent contradiction of Levi-Strauss’ notion that anthropology studies struc­

tures through space while history constitutes a “functional” study through time. The fact
does remain that “primitive” societies in twentieth century Brazil exist simultaneously
with comparable societies ten or more centuries past. On the other hand, Edmund Leach
maintains (1970: 15-52) that Levi-Strauss’ culinary triangle and other similar devices do
not depend on the temporal status of societies but apply equally well to the so-called “hot > »
(industrialized) and “cold” (preindustrial) societies. Similarly, Jakobson’s phonemic triangle
supposedly applies equally well to both “primitive” and modern languages.
282 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS (to page 127, 128, 129, 130)

14 This is Wittgenstein’s early thesis in Traclalus Logico-Philosophicus (1919). We may

“intuit” a particular reality but on attempting to describe that reality we are lost, for its
essence is, ipso facto, unutterable. The unutterability will be reflected in what is said but
cannot be explicitly stated. Hence poetic discourse displays, but cannot tell in an objective
fashion, and the reader must “intuit” that linguistic display just as the writer intuited the
reality he displayed through language.
15 Nevertheless, it was only on the basis of this Linnaean classificatory system that a viable
model of evolution could be constructed (Wiener 1967: 93).
16 Similarly, even though structuralism purports to be a holistic way of looking at man
and at the world, in certain respects it is, as Capek says of the more “conservative” inter­
pretation of relativity physics, still tied to the world view it attempts to supersede.
17 Georg Lukacs’ critique (1968: 6) of Western empirical science is analogous to my own
critique, even though from a distinct vantage point. Lukacs maintains that the traditional
empirical method wrenches “facts” from their living content, isolates them, and fits them
into an abstract theory. Phenomena, by means of this method, are reduced “to their purely
quantitative essence, to their expression in numbers and numerical relations”. A method
of analysis based on immediately perceivable facts fails in so far as it cannot, as does dialec­
tical materialism, take account of the historical character of the facts and glimpse their
underlying reality. Both “bourgeois science” and “vulgar Marxism” abstract the parts
and prevent them “from finding their definition within the whole and, instead, the whole
was dismissed as unscientific or else it degenerated into the mere ‘idea’ or ‘sum’ of the
parts. With the totality out of the way, the fetishistic relations of the isolated parts ap­
peared as a timeless law valid for every human society” (ibid.: 9). These “timeless laws”
have become an ideological weapon. For the bourgeoisie, “it is a matter of life and death
to understand its own system of production in terms of eternally valid categories: it must
think of capitalism as being predestined to eternal survival by the eternal laws of nature
and reason. Conversely, contradictions that cannot be ignored must be shown to be purely
surface phenomena, unrelated to this mode of production” (ibid.: 10-11). Although Lukacs
is referring to empirical “facts” in contrast to my criticism of “isolated structures”, the
timeless character ultimately implied in both methodologies is analogous. Julia Kristeva’s
contention (1967: 27-42) that one must consciously rise above the ideologies that are im­
plicit in traditional Western World heuristic models is also comparable. Furthermore,
Capek’s “ingrained Newtonian mentality” prevents integration of the concrete and the
abstract just as does Lukacs’ ideologically motivated bourgeois science.
18 And in Goldmann’s case, structure is conceived within a deterministic Marxist
framework which becomes, in the long run, a “static” explication of the “static” relation­
ships between instantaneous structures of a given point in history.
19 According to Levi-Strauss (1964: 12), “Mythological analysis has not, and cannot have,
as its aim to show how men think. In the particular example we are dealing with here,
it is doubtful, to say the least, whether the natives of central Brazil, over and above the
fact that they are fascinated by mythological stories, have any understanding of the systems
of interrelations to which we reduce them ... I, therefore, claim to show, not how men
think in myths, but how myths operate in men’s minds without their being aware of the
fact.”
20 Newton compared the function of space to the function of the Supreme Being (see Capek
1961: 7-10, 12-15).
21 I have taken the liberty of constructing a “structural scheme” of the relations between
the Newtonian, existentialist, and structuralist world views, aware of the fact that it might
appear that I am employing the very analytical method I criticize. I do, however, believe
that structural schemes are economical and potentially illustrate relations between struc­
tures and between elements in a structure more effectively than the conventional expository
 (to page 130, 132, 133, 137, 138, 168, 172) NOTES 283

method. My criticism in this article is not directed toward the use of such schemes but
toward the purpose for which they are used.
22 While Frederick Suppe (1974: 3-232) in a penetrating essay comments on various
Weltanschauungen analyses of science, I will summarize what I consider the two approaches
most applicable to the present study.
23 It is worthy of note that Michel Foucault develops a “structuralist” method of historical
analysis which bears resemblance to that of Kuhn. Language, according to Foucault (1966),
constrains and limits human mental capacities, and only within this limiting horizon can
human thought processes be properly understood. These constraints reduce the parameters
of mental activity to invariant “epistemes”, which are used much as Kuhn’s “paradigms”
to portray particular Weltanschauungen. Compare also this line of inquiry to Althusser’s
“epistemological breaks”, a concept introduced by Gaston Bachelard in his La formation
de l’esprit scientifique (1938: 249) which describes “the leap from the pre-scientific world of
ideas to the scientific world; this leap involves a radical break with the whole pattern and
frame of reference of the pre-scientific (ideological) notions, and the construction of a new
pattern”.
24 Einstein once said, “If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists
about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: don’t listen to
their words, fix your attention on their deeds” (quoted in Toulmin 1953: 16). In many
cases that same advice may apply to leading structuralists, for the language they themselves
use in building their models is perhaps not entirely conscious.
25 It is conceded that structuralism generally assumes a subject who is incapable of taking
an “objective” stance vis-a-vis the object under study. He is himself an “activity” rather
than an entity, when observing the object, and as such rests on a level coequal with the
object. Hence subject and object apparently become mutually inclusive and complemen­
tary, and neither has any being apart from the reciprocal activity between both. Never­
theless, the picture becomes confused, for it becomes difficult to “classify” without main­
taining a distance from the corpus. Levi-Strauss himself states (1962b: 40-45) that struc­
tures can appear only as the result of observation from outside.
26 It has been as much as demonstrated that language is not the determinant of thought
(or, by extension, world view) but that language is grounded in thought. See the studies
of Piaget (1972), Vygotsky (1962), and Schaff (1964).
27 This concept relates indirectly to one aspect of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Contrary
to the thesis forwarded in this paper, Whorf believes that language governs an individual’s
perception of the universe to provide him with a particular world view. However, bracketing
out this aspect of the Whorfian hypothesis, it might be stated that a language, given its
syntactic structure, the breadth of its lexical repertoire, and its semantic scheme, is limited
in its capacity to describe the universe from divergent and contradictory perspectives, a
concept which is in line with Eddington, Bridgman, Capek, Toulmin, et al. The Hopi
language, for example, contains a particular “metaphysics”, just as our language reveals
the “naive” Newtonian view of space and time all Western languages are specifically design­
ed to describe. On the other hand, the Hopi language describes a particular structure of
the universe which cannot be perfecdy duplicated in Western languages. In the Hopi view,
‘‘time disappears and space is altered, so that it is no longer the homogeneous and instanta­
neous timeless space of our supposed intuition or of classical Newtonian mechanics.” To ex­
trapolate, Western languages, fettered as they are by Newtonian categories, are incapable of
effectively describing the Einsteinian universe of space-time continuity, and they inexorably
manifest what Capek calls “semantic inertia” (see Whorf 1956: 57-64).

Notes for Reading 14:

Umberto Eco, “On Symbols”
1 Correcting Eco’s reference to In Gen. 9.1, i.e., Jerome c.389-392.
2 Correcting Eco’s reference to Quodlibetales 8.6.16. ob l, ad 1.
284 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS (to page 185, 186, 187, 188, 199)

Notes for Reading 16:

Michael Herzjeld, “Disemia‘>
1 Editors’ note: This reading is an inversion vis-a-vis the other readings in this part. Herz-
feld does not so much come to a traditional sphere of culture from a semiotic perspective
as take over an existing linguistic model of cultural anthropology—diglossia, as establish­
ed by Ferguson—with its ideological implications of insider/outsider, in order to show that
the model’s own possibilities arc constricted in ways that of themselves expand holistically
to the postlinguistic aspects of cultural life (along with the diglossic, but paralinguistic to
and beyond it and, so to speak, as presupposed) as soon as the model is reconceptualized
semiotically, i.e., so as to focus on the signifying patterns as such {pro toto domus et cwi)
rather than {pro parte nominal!) linguistically signifying. Herzfcld shows that the ideological
implications and assumptions built into this model and “all such models as political polariza­
tion, class-based differentiation of behavior (including kinesics and proxemics), ‘folk’ ver­
sus ‘urban’ culture and the like’’, are part of a larger phenomenon which must be viewed
semiotically in order to be analyzed according to its proper unity, and which he proposes
to call “Disemia’’.
2 In Ardener’s formulation, the paradigmatic/syntagmatic opposition produces such pair­
ings as opposition/conflict, exchange/transaction.
3 H (“High”) and L (“low”), though judgmental, partially reproduce indigenous at­
titudes, as, c.g., the view oikalharevousa as “good Greek” which then leads to the classification
as kalharevousa of urban speech forms that arc not technically of that register.
4 Cf. Ardener’s (1970) Realien.
5 This term is marked by one of its own most characteristic syntactic markers (fern. sing,
ending in -i’a rather than -i or - ’ia.
6 I.e., Ellinismos (Neo-Classical model, extroverted and “Europeanizing”) vs. Romiossini
(Christian-Byzantine, introverted acknowledging Turkish and other non-European in­
fluences) (cf. Herzfcld 1981). Note that it is not only symbols that are dialectical (as, e.g.,
El Guindi and Selby 1976); shifters (cf. Silverstein 1976) indicating the lines of inclusion
and exclusion may provide a means for reproducing the extroverted/introverted dialectic
in immediate social interaction. When one is classified as a ksenos (“outsider to reference-
group”) in Greek, one is shown an essentially Ellinismos-related view oj the speaker; not so,
when one is treated as his dhikos (“co-insider”), a situation which may occur within the same
conversation.
7 I.e., because the first king of the new Greek state was a Bavarian (Otho I), as were many
of his advisers.
< i
8 Ellinikolita, i.e. Hellenic-ness”.

Notes for Reading 18:

Richard Lanigan, “Semiotics, Communicology, and Plato’s Sophist”
1 Editors’ note: “Communicology” is Professor Lanigan’s preferred term for communica­
tion theory and the communication sciences generally.
2 Heidegger 1968: 51: “A thinking which thinks in models must not immediately be
characterized as technological thinking, because the word ‘model’ is not to be understood
in the technological sense as the repetition or project of something in smaller proportions.
Rather, a model is that from which thinking must necessarily take off in such a way that
that from which it takes off is what gives it impetus. The necessity for thinking to use thinking
is related to language. The language of thinking can only start from common speech. And
speech is fundamentally historico-metaphysical. An interpretation is already built into it.
Viewed from this perspective, thinking has only the possibility of searching for models in
order to dispense with them eventually, thus making the transition to the speculative.”
 (to Page 201, 202, 211, 214, 226, 256) NOTES 285

3 While I follow the standard codex practice of using Stephanus numbers for textual cita­
tion, the edition of translations I am using is that of Hamilton and Cairns 1961. It should be
further noted that I am using Letter VII for convenience of explanation; I realize that the
authenticity of authorship for this letter is in dispute. It simply offers a concise statement of
issues with which to begin my analysis of the dialogue Sophist, which is the text of concern.
4 Editors’ note: The numerous diagrams accompanying the text are here presented, in
accordance with the author’s original design, on the first occasion of their mention, with
the exception of Figure 15, which is presented together with Figure 14 (p. 200 above) for
the reason that its textual mention (p. 203 above) occurs only after the later introduction
of Figure 17.
5 I am indebted to Professor Luis Perez, University of Saskatchewan, for bringing this
point to my attention.
6 Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology, with its emphasis on the transcendental Ego, would
be compatible with the Platonic ontology in a way that Merleau-Ponty’s existential
phenomenology clearly is not. It is also important to recall that the Greeks did not have
our ontological tendency to separate signifiers and signifieds: “Even a non-human object
can, in the archaic period, take on a life of its own—as when an inscription on a pot reads
» > i
‘I greet you (Havelock 1978: 99).

Note for Reading 20:

Luigi Romeo, “Heraclitus and the Foundations of Semiotics ”
1 Editors’ note: A section from this article entitled Sources for Research on Heraclitus’ Semiotic
Views (Romeo 1976: 75-79) is omitted here. The omitted section contains a mainly
philological discussion of more technical than general interest, but provides an overview
of the history of Heraclitean scholarship during the last hundred years, in particular the
establishment of editions of Heraclitus’ fragments from Bywater 1877 through Diels 1903
to Pasquinelli 1958. Readers are referred to the original publication for the details of the
discussion.

Notes for Reading 22:

Thomas A. Sebeok, Semiotics’ and Its Congeners”
1 Editors’ note: Luigi Romeo, in a subsequent “re-evaluation of the derivation for the
term in question’’ (1977), glosses this passage as follows (pp. 40-41): “as illustrated in
the quotation above, the whole probing was confined to logical, medical, and even musical
writings; no attempt was made to analyze the philological and lexicographic aspects of the
problem, for both concordances and dictionaries reflect not only the cultural currency of
the times but also the intellectual atmosphere. After all, how could one quote Galenus’
‘semeiotice’ without realizing that the Latin version was published much before later specula­
tions from logic to music? Indeed, the oldest Latin edition is Galenus 1490.” In a later
note (ibid.: 47 n. 18) Romeo adds: “Russell 1939 is unaware (and Sebeok 1976: 48 [ =
Sebeok 1971 in References to the present collection]: along with him) that cnmeUDTuai
could not have come ‘from writings on Greek music’ since the chronology of the documen­
tation in print indicates that the term existed before Meibom’s and Wallis’ but did not
appear in Alypius. In addition, Russell himself declares he does not know whether the
term was introduced by Meibom [1652]. It is, thus, obvious that Meibom, who must have
read the term in either the Thesaurus or Scapula printed at least a century earlier, either
reconstructed the Greek term by transliterating it from still earlier ‘semeiotice’, or bor­
rowed it from Stephanus 1572-1573 (or Scapula 1579, 1605, 1637, 1652 [see editorial gloss
on Scapula entry in References]). Moreover, the reference adduced by Russell 1939: 406,
saying that ‘The medical term given in Liddell and Scott is TO OTipEicOTiKOv’, constitutes
an explanation that needs no elaboration, for Russell apparently never heard of philological
tools such as the Thesaurus and its tradition”.
 286 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS (to page 256)

Romeo’s main abductions may be summarized by the following citation (Romeo 1977:
43): “Actually, Locke had [in his library] two editions [of the pirated abridgment of the
original 1572-1573 Thesaurus Graecae linguae of Henricus Stephanus], Scapula 1605 and 1663.
I have Scapula 1637. So, after going in circles for so long, I had no alternative than that
of assuming a very simple thing: Locke, the physician, must have read Hippocrates in
his younger days; but Locke, the philosopher, must have consulted Scapula in his later
days. Apparently, Locke did not have Galenus’ edition of 1490, or any later one edited
with a Latin translation containing semeiotice (as well as semioticam and semiotice [Romeo 1977:
47 n. 13, adds here: “‘Semiotice’, with the monophthongized ei, would naturally be closer
to Locke’s ‘oqpioxucn as a transliteration of Latin into Greek!’’]) for OT||i£iCDXiKrj. Thus,
one can presume that when Locke the philosopher was confronted with employing a term
in philosophy, the medical concept of which he had acquired in his younger years, he
doubtless borrowed the idea from Hippocrates’ OTipEiOV. But on consulting Scapula he
found, among the several variants, lOT|p£i(OXiKq\ And, since Scapula refers to Hippocrates,
as well as because Locke must have remembered all the various allotropes involving OT|p-,
he must have taken Scapula’s term and reference (actually the Thesaurus’ initial reference)
for granted, without rechecking the original source. On the other hand, although Locke
did not have Galenus in his library, it is also possible (but not probable) that Locke read
Galenus’ work containing the terms semeiotice, semioticam, and semiotice.
“At my present stage of research, I personally prefer to believe that either Scapula
overcame Locke (there was no Thesaurus in Locke’s library, although this does not mean
that he might not have had access to it), or Locke transliterated Galenus’ ‘semiotice’ into
Greek. No other solution now seems feasible until we locate further records evidencing
that others may have used OT)pElCDXlKT| before the Thesaurus Graecae linguae. In other words,
the first time in history that ‘ar|4Si(DTiKfj’ appears as such is in the Thesaurus [of Stephanus,
1572-1573], then in Scapula [1605], for lexicographic purposes, and in Locke [1690] for
philosophical reasons as ‘arniiCDTiKfj’ which suggests an influence from ‘semiotice’ without
the Greek diphthong. If it did appear anywhere for musical or medical reasons, so far we
only have evidence for Latin semeiotice through Galenus 1490 and later editions, but the
Greek term never appeared in print before the Thesaurus. It is, indeed, significant that neither
Meibom (1652) nor Wallis (1682 edition of Ptolemy c.150) was in Locke’s library accor­
5 ?
ding to Harrison and Laslett (1965).
Romeo concludes: “Until new documentation is brought to light (be it in future excava­
tions at Herculaneum or in Peirce’s oenological notes), the only fact we have, based on
historical records, is that ‘olUiEKOXllcfj’ never existed before it was printed in the Thesaurus
Graecae linguae. Scapula (or Galenus) might have given the source to Locke. And Locke,
via Peirce, found his way across the Atlantic into The Century Dictionary before returning
eastward into the pages of the Oxford English Dictionary. If there is any instance of OT|fl£l(DTiicq
in any manuscripts still to be edited and published, let us hope that it will be made known
to the scholarly world. Meanwhile, we only know that the ancients used either ‘or|p£ico-
TiKoq’ for the ars and ‘OT|ii£lC0Ol<;’ for the action (or process) of OTipEia in all their mor­
phological variants. Thus, the term ‘OTmEicoxiKfj’ and Locke’s ‘oT)|i.i(OXiKq’ have been
borrowed from classical philology, not from medical or musical sources in post-Renaissance
times. Any other account for the introduction of ‘semiotics’ into the discipline must re­
main, at present, a matter of conjecture.”
These remarks, of course, concern the matter of looking at the name “semiotic” from
Locke backwards, and are included here for the reader’s interest and as a stimulant to
further researches; but the principal interest of Sebeok’s own essay for the present volume
is rather its look at the name in the present context and as it indicates the main lines of
development and the taking shape of semiotics today—its prospective rather than its
retrospective significance.
2 Peirce (in 1903b: 5.178, but unindexed) does refer to Lambert’s “large book in two
volumes” on logic (“and a pretty superficial affair it is”), clearly meaning the Neues Organon,
in whose second volume the Semiotik appeared; Peirce’s set is still at The Johns Hopkins,
although there are no annotations in it (Max H. Fisch, personal communication).
 (to page 261, 266, 267) NOTES 287

3 Besides its medical use, French semiotique was also used, towards the middle of lhc l9th
century, in a military context: “Art de faire manoeuvrer les troupes en eur in
les mouvements par signes ...” (Alain Rey, personal communication), a sense lor wnicn
sometimes semantique was also used (Rey 1969: 6).

Notes for Reading 23:

John Deely, “Semiotic as Framework and Direction ”
1 Maritain (1959: 39) summarizes his researches in the following table:
retolved.
3Td ^ regwlatirig Metaphysics/^
4s bvr9 being
• METAPH Y,S IC A scieace
■>

o
o
Philosophy Philosophy l«
as of
seasible Nature Nature I09
being
retolved
l/V ond
^ "regulating • quantity
MATHEMATK as grtt
Mathematics
science.
such.
Ax W
o
ist
retolved.
ia
\ Physico-
degree seasible PHYSICA \ Physico- Mathematics/-
beirxg Matherriati.es o
W
\\ |
Empirical
as / science
sensible not (yet)
! being science
X'V mathematize
Infra-
scientific
experience

2 Derisive and divisive reference to “ancestor worship” among semioticians is sometimes

used as a tactic to belittle or ostracize so far as possible semiotic developments along tradi­
tionally humanistic, literary, and philosophical lines. Indeed there is such a t ing as ancestor-
worship, but its polemic invocation in this context is an inappropriate tactic in a misguided
strategy. Present-mindedness, with its blindness to the historicity of human thought and
its ideological adhesion to scientism (and covert worship of the ghosts of positivism to boot.)
is a far greater threat to the healthy development and possible realization of the perspec­
tive of the doctrine of signs. Modem scholarship, with its inclination to foUow into post­
modern times the positivistic biases modem culture imbibed with the powerful belief that
the scientific modes of understanding alone have validity (despite the.r reduct.on of exper,-
ence to its merely physical and environmental components, and despite their no onous
difficulty as classically conceived to account for the role of the observer, so nice Y^XP or^
at the 1982 seventh Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America) hardly needs
these exhortations, which tend in fact to promote ignorance of the past and rediscoveries
of not only the wheel but even the club. (Edmund Leach s counse to semioticians, in is
“Concluding Remarks” to the October 8-10, 1984, State-of-the-Art Research Conference
organized by Professor Herzfeld, that “Peirce has been dead over sixty years, let him rot
in peace”—is surely a high-water mark of modem culture in the distinctly ideological line
of scientism. What are we to do with those Neill describes [1958] as makeni of the modem
mind”, all but one of them “rotters” dead well more than sixty years.)
We have had enough of the rhetoric of two cultures. We do not need to further this
modem division within semiotics; we need to transcend it. Exhortations against ancestor
worship” as incantations to close down avenues of properly humanistic inquiry, or to replace

i
288 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS (to page 267)

them entirely with scientific inquiry, are radically out of place in semiotics.
What is called for is a profound understanding of both humanistic and scientific modes
of investigation, in order to transform them, to render both modalities as “traditionally”
(i.e., currently) understood aufgehoben in the higher synthesis semiotic consciousness makes
possible but cannot guarantee. What is needed are new foundations. In this perspective,
the attempt to polarize debate in terms of the established genres of “the commentaries
of traditional scholarship” on the one hand and “the scientific constructs compatible with
the tenets of logical empiricism” on the other hand (Gardin, Bouissac, and Foote 1984)
already appears as a missing of the point and a regression to the confines of classical modem
philosophy—that is to say, to a point before which semiosis doubtless occurs, but semiotic
has yet to reach the prise de conscience wherein it discovers what is proper to it.
3 A case in point is John Locke. It would be possible to include Locke in the Semiotic
Society of America’s Annual Meeting as a Neglected Figure in the History of Semiotic
Inquiry. This statement may seem at first ludicrous, since it is well known that Locke in­
vented the term “semiotic” as far as concerns the English speaking world, and it has long
been customary to make honorific mention of his Essay concerning Human Understanding in
this regard. How then can he be considered neglected?
Easily. For how many realize the synecdochal function played by Locke’s key terms
in the crucial and rich—but almost entirely unexplicated—passage in which he seemingly
casually introduces the term “semiotic” into the universe of signs as the conclusion of his
essay on human understanding? This is a matter on which the famous “scientific” modes
of understanding, not even the most advanced neurophysiological manifestations thereof,
can shed so much as a wave or a particle of light. And yet it is a matter which goes to
the heart of semiotic consciousness. In fact, the re-definition of reality and the Innenwelt-
Umwelt correspectiveness discussed in the present essay are already present in the sugges­
tion of Locke that if “words and ideas as the great instruments of knowledge were duly
weighed and distinctly considered, they would perhaps provide us with a different sort of
Logic and Critic than we have hitherto been acquainted with.” But to see this, just as,
for example, to “see” Professor Bouissac as the founder and moving spirit of the re­
markable ISISSS Institutes, it is necessary to already know something, and to think a while
besides.
In the case of Locke’s text, for example, it is necessary to know Aristotle’s original
distinction between speculative and practical knowledge, and in particular to know how
this version of the distinction differs from the very version Peirce employs. It is necessary
to know that “physics” was an ancient name common to all the major Greek and Latin
schools as the designation for the study of nature in very specific ways distinguished from
mathematics and metaphysics, a name which Locke takes over and expands synecdochically
to cover the realm of speculative knowledge tout court, just as he takes over the term “ethics”
and makes it apply by a synecdochical expansion to the entire realm of practical knowledge
in the ancient sense, that is, not only to moral and ethnic questions but also to all ques­
tions of artistic and technical production as well.
) 1
Just so, “words and ideas” function in Locke’s key passage in the literal or “obvious
sense of human linguistic expressions and intellectual conceptions, and also synecdochically
to cover the entire range of outward expressions of inward conditions, factors, and states
whereby organisms orient themselves and thrive in their environment. Already implied
here is the discovery that the “observed world” is not just physical, but also objective in
the special sense introduced and explained above—that is to say, it is more than can be
accounted for by reduction to fact in the physical sense. “Reality”, in short, is not just
physical, but semiosic.
With this discovery, we are beyond the classical realism and idealism debates, and on
the path of semiotic consciousness. How well and how broadly Locke sketched the founda­
tions for this possible development will require a good deal more than passing honorific
mention of his invention of a term. Until the synecdoches in Locke’s seminal text—physics,
ethics, logic, words, ideas—have been fully explored, he will remain in a curious way
neglected.
 References

i
:
>

i
!
f
!
i
\

A
 Explanation of Reference Style

The present volume is intended to exhibit the synthetic and synoptic perspective, at
once synchronic and diachronic, proper to the treatment of semiosis. The volume itself as a
physical artifact, not just in its conceptual content, but also in its editorial design and refer­
ence style, is intended to be part of the exhibition; and, for this, it was necessary to find
ways to amalgamate the economy of presentation required by scientific style with the depth
of sensitivity to temporal context of sources ideally required by humanistic understanding.
The main instrument for accomplishing the synthesis aimed at is the device of “historical
layering” systematized in Semiotics 1984: 715-739 (q.v.) as the “Style Sheet for Semiotic
Society of America Proceedings”, and illustrated earlier in Powell 1983 and Deely 1982.
The essays for the volume, accordingly, have been edited in conformity with the plan of
this Style Sheet, and the master list of references which follows is formed according to the
same plan, particularly the governing principle of historical layering.
This system of layering every source historically manifests to the reader, conveniendy and
direcdy, the period of origin of each contribution to the dialogue underway, by exacting that
primary reference dates throughout be taken from within the lifetime of the author of each
given text or attributed insight. The system may be reduced to three essentials (Semiotics
1984: 716): 1. only references explicitly made in the text or notes of a presentation are in­
cluded in the master reference list; 2. the reference date for every author must fall within a
determinate individual lifespan—be it individual or collective (Semiotics 1984: 734ff.); and,
3. when a modem or secondary edition of any source—any edition other than an original edition
(including unaltered reprints) or manuscript text—is presented or used, then the editor and/or
translator or whatever ‘interpreter’ of the source drawn upon, as well as the publisher and
copyright year of the edition used, must be included as part of the complete reference
list, together with whatever glosses thereon might be deemed necessary or useful in the
circumstances.
When this manner of reference style is properly used, two advantages accrue: the refer­
ences so compiled are easily translated—by deletion of included material—into every other
major style sheet (including notably the MLA and University of Chicago Manual of Style),
whereas translations from other style sheets into the framework of historical layering can be
made normally only via a library visit; and the relationship of inner discourse to experience—
discourse with the world invading the self willy-nilly—as well as the experimental continu­
ities underlying and giving comprehension to material differences of language and expres­
sion (“parole”, in a word) are brought to the fore in ways likely to develop sensitivities
to the historicity, the irreducibility to “physical fact”, of the human condition when it
comes to understanding.
Specific abbreviations employed throughout the references are properly explained here.
Before a date, the prefix c. means circa or “approximately”; a. means ante or “before”; p.
means post or “after”; i. means inter or “between” (“in the interval”); fl. anywhere means
floruit or “the time of blossoming”; while q.v. means quod vide—the command for “take a
look at” (lit. “which see”)—or, in our case, “complete information under the author and
year referred to”.
Annotations are made throughout the references as seems useful.
Beyond these points, the references follow the standard techniques of existing style sheets,
notably that of being arranged alphabetically by author.
290
 REFERENCES 291

AARON, Richard I.
1937. John Locke (London: Oxford University Press).
ABELARD, Peter.
i.l 118-1137. Dialectica, first complete edition of the Parisian manuscript, ed. L. M. De Rijk (2nd,
revised ed.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1970).
a. 1120. Summa Ingredienlibus or Logica Ingredienlibus, in Peter Abelards Philosophische Schrijten, ed. B.
Geyer (Munster: Aschcndorff, 1927).
ABRAHAMS, R. D., and R. BAUMAN.
1971. “Sense and Nonsense in St. Vincent”, American Anthropologist 73, 762-772.
ADLER, Mortimer J.
1967. The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston),
esp. p. 320 n. 8, p. 327 n. 10, p. 331 n. 11. In this work, Adler uses “the ideas without
the terminology” of Poinsot, or so he would have it.
1968. “Sense Cognition: Aristotle vs. Aquinas”, The New Scholasticism XLII (Autumn), 578-91.
d’AILLY, Pierre.
c.1372. Concepts and Insolubles, an annotated translation by Paul Vincent Spade (Dordrecht, Holland:
D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1980).
a. 1396. Destructiones Modorum Significandi (secundum viam nominalium), nach Inkunabelausgaben in
einer vorlaufigcn Fassung ncu zusammengestellt und mit Anmcrkungen versehen von
Ludger Kaczmarek (Miinstcr: Munstcraner Arbeitskreis fur Scmiotik, 1980).
ALBERTUS MAGNUS. Chronology for this reference is based on Wcishcipl 1980, 1980a.
c. 1250-1252. Elhica libri X per modum commenti, in the Cologne edition of the Opera Omnia, Vol. 16,
Part 1 (Miinstcr: Aschcndorff, 1968-1972).
c. 1250-1264. Liber Primus el Liber Secundus Priorum Analyticorum, in the Opera Omnia AlbertiMagni, ed.
Auguste Borgnet, vol. 2 (Paris: Vives, 1890), 459-809.
i. 1254-1257. De Anima, Vol. VII, pt. 1 of Opera Omnia, ed. Clemens Stroick (Munster: Aschendorff,
1968).
c. 1264-1270. Libri Topicorum, in the Opera Omnia, ed. Auguste Borgnet, Vol. 2 (Paris: Vives, 1890),
233-524.
ALPERSON, Burton L.
1975. “In search of Buber’s ghost: A calculus for interpersonal phenomenology”. Behavioral Science
20, 179-190.
ALTHUSSER, Louis.
1966. Pour Marx (Paris: F. Maspcro). The English trans. by Ben Brewster, For Marx (New York.
Random House, 1970), was used.
AMMONIUS HERMEIOU.
c.400. Ammonius in Aristolelis de Interpretation commenlarius, Vol. V of Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca,
ed. Adolfus Bussc (Berlin: G. Rcimer, 1897).
ANDERSON, Myrdene, John DEELY, Martin KRAMPEN, Joseph RANSDELL, Thomas A.
SEBEOK, and Thure von UEXKULL.
1984. “A Semiotic Perspective on the Sciences: Steps toward a New Paradigm”, Semiotica 52.1/2,
7-47.
APOLLONIUS DYSCOLUS.
i. 100-200. Apollonii Dyscoli quae supersunt, II, in Grammatici Graeci, vol. II, iii, rec. Richard Schneider
and Gustav Uhlig (Leipzig: Teubner, 1910).
AQUINAS, Thomas.
1256. Quodlibelum VII. Quaesitum est de quibusdam pertinentibus ad substantias spirituales, ad sacramen-
tum altaris, ad corpora damnatorum, in Quaestiones Quodlibetales, cura et studio Raymundi Spiazzi
(9th ed.; Turin: Marietti, 1956), 132-156. (Chronology based on Weisheipl 1974: 367).
c. 1266. Summa theologiaeprima pars, ed. P. Carmello cum textu ex recensione leonina (Turin: Marietti,
1952).
c.1266-1272. In Aristolelis Librum de Anima Commentarium, ed. A. M. Pirotta (3rd ed.; Turin: Mariet­
ti, 1948).
c. 1269. In decern libros ethicorum Aristolelis ad Nicomachum expositio, cura et studio Raymundi Spiazzi
(Turin: Marietti, 1950).
c. 1269-1272. In libros Politicorum Aristolelis expositio, cura et studio Raymundi P. Spiazzi (Turin: Mariet­
ti, 1951).
c.l269-1272a. In librosposteriorum analyticorum expositio. Cum textu ex recensione leonina cura et studio
R. M. Spiazzi (Turin: Marietti, 1955).
c.1269-1274. Uncompleted commentary (after Book II, lectio 14: see Deely 1982: 188ff. n. 16 and
entry for Cajetan 1496) In Aristolelis libros perihermenias expositio, pp. 5-144 of the Spiazzi
292 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

edition based on the leonine text (1882) of this commentary together with that of St. Thomas
on the Posterior Analytics (Turin: Marietti, 1955). English trans. in Oesterle 1962: 17-137.
1272-1273. Summa theologiae tertia pars el supplemenlum, De Rubeis, Billuart, P. Faucher et aliorum
notis selectis ornata cum textu ex recensione leonina (Turin: Marietti, 1948).
ARDENER, E., ed.
1971. Social Anthropology and Language (London: Tavistock).
ARDENER, E. W.
1970.
“Witchcraft, Economics, and the Continuity of Belief,” in Witchcraft Confessions and Accu­
sations, ed. M. Douglas (ASA 9; London: Tavistock).
1971. “The New Anthropology and Its Critics”, Man n.s. 6, 449-467.
ARISTOTLE. Chronologizing based on Gauthier 1970.
C.353BC. Refuting Sophisms (De Sophislicis Elenchis), trans. W. A. Pickard-Cambridge, in McKeon, ed.
1941: 207-212 (incomplete).
C.335-334BC. Rhelorica, trans. W. Rhys Roberts, in Vol. XI of The Works of Aristotle, ed. W. D. Ross
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924).
c.335-334BCa. Meleorologica, trans. E. W. Webster, in Vol. 3 of The Works of Aristotle, ed. W. D.
Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931).
c.335-334BCb. Nicomachean Ethics, trans. W. D. Ross, in McKeon ed. 1941: 927-1112.
C.330BC. De Interpretation, trans. Boethii, in AristoteUs Lalinus, Vol. II, parts 1-2, ed. L. Minio-Palucllo
(Bruges and Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1965). English trans. by E. M. Edghill, On Inter­
pretation, in McKeon, ed. 1941: 38-61.
c.330BCa. On the Soul, trans. J. A. Smith, in McKeon, ed. 1941: 533-603.
c.330BCb. De Memoria et Reminicentia, trans. J. L. Bcare, in McKeon, ed. 1941: 607-617.
ARNAULD, Antoine, and Pierre NICOLE.
1662. La Logique, ou l’Art de Penser (Paris).
ASHBY, Hal, director.
1979. Being There, produced by Andrew Braunsbcrg (film; New York: United Artists). Film based
on Kosinski 1970, q.v.
ASHLEY, Benedict.
1973. “Change and Process”, in The Problem of Evolution, ed. John N. Deely and Raymond J.
Nogar (Indianapolis: Hackett), 265-294.
AUGUSTINE of Hippo.
c.397-426. De doctrina Christiana libri quattuor, in Patrologiae Cursus Completus, ed. J. P. Migne, Senes
Latina (P.L.), Vol. 34, cols. 15-122. The edition Benedictine of 1949 (Paris: Desclee), in Oeuvres
de Saint Augustin, Vol. 11, was also consulted, as was the edition recensuit et praefatus est
Guilelmus M. Green, Vol. LXXX of Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, editum con-
silio et impensis Academiac Scientiarum Austriacae (Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tcmpsky,
1963). Page references in Eco are to the English trans. by D. W. Robertson, On Christian
Doctrine (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977).
AUSTIN, J. L.
1961. Philosophical Papers (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
1962. How to Do Things With Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
BACHELARD, Gaston.
1938. La formation de l’esprit scientifique: contribution a une psychanalyse de la connaissance objective (Paris:
J. Vrin).
BACHI, Riccardo.
1936. “Scmiologia”, entry in Vol. 31 of Enciclopedia Ilaliana diScienze, Lettere edArti (Rome: Istituto
della Enciclopedia Italiana), 348-349.
BACON, Francis.
1620. Novum Organum, ed. Thomas Fowler (Oxford, 1889); English trans. ed. by Fulton H. Ander­
son, The New Organon (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960).
1623. De Dignitate el Augmentis Scientiarum, the first part of a planned work of which the above
1620 work formed the second part.
BACON, Roger.
c.1250. Sumule Dialeclices, in Opera hactenus R. Baconi, fasc. XV, ed. R. Steele (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1937), 191-371.
1267. DeSignis, in K. M. Fredborg, L. Nielsen, and Jan Pinborg, “An Unedited Part of Roger
Bacon’s ‘Opus Maius’: ‘De signis’”, Traditio 34 (1978), 75-136.
BAER, Eugen.
1985. “The Unconscious Icon: Topology and Tropology”, in Iconicity: Essays on the Nature of
Culture (Festschrift for Thomas A. Sebeok), ed. Paul Bouissac, Michael Herzfeld, and Roland
Posner (Tubingen: Stauffenburg, in press).
 REFERENCES 293

1983. Medical Semiotics: The State of the Art (forthcoming). This remarkable manuscript has recently
been contracted as a volume in the University Press of America Sources in Semiotics scries,
to appear updated and revised according to the SSA Proceedings “Style Sheet” in late 1986.
BALLARD, Carroll, director.
1979. The Black Stallion, produced by Fred Roos and Tom Sternberg (film; New York: United
Artists).
BAMBROUGH, Rcnford.
1961. “Universals and Family Resemblances”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 61, 207-222.
BARTHES, Roland.
1953. Le degre zero de Tecrilure (Paris: Editions du Seuil). English trans. by Annette Lavers and
Colin Smith, Writing Degree Zero (New York: Hill and Wang, 1968).
1957. Mythologies (Paris: Editions du Seuil). Incomplete English trans. by Annette Lavers,
Mythologies (New York: Hill and Wang, 1972).
1964. Elements de semiologie, in Communications, no. 4 (Paris: Seuil), 91-135, trans. by Annette
Lavers and Colin Smith as Elements of Semiology (London: Jonathan Cape, 1967; American
edition with pagination unchanged, New York: Hill and Wang, 1968). References in Scbcok
arc to the French ed.; references in Mcrrcll and Lanigan are to the English trans.
1966. “Introduction a 1’analysc structural dcs ecrits”, Communications 8 (1966), 1-27.
1972. “Semiologie ct mcdecinc”, in Les sciences de lafolie, ed. Roger BastideJParis: Mouton), 37-46.
1977. Lefon (Paris: Editions du Seuil). Trans, as “Lecture in inauguration of the chair of literary
semiology, College de France”, October 8 (1979), 3-16. Also trans. as “Inaugural Lec­
ture, College de France”, in A Barthes Reader, ed. Susan Sontag (New York: Hill and Wang,
1982), 457-458.
BATESON, Gregory.
1972. “Style, Grace, and Information in Primitive Art”, in Steps to an Ecology ofMind (New York:
Ballantine Books), 128-152.
BEAL, Edward.
1896. Cardinal Rules of Legal Interpretation (London: Stevens and Songs).
BENSE, Max.
1967. Semiotik: Allgemeine Theorie der Zeichen (Baden-Baden: Agis).
BENVENISTE, Emile.
1952. “Animal Communication and Human Language: The Language of the Bees”, Diogenes
1, 1-7.
1966. “La nature du signe linguistique”, in Problemes de linguistiquegenerale (Paris: Gallimard),
49-55.
1969. “Semiologie de la langue”, Semiotica 1, 1-12; 127-135.
BERGER, Arthur Asa.
1982. Media Analysis Techniques (Beverly Hills/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications), particularl
Part I.I., “SemiologicaJ Analysis”, 14-43.
BERGSON, Henri.
1932. Les Deux Sources de la Morale et de la Religion, 7th ed. (Paris: Alcan). English trans. by R.
A. Audra and C. Brereton, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (New York: Henry
Holt, 1935).
BERKELEY, George.
1710. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, complete and unabridged text in
The English Philosophersfrom Bacon to Mill, ed. E. A. Burtt (New York: The Modem Library,
1939), 509-579.
1732. Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher, Volume III of The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne,
ed. T. E. Jessop (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1950).
BEROLZHEIMER, Fritz.
1904-1907. System der Rechls-und Wirtschaftsphilosophie (Munich: Beck). The English translation by
R. S. Jastrow, The World's Legal Philosophies (Boston: The Boston Book Company, 1912),
was used.
BERTALANFFY, Ludwig von.
1967. Robots, Men and Minds (New York: George Braziller).
Bloomfield, Leonard.
1939. Linguistic Aspects of Speech (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
BOCHENSKI, I. M.
1954. Die Zeitgenbssischen Denkmethoden (Bern, Switzerland: Francke Verlag), trans. by Peter Caws
as The Methods of Contemporary Thought (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co.,
1965; reprinted New York: Harper Torchbook, 1968). Page references are to the Harper
reprint.
294 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

1970.
A History of Formal Logic, translated and edited “with the author’s full concurrence” by
Ivo Thomas from Formale Logik (Freiburg: Verlag Karl Alber, 1956) (2nd ed., with cor­
rections; New York: Chelsea Publishing Company).
BOEHNER, Philotheus.
1957. “Introduction” to Ockham. Philosophical Writings, edited and presented in bilingual format
(London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd.), ix-lix.
BOHR, Niels.
1958. Atomfysik og menneskelig erkendelse (Copenhagen: Schultz). The English translation, Atomic
Physics and Human Science (New York: John Wiley, 1958), was used.
BOISACQ, Emile.
1916. Dictionnaire ethymologique de la Langue grecque etudiee dans ses rapports avec les autres longues indo-
europeennes (Heidelberg: Universitatbuchhandlung).
BOOLE, George.
1847. The Mathematical analysis ojLogic, being an essay toward a calculus ojdeductive reasoning (Lon­
don: Cambridge).
BOS, Egbert P.
1983. “Introduction” to Marsilius of Inghen, Treatises on the Properties of Terms (Dordrecht: D.
Reidel), 3-48.
BOSSEREL, J. B.
1615. Synopses in quibus doctrina dialectica R.1 P.1 Petri Fonseca ad Ordinem Aristotehcum revocalur, Anno
Domini 1615 (University of Graz MS 133; reprinted in Ferreira Gomes 1964, II, 779-861).
BOUCHE-LECLERQ, Auguste.
1879-1882. Histoire de la divination dans Tantiquite, in 4 vols. (Paris: Leroux).
BOUISSAC, Paul.
1977. “Semiotics and Spectacles”, in A Perfusion of Signs, ed. T. A. Sebcok (Bloomington: In­
diana University Press).
BREAL, Michael.
1900. Semantics. Studies in the Science of Meaning (New York: Holt).
BRIDGMAN, Percy W.
1950. Reflections of a Physicist (New York: Philosophical Library).
1959. The Way Things Are (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
BRINTON, Crane.
t<
1936. The New History: Twenty-Five Years After", Journal of Social Philosophy I (January),
134-137.
BROCK, Jarrett.
1981. “An Introduction to Peirce’s Theory of Speech Acts,” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce
Society, 17.4 (Fall), 319-326.
BROGLIE, Louis de.
1937. La physique nouvelle el les quanta (Paris: Flammarion). The English trans. by Ralph W.
Niemeyer, The Revolution in Physics: A Non-mathematical Survey of Quanta (New York: The
Noonday Press, 1953) was used.
BRONOWSKI, Jacob.
1955. The Common Sense of Science (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
BROUWER, L. E. J.
1913. “Intuitionism and Formalism”, American Mathematical Society Bulletin 20, 81-96.
1927. Consciousness, Philosophy, and Mathematics. Unpublished MS.
BROWN, Clarence, director.
1944. National Velvet, produced by Pandro S. Berman (film; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer).
BUHLER, Karl.
1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfiinktion der Sprache (Reprint ed.; Stuttgart: Gustav Fisher, 1965).
BURNET, John.
1908. Early Greek Philosophy (2nd ed.; London: A. & C. Black). The French trans. by A. Rey-
mond, L’aurore de la philosophie grecque (Paris: Payot, 1919), was also used.
BURNYEAT, M. F.
1979. “The Virtues of Plato”, New York Review of Books, September 27, 56-60.
BUYSSENS, Eric.
1943. Les langages el le discours: Essai de linguistiquefonclionnelle dans le cadre de la semiologie (Brussels:
J. Lebegue). A revised version is incorporated in Buyssens, La communication el I’arlicula-
lion linguistique (Brussels: Presses Universitaires, 1967).
BYWATER, Ingram, ed.
1877. Heracliti Ephesii reliquae (Oxford: E Typographo Clarendoniano).
 REFERENCES 295

CAHALAN, John C.
1985. Causal Realism. An essay on philosophical method and the foundations of knowledge ( = Sources in
Semiotics, Volume II; Lanham, MD: University Press of America).
CAIRNS, Huntington.
1962. Law and Its Premises (New York: Association of the Bar of the City of New York).
CAJETAN, Thomas dc Vio (“Thomas Gaeta”).
1496. Commentaria in reliquum libri secundi peri hermenias, in Sancti Thomae Aquinalis Opera Omnia,
Leonine cd., Tomus Primus (Rome: 1882, ed. Zigliara), pp. 87-128. English translation
in Oestcrlc 1962: 139-255.
1507. Commentaria in Summam Theologicam. Prima Pars (Rome). Reprinted in the Leonine ed. of
the Sancti Thomae Aquinalis Doctoris Angelici Opera Omnia, vols. 4 and 5 (Rome, 1888-1889).
CAPEK, Milic.
1961. The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics (New York: American Book Company).
CARNAP, Rudolf.
1934. Logische Syntax der Sprache (Vienna), published in English trans. by Amethc Smeaton, with
additions, as The Logical Syntax of Language (London: Routlcdgc & Kcgan Paul, 1937).
1942. Introduction to Semantics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
CARROLL, Ronald C., and Carol A. HOFFMAN.
1980. “Chemical feeding deterrent mobilized in response to insect herbivory and counteradap­
tation by Epilachna tredecimnotata", Science 209 (July 18), 414-416.
CASSIRER, Ernst.
1923-1929. Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, in 3 vols. (Berlin: Bruno Cassirer). English trans. in
3 vols. by Ralph Mannheim, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (New Haven: Yale Univer­
sity Press, 1955-57). Page refs, are to Eng. Vol I.
CATAUDELLA, Quintino, cd.
1958. / frammenti dei Presocratici tradotli (Padua: Cedam).
CAWS, Peter.
1970. “What Is Structuralism?”, in Hayes and Hayes 1970 [q.v.]: 197-215.
CHARBONNIER, Georges.
1961. Enlretiens avec Claude Levi-Strauss (Paris: Plon, Julliard). English trans. by John Weightman
and Doreen Weightman, Conversations with Claude Levi-Strauss (London: Jonathan Cape,
1969).
COHEN, Jonathan.
1975. Spoken and Unspoken Meanings (Lisse, Netherlands: Peter de Riddcr Press).
COHEN, Morris R., and NAGEL, Ernest.
1934. An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World).
COLLINGWOOD, R. G.
1936-1940. The Idea of History, posthumous publication (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946).
1939. An Autobiography (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
COMAS DEL BRUGAR, Miguel (“Michael Comas”).
1661. Quaesliones minoris dialecticae (Barcelona: Antonius Lacavallcria). Available in Lilly Library,
Indiana University, Bloomington; on microfilm at Loras College Library, Dubuque, IA.
COMPAGNON, Andre.
1979. La Seconde Main (Paris: Seuil).
CONIMBRICENSES.
1607. “De Signis”, being Chap. 1 of their commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretation, in Com-
mentarii Collegii Conimbricensis et Socielatis Jesu. In Universam Dialecticam Arislolelis Stagiritae.
Secunda Pars (Lyons: Sumptibus Horatii Cardon), 4-67.
CONKIN, Paul K., and Roland N. STROMBERG.
1971. The Heritage and Challenge of History (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co).
COPI, Irving M.
1982. Introduction to Logic (6th ed.; New York: Macmillan).
COSERIU, Eugenio.
1969. Die Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Etne Ubersicht (Teil I: Von
der Antike bis Leibniz), autorisierte Nachschrift besorgt von Gunter Narr und Rudolf Win-
disch (Stuttgart: Polyfoto).
COUNT, Earl W.
1969. “Animal Communication in Man-Science”, in Approaches to Animal Communication, ed.
Thomas A. Scbeok and Alexandra Ramsay (The Hague: Mouton), 71-130.
CREUZER, G. F.
1810-1812. Symbolik und Mythologie der alien Volker (Leipzig and Darmstadt: Lcske).
296 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

CRICK, M.
1976. Explorations in Language and Meaning (New York: John Wiley).
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, Mihaly, and Eugene ROCHBERG-HALTON.
1978. “Reflections on materialism: People and Things”, University of Chicago Magazine 70.3, 7-15.
CULLER, Jonathan.
1973. “The Linguistic Base of Structuralism”, in Structuralism: An Introduction, cd. David Robey
(Oxford: Clarendon Press), 20-36.
1976. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press).
DALBIEZ, Roland.
1936. La methode psychoanalytique et la doctrinefreudienne (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer). English trans.
by T. F. Lindsay, Psychoanalytical Method and the Doctrine of Freud, in 2 vols. (London:
Longmans, Green and Co., 1941).
DALGARNO, George.
1661. Ars signorum, vulgo character universalis et lingua philosophica, etc. (London: ExcudebatJ. Hayes,
sumptibus Authoris).
DANTE ALIGHIERI.
i.1312-1317. Epislula XIII, Latin with Italian trans. in Opere minori, cd. Alberto del Monte (2nd ed.;
Milan: Rizzoli Editore, 1966), 793-816.
DARWIN, Charles.
1872. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (London: John Murray).
DE LUBAC, Henri.
1959. Exegese Medievale, Les Quatre Sens de I’Ecriture, Part 1 (Paris: Aubicr).
1962. Exegese Medievale, Les Quatre Sens de I’Ecriture, Part 2 (Paris: Aubicr).
DE MORGAN, Augustus.
1847. Formal Logic, or the calculus of inference, necessary and probable (London).
DE RUGGIERO, Guido.
1967. La jilosojia greca, Vol. I of Sloria della filosofia (Bari: Laterza).
DEELY, John N.
1971. The Tradition Via Heidegger (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff).
1971a. “The Myth as Integral Objectivity”, ACPA Proceedings XLV, 67-76.
1972. “The Ontological Status of Intcntionality”, The New Scholasticism XLVI, 220-233.
1972a. How Language Refers”, Studi Internazionali di Filosofia 4, 41-50.
<i

1974. "The Two Approaches to Language. Philosophical and Historical Reflections on the Point
of Departure of Jean Poinsot’s Semiotic”, The Thomist XXXVII.4 (October), 856-907.
1975. “Modern Logic, Animal Psychology, and Human Discourse”, Revue de TUniversite d’Ot­
tawa 45.1 (janvier-mars), 80-100.
1975a. “Reference to the Non-Existent”, The Thomist XXXIX.2 (April), 253-308.
1976. “The Doctrine of Signs: Taking Form at Last”, Semiotica 18.2, 171-193. (Essay review
of Eco 1976.)
1977. ‘Semiotic’ as the Doctrine of Signs”, Ars Semeiotica 1.3, 41-68.
1978. “What’s in a Name?”, Semiotica 22.1-2, 151-181 (essay review of Scbeok 1976).
1978a. “Toward the Origin of Semiotic”, in Sight, Sound, and Sense, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok (Bloom­
ington: Indiana University Press), 1-30. This work erroneously conjectured (p. 7) that
“the explicit thematization and appellation of the division of signs into formal and in­
strumental may well have been original with Poinsot.” Romeo (1979), working from Her-
culano de Carvalho 1970 (q.v,), shows that while Poinsot’s thematization in Book II,
Question 2, of the Treatise was indeed original, the appellation of this contrast was already
in use with Petrus Fonsecus’ Institutionum dialecticarum libri octo (1564), a work with which
Poinsot was certainly familiar. See Romeo 1979: 194-195, for a translation of Fonseca’s
summary remarks “about formal and instrumental signs”. Further in Doyle 1984.
1978b. “Semiotic and the Controversy over Mental Events”, ACPA Proceedings LII, 16-27.
1980. “The Nonverbal Inlay in Linguistic Communication”, in The Signifying Animal, ed.
Irmengard Rauch and Gerald F. Carr (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 201-217.
1980a. “Antecedents to Peirce’s Notion of Iconic Signs”, in Semiotics 1980 (Proceedings of the
Semiotic Society of America), ed. Margot Lenhart and Michael Herzfeld (New York:
Plenum), 109-120.
1981. “Cognition from a Semiotic Point of View”, in Semiotics 1981, ed. John N. Dcely and
Margot D. Lenhart (New York: Plenum, 1983), 21-28.
1982. Introducing Semiotic. Its History and Doctrine (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
1983. “Neglected Figures in the History of Semiotic Inquiry: John Poinsot”, in Eschbach and
Trabant 1983: 115-126.
 REFERENCES 297

1985. “Editorial Afterword” (EA, 391-415), Semiotic Markers, notes, and indices to Poinsot
1632a (q.v.), including an exhaustive discussion of the “nationality” and proper name
of this author.
1985a. Logic as a Liberal Art (Queen’s University: Toronto Semiotic Circle Monograph, Volume
2, 1985). Extensive discussion of Umwelt, Inncnwelt, and related notions.
1985b. “Semiotic and the Liberal Arts”, The New Scholasticism LIX.3 (Summer), 296-322.
DELBRUCK, Max, J. DEGENKOLBE, and K. H. LESTER.
1977. “Discussion to IV. light and dark adaptation of the photoreceptor cell”, Biophysics of Structure
and Mechanism 3:181-182.
DELBRUCK, Max. A. KATZIR, and David PRESTI.
1976. “Responses of Phycomyces indicating optical excitation of the lowest triplet state of
riboflavin”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (Washington), 78 (1969-1973).
DERRIDA, Jacques.
1967. De la grammatologie (Paris: Editions de Minuit). References in Romeo are to this edition;
references in Baer are to the English translation by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Of Gram-
matology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976).
1967a. L ’Ecriture et la Differance (Paris: Editions du Seuil). Page references arc to the English trans.
by Alan Bass, Writing and Difference (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978).
1970. “La Structure, le signe et 1c jcu dans le discours des sciences humaines”, ms. trans. as
“Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”, in The Languages
of Criticism and the Sciences of Man, cd. Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato (Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press), 247-265.
1977. “Limited Inc abc . . .”, trans. Samuel Weber, Glyph 2 (Johns Hopkins Textual Studies),
162-254.
DESCARTES, Rene.
1637. “Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking for Truth in
the Sciences”, trans. Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. Gross, in The Philosophical Works
of Descartes (corrected reprint edition; New York: Dover, 1955), I, 79-130.
1641. Meditations on First Philosophy, trans. Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. Gross, in The
Philosophical Works of Descartes (corrected reprint edition; New York: Dover, 1955), I, 131-199.
1648. Letter to Picot in Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery (Paris:
1897-1910), Vol. IX, 1-20.
DIELS, Hermann, cd.
1903. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. The 1975 ed. of this work by Walthcr Kranz (Zurich: Wcid-
mann) was used.
DIETZE, Gottfried.
1964. “The Limited Rationality of Law”, in Rational Decision, ed. W. Friedrich (New York
Atherton Press), 63-88.
DOBZHANSKY, Theodosius.
1962. Mankind Evolving (New Haven: Yale University Press).
DODDS, John H., and Michael A. HALL.
1980. “Plant hormone receptors”, Scientific Progress, Oxford 66, 513-535.
DOYLE, Arthur Conan.
1892. “The Adventure of Silver Blaze”, The Strand Magazine, 4 (December), 645-660.
DOYLE, John P.
1983. “Suarez on Truth and Mind-Dependent Beings: Implication for a Unified Semiotic”,
in Semiotics 1983 (Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of
America), ed. John N. Dccly and Jonathan Evans, with assistance from Margot D. Lcnhart
(in preparation).
1984. “The Conimbricenses on the Relations Involved in Signs”, in Semiotics 1984, ed. John N.
Deely (Washington: University Press of America), 567-576. Breakthrough presentation
of research into Poinsot’s immediate semiotic predecessors.
DRYSCH, K.
1980. “Tagesverlauf der Kohlendioxidkonzcntration im Expcrimentalgcwachshaus” (LOGID/
Schcmpp). Working paper (mimeographed), Institut fur Arbcits- und Sozialmcdizin,
Universitat Tubingen.
DU BOULAY, J.
1974. Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village (Oxford).
DUBOIS, Jean.
1969. Estructuralismo y lingufstica”, trans. Antonio G. Valientc, in Eslructuralismoy marxismo
(Barcelona: Ediciones Martinez Roca), 46-60.
 298 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

DUMITRIU, Anton.
1977. A History of Logic, being a revised, updated and enlarged 4-vol. ed. of the 1-vol. Rouman­
ian work Istoria Logica (Bucharest: Editura Didactica, 1975), trans. Duiliu Zamfirescu,
Dinu Giurcaneanu, and Doina Doneaud (Tumbridgc Wells, Kent, England: Abacus Press):
Vol. I. Logic in Non-European Cultures. Logic in Ancient Greece. Rhetors and Com­
mentators.
Vol. II. Scholastic Logic. Renaissance Logic.
Vol. III. Methodological Logic. Development of Modem Logic.
Vol. IV. Mathematical Logic.
DUMMETT, Michael.
1967. Frege, Gottlob”, in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: The
Free Press), Vol. 3, 225-237.
ECO, Umberto.
1968. La strutlura assente: Introduzione alia ricerca semiologica (Milan: Bompiani). German version,
Einfuhrung in die Semiotik (Munich: Fink, 1972). Cf. Paolo Valcsio’s 1971 review article,
I “Toward a Study of the Nature of Signs”, Semiolica 3, 155-85.
1975. Trallato di semiolica generale (2nd ed.; Milan: Bompiani).
i
1976. A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press). Reviewed in Dccly 1976.
1979. The Role of the Reader (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
1980. “Current Issues in Semiotic Theory”, lecture course given at the first International Summer
Institute for Semiotic and Structural Studies (ISISSS ’80; Toronto, June 2-27).
1980a. II nome della rosa (Milan: Bompiani). Page references arc to the English trans. by William
Weaver, The Name of the Rose (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983).
1984. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
! 1985. “Latratus Canis”, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 47.1 (March), 3-14.
! ECO, Umberto, Roberto LAMBERTINI, Costantino MARMO, and Andrea TABARRONI.
1984. “On Animal Language in the Medieval Classification of Signs”, Versus 38/39 (maggio-
dicembre), 3-38.
ECO, Umberto, and Thomas A. SEBEOK, eds.
1983. The Sign of Three. Dupin, Holmes, Peirce (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
EDDINGTON, Arthur.
1958. The Philosophy of Physical Science (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press).
EHRENZWEIG, Anton.
1967. The Hidden Order of Art (Berkeley: University of California Press).
EL GUINDI, F., and H. A. SELBY.
1976. “Dialectics in Zapotec Thinking”, in Meaning in Anthropology, ed. K. Basso and H. Selby
(Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press).
ESCHBACH, Achim.
1978. “Einleitung” to his trans. of Smart 1831, 1837, 1839 as one (see Deely 1982: 215, 230).
ESCHBACH, Achim, and Jurgen TRABANT, eds.
1983. History of Semiotics (= Foundations of Semiotics, Vol. 7) (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
FARIS, J. C.
1968. “Validation in Ethnographical Description”, Man n.s. 3. 112-124.
FERGUSON, C. A.
1959. “Diglossia”, Word 15, 325-340.
FERREIRA GOMES, Joaquim.
1964. Introdu?ao, Estabelecimento do Texto, Tradugao e Notas for Fonseca 1564, q.v.
FERRI, S.
1916. “Saggio di classificazione degli oracoli”, Athaeneum IV, 396-415.
FILLMORE, C. J.
1971. “Verbs ofJudging”, in Studies in Linguistic Semantics, ed. C.J. Fillmore and D. T. Langen-
doen (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
FIRTH, Raymond.
1973. Symbols Public and Private (London: Allen & Unwin).
FISCH, Max H.
1942. “Justice Holmes, the Prediction Theory of Law, and Pragmatism ”, Journal of Philosophy
39.12, 85-97.
1964. “Was There a Metaphysical Club in Cambridge?”, in Studies in the Philosophy of Charles
S. Peirce. Second Series, ed. Edward C. Moore and Richard S. Robin (Amherst: Univer­
sity of Massachusetts Press), 3-32.
1980. “Foreword” to “You Know My Method”: A Juxtaposition of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes,
by Thomas A. Sebeok and Jean Umiker-Sebeok (Bloomington: Gaslight Publications), 7-13.
 REFERENCES 299

FISCH, Max H., Kenneth Laine KETNER, and Christian J. W. KLOESEL.

1979. “The New Tools of Peirce Scholarship, With Particular Reference to Semiotic’’, Peirce
Studies 1 (Lubbock: Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism), 1-17.
FISHMAN, Joshua A.
1967. “Bilingualism with and without Diglossia; Diglossia with and without Bilingualism ”, Journal
oj Social Issues 23, 29-38.
FONSECA, Petrus (“Pedro da”).
1564. Institutionum dialecticarum libri octo (Coimbra: Apud haercdes Joannis Blauij). The most im­
portant edition of this work thus far is the bilingual presentation comparable to Poinsot
1632 (q.v.) ofJoaquim Ferreira Gomes, Insliluifoes Dialecticas (Institutionum dialecticarum libn
octo), 2 vols. (Instituto de Estudos Filosoficos da Universidad de Coimbra, 1964). Discus­
sion in Romeo 1979.
FOUCAULT, Michel.
1961. Histoire de la folie a Page classique (Paris: Plon). The English trans. by Richard Howard,
Madness and Civilization (London: Lowe and Brydone Printers, Ltd., 1965), was used.
1963. “Preface a la transgression”, Critique, 19.195-196, 751-769. The English trans. by Donald
F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon, “A Preface to Transgression”, in Michel Foucault,
Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. Donald F. Bouchard
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 29-52, was used.
1966. Les Mots el les choses: une archeologie dies sciences humaines (Paris: Gallimard). The English transla­
tion, The Order oj Things: An Archaeology oj the Human Sciences (New York: Pantheon, 1970),
was used.
1969. L'Archeologie du savoir (Paris: Gallimard). The English trans. by A. M. Shcridan-Smith,
The Archaeology oj Knowledge (New York: Panthcon/Random House, 1972), was used.
1971.' L ’Ordre du discours (Paris: Gallimard). English translation by Rupert Swycr, “The Discourse
on Language”, Social Science Injormation, April 1971, 7-30. Page references are to the reprint
of this translation in Michel Foucault, The Archaeology oj Knowledge (New York: Pan­
theon/Random House, 1972), 215-237.
FRANK, Jerome.
1930. Law and the Modern Mind (New York: Doubleday).
FRASER, Alexander Campbell.
1894. “Prolegomena”, Notes, and Critical Apparatus to new edition of John Locke, An Essay
concerning Human Understanding (Oxford).
FREEMAN, Kathleen.
1946. The Pre-Socratics: A Companion to Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Oxford: Blackwell).
1948. Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers (Oxford: Blackwell).
FREGE, Gottlob.
1879. Begrijjsschrijt, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens (Halle).
FREUD, Sigmund.
1900. Die Traumdeutung (Leipzig and Vienna: Franz Deuticke). The English translation under
the general editorship of James Strachcy, The Interpretation oj Dreams, in Vols. 4-5 of The
Standard Edition oj the Complete Psychological Works oj Sigmund Freud (London: Hogarth Press,
1953), Vol. 4, 1-338; Vol. 5, 339-627, was used.
1905. Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewusslen (Leipzig and Wien: Deuticke). The English
trans. under the general editorship of James Strachey, Jokes and their Relation to the Un­
conscious, Vol. 8 of The Standard Edition oj the Complete Psychological Works oj Sigmund Freud
(London: Hogarth Press, 1960), was used.
1920. Jenseits des Lust-Prinzips (Leipzig: Intemationaler Psychoanalytischer Vcrlag). The English
translation under the general editorship of James Strachey, Beyond the Pleasure Principle,
in Volume 18 of The Standard Edition oj the Complete Psychological Works oj Sigmund Freud (Lon­
don: Hogarth Press, 1955), 7-134, was used.
1937. “Die cndliche und die unendliche Analyse”, InternationaleZeitschrijtjur Psychoanalyse 23.2,
209-40. The English translation under the general editorship of James Strachey, “Analyses
Terminable and Interminable”, in Volume 23 of The Standard Edition oj the Complete
Psychological Works oj Sigmund Freud {(London: Hogarth Press, 1953-74), 216-253, was used.
FRIEDL, E.
1962. Vasilika: A Village in Modern Greece (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence.
1975. The Legal System (New York: Russell Sage).
FRISCH, Karl von.
1950. Bees, Their Vision, Chemical Senses, and Language (Ithaca: Cornell University Press)'
300 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

FUTUYMA, D. J.
1979. Evolutionary Biology (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Association).
GALENUS, Claudius.
c. 150-200. Claudii Galeni Opera omnia, in 22 vols., ed. Carolus Gottlob Kuhn (Leipzig: Cnobloch,
1821-1833). Semiotics is discussed, in this standard edition, in Vol. XIV: 689ff., 693,
and in Vol. XVIII [B]: 633. Though not complete, this edition is bilingual (Greek and
Latin), and is available in a recent reprint (Hildesheim: Olms, 1965). The Venice edition
(Per Philipum de Cancto Impressa, 1490) is referred to by Romeo. For bibliographical
details concerning Galen’s writings, see Sarton 1954: Ch. IV.
GALLIE, W. B.
1964. Philosophy and the Historical Understanding (New York: Schocken Books).
GANDELSONAS, Mario, el al.
1970. Semiologia arquitcctonica”, Summa 32, 69-82.
GARDIN, Jean-Claude, Paul BOUISSAC, and Kenneth E. FOOTE.
1984, June 15, October 10. “A Program for Semiotics”, position paper circulated among the
participants of the fifth International Summer Institute for Semiotic and Structural Studies
(ISISSS 84) for signatures (none were obtained), and re-presented polemically by Paul
Bouissac at an afternoon session of the Research Conference ‘‘Semiotics: Field or
Discipline?” held at the Bloomington campus of Indiana University, October 8-10.
GARVIN, Paul.
1954. Review of Louis Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, Language 30, 69-96.
GAUTHIER, Rene Antoine.
1970. ‘‘Introduction” to L’Ethique a Nicomaque, traduction el commentaire, par R. A. Gauthier ct
Jean YvesJolif (12th ed., avec une introduction nouvelle; Paris: Beatrice-Nauwelaerts),
Tome I, premiere partie.
GEACH, Peter.
1968. Reference and Generality. An Examination of Some Medieval and Modem Theories (emended edi­
tion; Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
1972. “History of the corruptions of logic”, in Logic Matters (Berkeley: University of California
Press), 44-61.
GENY, Francois.
1889. Methods d’interpretation et sources en droit prive positif (Paris: A. Chevalier-Marescq).
GILBERT OF STANFORD.
a. 1153. In Canticum Canticorum. Source: Studia Anselmiana, Fasciculus XX, edited by Jean Leclerq,
O.S.B., entitled Analecta Monastica, Premiere SerieV III (1948), 240 pp. Leclerq subsequent­
ly published eight volumes of Analecta Monastica for Studia Anselmiana (Rome: Pontificium
Institutum S. Anselmi).
This Fascicle XX contains ten selections of which the In Canticum Canticorum attributed
to Gilbert of Stanford is contained in Chapter 10. Leclerq quotes only a text from the
Preface, pp. 225-229, and a text from Book V, pp. 229-230. Eco quotes from p. 225. Leclerq
gives his own interpretation of these selections at the beginning of Chapter 10, pp. 205-224,
suggesting that Gilbert of Stanford never existed, that the text is by an anonymous author—
“e’est le fruit d’un milieu autant que le travail d’un homme” (Leclerq 1948: 209):
“Rctenons done le nom de Gilbert de Stanford, mais continuons a le considerer comme
anonyme, puisque, nous ne savons pas quel personnage recouvre cette designation” (ibid.:
212).
De Lubac 1962: 48 says that Gilbert of Stanford quotes some sentences of St. Bernard
as “sicut ait quidam sapiens”. St. Bernard died in 1153. Hence our dating of the text
as “ante 1153”. De Lubac treats Gilbert of Stanford prior to treating “l’Age Scholas-
tique” in Chapter IX, pp. 263-344. Now the Scholastic theology is thought to begin with
Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109). Hence we could place “Gilbert of Stanford’s” text in
the very early scholastic age, but still during the life of St. Bernard.
GILSON, Etienne.
1937. The Unity of Philosophical Experience (New York: Scribner’s).
1952. La Philosophic au Moyen Age. Des Origines Patristiques a la Fin du XIVe Siecle (2nd ed., rev.
et aug.; Paris: Payot).
1955. History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random House).
GODEL, Robert.
1957. Les sources manuscripts du Cours de linguistique generale de F. de Saussure (Geneva: Droz).
GOETHE, Johann Wolfgang von.
1797. “Uber die Gegenstande der bildenden Kunst”, in Vol. 31 of Samtliche Werke (Stuttgart
and Berlin: Cotta, 1902-12).
 REFERENCES 301
!
1809-1832. “Maximen und Reflexionen”, in Vol. 12 of Goethes Werke (Hamburg: Christian Wegner, ?
1953), 365-547.
GOLDSTEIN, LeonJ.
1976. Historical Knowing (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press).
GOLOPENTIA-ERETESCU, Sanda.
1971. “Explorari semioticc”, Studii (si cercetari linguistice 22, 283-91.
1977. “Contribution a la Doctrine des Scmiotiqucs”, Revue Roumainede Linguistique XXII, Cahiers
de Linguistique Theorique et Appliquee XIV.2 (juillct-dcccmbrc 1977), 117-130.
GOODY, E. N.
1978. Questions and Politeness (Cambridge).
GOODY, Jack.
1977. The Domestication oj the Savage Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
GOULD, Stephen J., and Elisabeth S. VRBA.
1982. Exaptation—A missing term in the science of form”, Paleobiology 8.1 (Winter), 4-15.
GOUX, Jacques.
1973. Freud, Marx: Economic et symbolique (Paris: Scuil).
GREENLEE, Douglas.
1973. Peirce’s Concept of Sign (The Hague: Mouton).
GREIMAS. A. 1.
1970. “Scmantique, semiotique et scmiologics”, in Sign, Language, Culture, cd. C. H. van
Schooncveld (The Hague: Mouton), 13-27.
GRICE, H. P.
1957. “Meaning”, Philosophical Review 66, 377-88. References in Eco are to this version; references
in Short arc to the reprint in Philosophical Logic, cd. P. F. Strawson (Oxford: Oxford Univer­
sity Press, 1967), 39-48. I
1968. “Uttcrer’s Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and Word-Meaning,4 Foundations of Language A,
1-18. References in Eco are to this version; references in Short are to the reprint in The
Philosophy of Language, cd. John Scarlc (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 54-70.
1975. “Logic and Conversation”, in Speech Acts, Vol. 3 of Syntax and Semantics, cd. Peter Cole
and Jerry L. Morgan (New York: Academic Press), 41-58.
GUIRAUD, Pierre.
1971. La semiologie (Paris: Presses Universitaircs de France). [English version—Semiology (Lon­
don and Boston: Routledge & Kcgan Paul, 1975).]
GUTHRIE, W. K. C.
1971. ‘Rhetoric and Philosophy”, in The Sophists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press'
176-225.
HABERLAND, G.
1902. “Culturversuchc mit isolierten Pflanzcnzellcn”, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, (Wien): Math. Nat. Classe 111, 69-92.
HAIDU, Peter.
1982. Semiotics and History”, Semiotica 40.3-4, 187-228.
HALVERSON, William H.
1976. A Concise Introduction to Philosophy (3rd cd.; New York: Random House).
HAMILTON, A. Me.
1878. Nervous Diseases: Their Description and Treatment (Philadelphia: Henry C. Lee).
HAMILTON, Edith, and Huntington CAIRNS, eds.
1961. The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters (New York: Pantheon).
Hardwick, Charles s., ed.
1977. Semiotic and Signifies: The Correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby (Bloom­
ington: Indiana University Press).
HARRISON, John, and Peter LASLETT.
1965. The Library of John Locke (London: Oxford University Press).
HASENMUELLER, Christine.
1984, October 9. “A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: How We Talk About Iconic Signs”,
presentation in the Research Conference “Semiotics: Field or Discipline?” at the Bloom­
i
ington campus of Indiana University, October 8-10.
HAVELOCK, Christine.
1978. “Art as Communication in Ancient Greece”, in Communication Arts in the Ancient World,
ed. Eric Havelock and Jackson Hershbell (New York: Hastings House), 95-118.
HAWKES, Terence.
1977. Structuralism and Semiotics (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
302 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

HAYES, E. Nelson, and Tanya HAYES, eds.

1970. Claude Levi-Strauss: The Anthropologist as Hero (Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press).
HEGEL, G. W, F.
1817-1829. Asthetik (Berlin: Aufbau, 1955). Page references arc to the English trans. by F. P. B.
Osmaston, The Philosophy oj Fine Arts (London: Bell, 1920).
HEIDEGGER, Martin.
1927. Sein und Zeit, originally published in the Jahrbuch for Phanomenologie und phdnomenologische
Forschung, ed. Edmund Husserl. Page references are to the 10th edition (Tubingen:
Niemeyer, 1963).
1929. Vom Wesen des Grundes (Frankfurt: Klostermann).
1947. Platons Lehre von der Wahrheit, mil einem BrieJ iber den Humanismus (Bern: Francke).
1957. Idenlilat und Dijjerenz (Pfullingen: Neske).
1968. Zur Sache des Denkens, in L’Endurance de la pensee (Paris: Plon). The English translation by
Joan Stambaugh, On Time and Being (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), was used.
HEISENBERG, Werner.
1959. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science (London: George Allen & Unwin).
1967. Das Naturgesetz und die Struktur der Materie (Stuttgart: Belscr). References are to the English
trans. by Werner Heisenberg, Natural Law and the Structure ojMatter (London: Rebel Press,
1970).
HEMPEL, Carl.
1942. “One Function of General Laws in History”, Journal oj Philosophy 39 (January), 35-47
(reprinted in Patrick Gardiner, cd., Theories of History [Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1959],
344-356).
HENDERSON, Lawrence J.
1913. The Fitness of the Environment (Boston: Beacon Press).
HERACLITUS.
C.500BC. Fragments, in Vol. I of Diels 1903 (q.v.).
HERCULANO DE CARVALHO, Jose G.
1969. “Segno e significazionc in Joao de Sao Tomas”, in Estudos Linguistics, Vol. 2
(Coimbra: Atlantida Editora). Pp. 129-153 arc exposition; 154-168 reproduce selected
passages of Latin text. This careful essay, a most important piece of work on Poinsot’s
semiotic, stands along with the essay of Maritain (1938, 1941) as a firsthand presentation
of Poinsot’s views on the subject of signs. It is excerpted from Hcrculano de Carvalho
1970, q.v.
1970. Teoria da linguagem. Natureza do fenomeno linguistic e a andlise das linguas (reprint with addi­
tions of 1967 work of same title, and now as “Tomo I” with a second volume of the same
name published in 1973; Coimbra: Atlantida).
HERMES, Hans.
1938. Semiolik: eine Theorie der Zeichengestalten als Grundlage for Untersuchungen von formalisierten Sprache.
Forschungen zur Logik und zur Grundlegung der Exakten Wissenschaften 5 (Leipzig: Hirzcl).
HERSCHEL, Sir John.
1831. A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy (London: Longman, Rees, Orme,
Brown and Green).
HERZFELD, Michael.
1971. “Cost and Culture”, Kritika Khronika 23, 189-198.
1980. “The Dowry in Greece”, Ethnohistory 27, 225-241.
1982. Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology, and the Making of Modem Greece (Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press).
1984, October 8. “Semiotics: Saying ‘No’ to Narcissus”, Introductory address to the Research
Conference “Semiotics: Field or Discipline?” (Bloomington: Indiana University, October
8-10).
HIKINS, James.
1977. “Discourse, Dialectic and Intrapersonal Rhetoric: A Reinterpretation of Plato’s Rhetorical
Theory”, paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Conference,
Washington, D.C., December 4.
HILBERT, D.
1905. “Uber die Grundlagcn der Logik und der Arithmctik”, Verb. d. 3. Ini. Mathem.-Kongr.
(Leipzig), 174-185.
HILL, Archibald A.
1958. Introduction to Linguistic Structures: From Sound to Sentence in English (New York: Harcourt Brace).
HILL, Archibald A., ed.
1969. Linguistics Today (New York: Basic Books).
 REFERENCES 303

HILLGARTH, Jocelyn Nigel.

1971. Ramon Lull and Lullism in Fourteenth Century France (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
HIPPOCRATES.
C.460-350BC. Hippocrates, with an English trans. by W. H. S. Jones (The Loeb Classical Library), in
4 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1923-1931).
HIRSCHFELD, L. A.
1977. “Art in Cunaland”, Man n.s. 12, 104-123.
HJELMSLEV, Louis.
1943. Omkring sprogleoriensgrundloeggelse (Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard). References in Sebcok
are to the English trans. by Francis J. Whitfield, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (Baltimore:
Waverly, 1953). References in Eco, Lanigan, and Merrell are to the revised trans. by
Francis J. Whitfield under the same title (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961).
1943a. “Langue et parole,” in Cahiers F. de Saussure 2, 29-44. Page references are to the reprint
in Hjelmslev 1970: 69-81.
1948. “Structural Analysis of Language”, Studio linguislica I, 69-78. Page references are to the
reprint in Hjelmslev 1970: 27-35.
1970. Essais linguistiques ( = Travaux de cercle linguistique de Copenhaguc XII) (2nd ed.;
Copenhagen: Nordish Sprogog Kulturforlag).
HOFFMANN, E.
1925. Die Sprache und die archaische Logik (Tubingen: Niemcyer).
HOLENSTEIN, Elmar.
1976. Roman Jakobson’s Approach to Language: Phenomenological Structuralism (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press).
HOMER.
C.700-600BC. "IXiaq, trans. by Robert Fitzgerald as The Iliad (Garden City, New York: Double­
day, 1975).
HUIZINGA, Johan.
1924. The Waning of the Middle Ages (New York: Doubleday & Co.).
HUME, David.
1748. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, complete and unabridged text in The English Philos­
ophersfrom Bacon to Mill, cd. E. A. Bum (New York: The Modem Library, 1939), 585-689.
HUNT, Everett L.
1921. “Dialectic—A Neglected Method of Argument”, Quarterly Journal of Speech 7, 221-232
HUSSERL, Edmund.
1890. “Zur Logic der Zeichen (Semiotik)”, in Philosophic der Arilhmelik, cd. Lothar Eley, Vol.
12 of Gesammelte Werke, ed. H. L. Van Breda (The Hague: Martinus Nijhofi), 340-72.
HYLAND, Drew A.
1973. The Origins of Philosophy, Its Rise in Myth and the Pre-Socralics (New York: Putnam’s).
IAKOVIDHIS, Khristos.
1975. “Introductory Note” in Greek to Neoklassika Spitia Tis Athinas (Neoclassical Houses ofAthens
and Piraeus) (Athens: Dhodhoni).
INNIS, Robert E.
1982. Karl Buhler. Semiotic Foundations of Language Theory (New York: Plenum).
1985. Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology, with Introductions to each reading by the editor (Bloom­
ington: Indiana University Press).
ISENBERG, M. W.
1951. “Plato’s Sophist and the five stages of knowing”, Classical Philology 46, 201-211.
JACKSON, J. H.
1932. “On Affections of Speech from Disease of the Brain”, in Selected Writings ofJohn Hughlings
Jackson (London: Allen Lane).
JAKOBSON, Roman.
1931. “Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie”, Travauxdu Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4, 247-267.
References are to the French trans. by J. Cantineau, “Principcs de phonologie histori-
que”, Appendix I to the French ed. of Trubetskoy 1939 (q.v.J, 315-36.
1936. “Sur la theorie des affinites phonologiques entre les langues”, rapport au Quatrieme
Congres International de Linguistes (Copenhague: aout 1936), in Phonological Studies, Vol.
I of Selected Writings (The Hague: Mouton, 1962), 234-246.
1962. “Concluding Remarks”, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences,
ed. A. Sovijarvi and A. Aalto (The Hague).
1963. “Parts and Wholes in Language”, in Parts and Wholes, ed. Daniel Lerner (New York:
The Free Press), 157-62.
1971. Word and Language, Volume 2 of Selected Writings (The Hague: Mouton).
304 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

JAKOBSON, Roman, and Linda WAUGH.

1979. The Sound Shape oj Language (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
JAMESON, Fredric.
1972. The Prison House oj Language (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
JAZAYERY, Mohammed Ali, Edgar C. POLOME, and Werner WINTER, eds.
1976. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor ojArchibald A. Hill, I: General and Theoretical Linguistics
(Lisse: The Peter dc Ridder Press).
JEANS, James.
1958. The Mysterious Universe (New York: Dutton).
1959. The New Background oj Science (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press).
JENCKS, C., and G. BAIRD.
1969. Meaning in Architecture (London: Barrie & Jenkins).
St. JEROME (“S. Eusebius Hieronymus”).
c.389-392. Liber Hebraicarum Quaestionem in Genesim, in Palrologiae Cursus Completus, cd. J.-P. Mignc,
Series Latina (P.L.), Vol. XXIII (Paris: Gamier, 1883), cols. 985-1062.
c.397. Epislola LXIV (Ad Fabiolam), in Pars I of Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistuli, rcc. Isidorus
Hilberg, in Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, editum consilio ct impensis Acadcmiac
Littcrarum Cacsarcac Vindobcnsis (Vienna: F. Tcmpsky, and Leipzig: G. Frcytag, 1910),
vol. LIV, 586-615; also in Patrologia Cursus Completus, cd. J.-P. Mignc, Series Latina (P.L.),
Vol. XXII (Paris: Gamier, 1877), cols. 607-622.
c.411. Commenlariorum in Ezechielem: Praejatio in librum XIV, in J. P. Mignc, cd., Patrologia Latina,
vol. XXV (Paris, 1845), col. 448.
JEVONS, W. S.
1864. Pure Logic, or the Logic oj Quality apart jrom Quantity (London).
JOHN DAMASCENE.
i.742-749. Dialectica, in Vol. I of Die Schrijten der Johannes von Damaskos, cd. B. K. Kottcr (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1969), 27-147.
JOHN OF SACROBOSCO.
a. 1230. Tractatus de sphaera, trans. Lynn Thorndike in The Sphere ojSacrobosco and Its Commentators
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), 76-142. Edition includes Sacrobosco’s Latin
original with English translation, the commentaries by Robertus Angelicus, that ascribed
to Michael Scot, that of Cecco D’Ascoli, four anonymous commentaries, and the Sphere
of John Peckham. It needs to be understood that Sacrobosco’s work, though derivative
and secondary by comparison with that of Ptolcmacus, was yet the primary source for
most students (as well as many professors) of the arcane knowledge of the spheres and
stars in the mediaeval university world.
JOHNSON, B. C.
1975. More on Diglossia”, Language Sciences 37, 37-38.
JOOS, Martin.
1958. ‘‘Semology: A Linguistic Theory of Meaning”, Studies in Linguistics 13, 53-70.
JOSEPH, H. W. B.
1916. An Introduction to Logic (2nd ed., rev.; Oxford: Clarendon Press).
JOYCE, James.
i. 1904-1906. Stephen Hero. A Part oj the First Draft oj A Portrait oj the Artist as a Young Man, ed. from
the ms. in the Harvard College Library by Theodore Spencer (New York: New Direc­
tions, 1944).
JUNG, Carl Gustav.
1954. Uber die Archetypen des kollektiven Unbcwussten”, in Von den Wurzeln des Bewussleins.
Studien uber den Archelypus (Zurich: Rascher, 1954), 3-56. English trans. by R. F. C. Hull,
“Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious”, in The Archetypes oj the Collective Unconscious,
Vol. 9, Pt. 2 of The Collected Works ojC. G.Jung (2nd ed.; New York: Bollingen, 1968), 3-41.
KACZMAREK, Ludger.
1980. Introduction, critical apparatus, and notes to d’Ailly a. 1396, q.v.
1981. “Modi Significandi and Their Destructions: A 14th Century Controversy about
Methodological Issues in the Science and Theory of Language”, paper read at the Scconde
Conference Internationale d’Histoire des Sciences du Langage (ICHOLS II), Lille,
September 2-5, 1981.
1983. “Significatio in der Zeichen- und Sprachtheorie Ockhams”, in Eschbach and Trabant
1983 (q.v.): 87-104.
KANT, Immanuel.
1781, 1787. Kritik der reinen Vemunjt (Riga). References are to the English trans. by Norman Kemp
Smith, Kant’s Critique oj Pure Reason (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1963), and to Kant’s
 REFERENCES 305

Gesammelte Schriften, issued by the Koniglich Preussischcn Akadcmie der Wissenschaften,

Band III, Kritik der reinen Vemunft, 2nd ed. (1787) (Berlin: Druck und Verlag von Georg
Reimer, 1911).
KENDALL, M. B.
1981. “Towards a Semantic Approach to Terms of Address”, Journal of Language and Commu­
nication 1, 237-254.
KERFERD, George B.
1954. “Plato’s Noble Art of Sophistry”, Classical Quarterly 48, 84-90.
1981. The Sophistic Movement (New York: Cambridge University Press).
KETNER, Kenneth Lainc, and James Edward COOK, eds.
1975. Charles Sanders Peirce: Contributions to The Nation, Vol. I (Lubbock: Texas Tech Press).
KEVELSON, Roberta.
1977. Inlaws/Outlaws: A Semiotics of Legal Systems ( = Studies in Semiotics 7) (Lisse: Peter de Rid-
dcr Press).
1981. “Semiotics and the Art of Conversation”, Semiolica 32.1/2, 53-80.
1981a. “Semiotics and Structures of Law”, Semiolica 35.1/2, 183-192.
1981b. “Semiotics and Law”, in Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, cd. Thomas A. Sebeok et al.
(New York: Plenum, forthcoming).
1981c. “Francis Liebcr and the Semiotics of Law and Politics”, in Semiotics 1981, ed.J. N. Deely
and M. D. Lcnhart (New York: Plenum, 1983), 167-177.
1984. “Charles Sanders Peirce’s Speculative Rhetoric: Method and Discovery”, Philosophy and
Rhetoric 17.1.
1985. Charles S. Peirce’s Method of Methods (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
KEYSER, Cassius J.
1956. “The Group Concept”, in Vol. Ill of The World of Mathematics, ed. James R. Newman
(New York: Simon and Schuster), 1538-1557.
KINSER, Samuel.
1981. “Annalistic Paradigm? The Gcohistorical Structure of Fernand Braudel”, American Historical
Review 86.1 (February), 63-105.
KLEIN, Jacob.
1977. Plato's Trilogy: Theaelelus, the Sophist, and the Statesman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
KLEINMAN, Arthur.
1980. Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press).
KLEINPAUL, Rudolph.
1888. Spache ohne Worte: Idee einer allgemeinen Wissenschaft der Sprache (Leipzig: Friedrich). Reprint
as Vol. 19 of Approaches to Semiotics (The Hague: Mouton, 1972).
KNEALE, William, and Martha KNEALE.
1962. The Development of Logic (London: Oxford).
KOEHLER, O.
1956. Thinking Without Words”, XIV International Congress of Zoology (Copenhagen), 75-88.
KOSINSKI, Jerzy.
1970. Being There (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).
KRADER, Lawrence.
1974. “Beyond Structuralism: The Dialectics of the Diachronic and Synchronic Methods in the
Human Sciences”, in The Unconscious in Culture: The Structuralism of Claude Levi-Slrauss in
Perspective, cd. Ino Rossi (New York: E. P. Dutton), 336-61.
KRANZ, Walter.
1939. Vorsokratische Denker (Berlin: Weidmann).
KRAMPEN, Martin.
1981. “Phytosemiotics”, Semiolica 36.3-4, 187-209.
KREMPEL, A.
1952. La doctrine de la relation chez St. Thomas (Paris: Vrin).
KRETZMANN, Norman.
1967. “Semantics, History of’, entry in Vol. 7 of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Ed­
wards (New York: Macmillan), 358-406.
KRIPKE, Saul.
1980. Naming and Necessity (Harvard: Harvard University Press).
KRISTELLER, Paul Oskar.
1961. “The Aristotelian Tradition”, in his Renaissance Thought (New York: Harper), 24-47.
1961a. “Humanism and Scholasticism in the Italian Renaissance”, in op. cit., 92-119.

!
306 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

KRISTEVA, Julia.
1967. Semeiotike: Recherches pour une semananalyse (Paris: Seuil).
1970. La mutation semiotiquc”, Annalts economies, societes, civilisations 25, 1497-1522.
1975. The System and the Speaking Subject (Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press). Page references are
to this monograph version. Concurrendy published in The Tell-Tale Sign: A Survey of Semiotics,
ed. Thomas A. Sebcok (Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press, 1975), 47-55.
KRISTEVA, Julia, Josette REY-DEBOVE, and Donna Jean UMIKER, eds.
1971. Essays in Semiotics/Essais de semiotiquc ( = Approaches to Semiotics 4) (The Hague: Mouton).
KROIS, John Michael.
1981. “Peirce’s Speculative Rhetoric and the Problem of Natural Law”, Philosophy and Rhetoric,
14.1 (Winter), 16-30.
KUHN, Thomas S.
1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ( = Foundations of the Unity of Science, No. 2) (2nd
ed., enlarged; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970).
KUNG, Guido.
1967. Ontology and the Logistic Analysis of Language (rev. ed.; Dordrecht, Holland: Rcidcl). A
remarkable and extremely valuable book which shows perhaps more of the limits of logistic
philosophizing than any other single study—or than its author hoped.
LABOV, W.
1965. The Study of Nonstandard English (rev. ed.; Chicago: NCTE; Washington: Center for Ap­
plied Lingusitics).
LACAN, Jacques.
1953-1954. Les Ecrits Techniques de Freud, Livre I de Le Seminaire, textc etabli par Jacqucs-Alain
Miller (Paris: Seuil, 1975).
1956. Fonction et champ de la parole et du langage cn psychanalysc”, La Psychanalyse I, 81-166.
References arc to the English translation with notes and commentary by Anthony Wilden,
The Language of the Self: The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1968).
1966. “L’instance de la lettre dans rinconscient”, in Jacques Lacan, Ecrits I (Paris: Editions
du Seuil), 249-289. English trans. of this article by Jan Miel in Structuralism, ed. Jacques
Ehrmann (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1970), 101-137.
LACHELIER, Jules
1933. Oeuvres de Jules Lachelier, Tome I (Paris: Alcan).
LALANDE, Andre.
1902-1923. Vocabulaire Technique et Critique de la Philosophic, edition originale cn fascicules, dans le
Bulletin de la Societefrangaise de Philosophic. References in Deely arc to this edition; references
in Eco are to the 1926 ed. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France).
LAMB, Sydney M.
1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press).
LAMBERT, J. H.
1764. Neues Organon oder Gedanken uber die Erforschung und Bezeichnung des Wahren und dessen
Unlerschcidung vom Irrthum und Schein, 2. Band (Leipig: Wendler).
LANGAN, Thomas.
1983. “Foreword” to Powell 1983 (q.v.): ix-xi.
LANIGAN, Richard L.
1970. “Semiotic Expression and Perception: Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Communica­
tion”, Philosophy Today 14, 78-88.
1972. Speaking and Semiology (The Hague: Mouton).
1977. Speech Act Phenomenology (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff).
1979. “A Semiotic Metatheory of Human Communication”, Semiotica 27, 293-305.
1979a. “The Phenomenology of Human Communication”, Philosophy Today 23, 3-15.
1979b. “The Objectivist Illusion in Therapeutic Philosophy”, paper presented at the Merleau-
Ponty Circle, State University of New York at Stony Brook, October 12.
LASSALLE, Ferdinand.
1858. Die Philosophia Herakleitos des Dunkeln von Ephesos (Berlin: Duncker).
LEACH, Edmund R.
1970. Claude Levi-Strauss (New York: Viking Press).
1984, October 9. “Semiotics, Ethology, and the Limits of Human Understanding”, Patten Lecture
delivered at Indiana University, Bloomington, adjunct to Leach’s participation in the Oc­
tober 8-10 “Semiotics: Field or Discipline” State-of-the-Art Research Conference.
1984, October 10. “Concluding Remarks” to the “Semiotics: Field or Discipline” State-of-thc-
Art Research Conference held at Indiana University, Bloomington, October 8-10.
 REFERENCES 307

LECLERQ, Jean.
1948. “Gilbert of Stanford, Le commentaire de Gilbert de Stanford sur le cantiquc des cantiqucs”,
Studia Anselmiana XX, 205-230.
LEFEBVRE, Henri.
1966. “Claude Levi-Strauss et le nouveau eleatismc”, in L’Homme et la sociele, Vol. 7, No. 1,
21-33, No. 2, 81-104 (Paris: Editions Anthropos). Page references are to the Spanish trans.
by Alejandro Ferrieros, “Claude Levi-Strauss y el nuevo eleatismo”, in Eslrucluralismo
y filosofia, cd. Jose Sazbon (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nucva Vision, 1971), 121-176.
LEIBNIZ, G. W. F.
1704. Nouveaux Essais sur I’enlendemenl humain (first published posthumously in Amsterdam, 1765),
English trans. by A. G. Langley as New Essays Concerning Human Understanding (Chicago,
1916).
LEMERT, Charles C.
1979. Sociology and the Twilight of Man: Homocenlrism and Discourse in Sociological Theory (Carbon-
dale: Southern Illinois University Press).
LEVIN, David.
1979. “Sanity and Myth: Mcrleau-Ponty’s Understanding of Human Space”, paper presented
at the Mcrlcau-Ponty Circle, State University of New York at Stony Brook, October 12.
LEVI-STRAUSS, Claude.
1945. “L’Analyse structuralc en linguistique et anthropologie”, Word 1.1 (April), 33-53.
1947. Les Structures elementaires de la parents (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France).
1950. Introduction a l’ocuvre de Marcel Mauss”, in Marcel Mauss, Sociologie et anthropologie
(Paris: Presses Universitaires dc France), ix-lii.
1955. Tristes Tropiques (Paris: Plon). References are to the English translation by John Russell
under the same title (New York: Athencum, 1961).
1958. Anthropologie structurale (Paris: Plon). References are to the English translation by Claire
Jacobson and Brooke Grundfcst, Structural Anthropology (New York: Doubleday, 1964).
1960. Lcgon inaugurale”, lecture delivered on 5 May at the College de France. References
arc to the English trans. by Sherry Ortner Paul and Robert A. Paul, The Scope ofAnthropology
(London: Jonathan Cape, 1967).
1962. La pensee sauvage (Paris: Plon). References are to the English translation, The Savage Mind
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966).
1962a. “Histoirc et dialectiquc”, Ch. IX of Levi-Strauss 1962: 324-357. Page references are to
the English translation, “History and Dialectic”, Ch. IX of the English version of Levi-
Strauss 1962 [q.v.]: 245-269.
1962b. “Les limites de la notion de structure en ethnologie”, in Sens et usages du terms structure,
ed. R. Bastide (The Hague: Mouton), 40-45.
1964. Le cru et le cuit (Paris: Plon). References are to the English trans. by John and Doreen
Wcightman, The Raw and the Cooked (New York: Harper & Row, 1969).
LEVY-BRUHL, Lucien.
1899. “Essay on Descartes”, added “as it appeared in the author’s History of Modem Philosophy
in France (Chicago: Open Court, 1899) by way of a general introduction” to The Medita­
tions and Selections from the Principles of Rene Descartes, trans. by John Veitch and published
by Open Court of Chicago in 1905 under the editorship of T. J. McCormack, vii-xxx.
1938. Letter to Jacques Maritain dated 8 May. Published in Revue Thomisle 44 (July 1938), 482-483.
LIEB, Irwin C.
1953. Appendix B to Charles S. Peirce, Charles S. Peirce’s Letters to Lady Welby, ed. Irwin C. Lieb
(New Haven: Whitlock’s). Reprinted in Semiotic and Signifies: The Correspondence Between
Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby, cd. Charles S. Hardwick (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1977), 160-166.
LOCKE, John.
1690. An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding (London: Printed by Elizabeth Holt for Thomas
Basset). The copy from this original edition located at the Lilly Library on the Bloom­
ington campus of Indiana University was consulted in preparing this book. Also consulted
were the Alexander Campbell Fraser edition (Oxford, 1894; reprinted New York: Dover
Publications, 1959) and the Peter H. Nidditch edition (Oxford, 1975; 1979 corrected paper­
back edition).
LOGID.
1981. Grune Archen (Frankfurt a. M.: Fricke Verlag).
LOMBARD, Peter.
c. 1150. Libri Qualtuor Sententiarum (‘ ‘The Four Books of the Sentences”), in Patrologiae Cursus Com­
plete, ed. J.-P. Migne, Series Latina (P.L.), Vol. 192 (Paris: Gamier, 1880), cols. 522-963.
 308 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

(One of the very earliest printed editions of this formerly ubiquitous work appeared in
Venice: Vandelin Spire, 1477.)
LOTMAN, Jurij M.
1969. “O metajazyke tipologiceskix opisanij kul’tury”, in Trudy po znakovym sistemam [Works
on Semiotics] IV, 460-477. Page references in Winner are to the English trans., “On the
Metalanguage of a Typological Description of Culture”, Semiotica 14.2 (1975), 97-123.
LOTMAN, Jurij M., ed.
1964-. Semeiotike: Trudy po znakovym systemam [Works on Semiotics] (Tartu: Acta et Commentationes
Universitatis Tartuensis). Lotman’s Ltkciipo struktural’noj poetike was published as Trudy
1 (1964).
LOTZ, John.
1954. i<
Plan and Publication of Noreen’s VSrt SprSk”, in Portraits of Linguists 2, ed. Thomas
A. Sebeok (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 56-65.
LOTZE, Hermann.
1843. Logik (Leipzig; English trans. Oxford 1884).
LUKACS, Georg.
1968. Gcschichte und Klassenbewusstsein (Neuwied a.Rh.: Luchterhand). References arc to the English
trans. by Rodney Livingstone, History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics
(Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1971).
LULL, Ramon.
1274. Composition of the first version of the Ars Magna, the Ars compendiosa inveniendi veritatem,
which “has only once been published, by Salzingcr” as the opening work in the 8-volumc
Beali Raymundi Lulli Opera, ed. Ivo Salzingcr (Mainz, 1721-1742). “The Catalan original
(Ars abreujada d’atrobar veritat) is lost but it certainly existed; it is referred to by Lull, Ars
demonstration, c.1275.” (Hillgarth 1971: 8 n. 32.)
LYONS, John.
1963. Structural Semantics. An Analysis of Part of the Vocabulary of Plato (Publications of the Philological
Society XX) (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
MacCANNELL, Dean, and Juliet Flower MacCANNELL.
1982. The Time of the Sign (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
MADAY, Stefan von.
1912. Psychologie des Pferdes und der Dressur (Berlin: P. Parey).
MAIERU, A.
1967. “‘Signum’ dans la culture medievale”, in Sprache und Erkenntnis im Mittelalter, Vol. 13,
No. 1 of Miscellanea Mediaevalia (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1981), 51-72.
1972. Terminologia logica della tarda scholastica (Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo).
MAKOWSKI, Simon Stanislaus.
1679. Cursus Philosophicus (Cracow: University of Cracow Press). At Lilly Library.
MANNOURY, G.
1969. “A Concise History of Signifies”, Methodology and Science 2, 171-80.
MARCUS, Solomon.
1974. Fifty-Two Oppositions between Scientific and Poetic Communication”, in Pragmatics
of Human Communication, ed. Colin Cherry (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel), 83-96.
MARITAIN, Jacques.
1923. Elements de Philosophie. II. L 'Ordredes Concepts. I. Petite Logique (Logiqueformelle) (Paris: Tequi).
Citations and page references are from the English trans. by Imelda Choquette, Formal
Logic (New York: Shced and Ward, 1937).
1924. Reflexions sur l’intelligence et sur sa vie propre (Paris: Nouvelle Librairie Nationale).
1937-1938. “Sign and Symbol”, trans. Mary Morris in Journal of the Warburg Institute I, 1-11.
1938. “Signe et symbole”, Revue Thomiste XLIV (avril), 299-330.
1941. “Sign and Symbol”, English trans. of 1938 entry above (q.v.) by H. L. Binsse in Ran­
soming the Time (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), text pp. 217-254, Latin notes from
Poinsot 1632a and 1644e pp. 305-315. See gloss on 1943 entry following.
1941a. “The Conflict of Methods at the End of the Middle Ages” (in effect a precis of Maritain
1959), The Thomist III (October), 527-538.
1943. “Sign and Symbol”, English trans. of 1938 entry above (q.v.) by H. L. Binsse in Redeem­
ing the Time (London: Geoffrey Bles), text pp. 191-224, Latin notes pp. 268-276. Except
for pagination, this text is identical to that of 1941 above. We have referred to the pagina­
tion of the 1943 text because that was the edition available to us.

i
 REFERENCES 309

1956. “Le Langage ct la theorie du signe”, Annexe au Chapitre II ( = Maritain 1938) de Quatre
Essais sur l’esprit dans sa condition chamelle (revised and augmented cd.; Paris: Alsatia), 113-124.
This Annexe is substantially identical with Maritain 1957, q.v.
1957. ‘Language and the Theory of Sign”, in Language: An Enquiry into Its Meaning and Function,
ed. Ruth Nanda Anshen (New York: Harper & Row), 86-101.
1959. Distinguish to Unite, or The Degrees oj Knowledge, trans. under the supervision of Gerald B.
Phelan of the 4th French edition of Distinguer pour unir: ou les Degres du Savoir (orig. ed.
Paris: Desclec, 1932).
1966. God and the Permission of Evil, trans. Joseph Evans (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co.).
(Original French publication, Dieu el la Permission du Mai [Paris: Dcsclee dc Brouwer, 1963]).
MARROU, Henri-Irenec.
1959. De la connaissance historique (4th ed., rev.; Paris: Scuil). Page references arc to the English
trans. by Robert J. Olsen, The Meaning of History (Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1966).
MARSHACK, A.
1976. “Some Implications of the Palaeolithic Symbolic Evidence for the Origin of Language”,
in Origins & Evolution oj Language and Speech, cd. S. R. Harnad, H. D. Steldis and J. Lan­
caster (New York: New York Academy of Sciences), 289-311.
MARWICK, Arthur.
1970. The Nature of History (London: Macmillan).
MARX, Karl.
1857. Einleitung zur Kritik der politischen Okonomie, reprinted in Marx/Engcls, Werke, vol. 13 (Berlin
[East]: Dietz Verlag, 1961). Page references arc to this 1961 reprint.
MATSON, Floyd W.
1966. The Broken Image: Man, Science and Society (Garden City, N. Y.: Doublcday and Company).
MAYENOWA, Maria R.
1967. “Semiotics Today: Reflections on the Second International Conference in Semiotics”,
Social Science Information 6, 59-64. Page references are to the reprint in Kristeva ct al. 1971
[q.v.]: 57-62.
MAZZANTINI, Carlo.
1945. Eraclilo (Turin: Chiantorc).
McKEON, Richard.
1940. “Plato and Aristotle as Historians: A Study of Method in the History of Ideas”, Ethics
51, 66-101.
McKEON, Richard, ed.
1941. The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: Random House).
McKECHNIE, George E.
1977. “The Environmental Response Inventory in Application”, Environment and Behavior 9.2,
255-276.
MEIBOMIUS ('Meibom'), Marcus.
1652. Antiquae musicae auctores septem Graece et Latine. M. Meibomius rcstituit ac notis cxplicavit.
2 vols. (Amsterdam: Apud Ludovicum Elzevirium). Refs, in Romeo cited in Reading
22 n. 1 (p. 285) are to the microprint copy of the original in the Sibley Music Library,
Eastman School of Music (Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 1954).
MELETINSKY, Eleazar, and Dmitri SEGAL.
1971. “Structuralism and Semiotics in the USSR”, Diogenes 73, 88-155.
MENNE, Albert.
1962. “Preface of the Editor” to Logico-Philosophical Studies (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Rcidel), vii-ix.
MERLEAU-PONTY, Maurice.
: 1945. Phenomenologie de la perception (Paris: Gallimard). References arc to the English trans. by
Colin Smith, with revisions by Forrest Williams, Phenomenology of Perception (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962).
: MERRELL, Floyd.
1975. “Structuralism and Beyond: A Critique of Presuppositions”, Diogenes 92, 67-103.
1982. Semiotic Foundations. Steps toward an Epistemology of Written Texts (Bloomington: Indiana Univer­
sity Press).
; 1985. Deconstruction Reframed {West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press).
\ 1985a. A Semiotic Theory of Texts (The Hague: Mouton).
MILL, John Stuart.
1843. System of Logic (London).
MISNER, C. W., K. S. THORNE, and J. A. WHEELER.
I 1973. Gravitation (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman).

!
:
l
\

i
310 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

MONOD, Jacques.
1970. Le Hasard et la necessite: essai sur la philosophic naturelle dc la biologic modeme (Paris: Seuil).
References are to the English translation by Austryn Wainhouse, Chance and Necessity: An
Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modem Biology (New York: Knopf, 1971).
MORRIS, Charles W.
1938. Foundations oj the Theory of Signs ( = International Encyclopedia of Unified Science 1.2) (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press).
1946. Signs, Language and Behavior (New York: Prentice-Hall).
MOUNIN, Georges.
1970. Introduction a la semiologie (Paris: Minuit).
NAVILLE, Adrien.
1901. Nouvelle classification des sciences (Paris: Alcan).
NEILL, Thomas P.
1958. The Makers of the Modem Mind (2nd, enlarged ed.; Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co.).
NERVAL, Gerard de.
1853. Sylvie, in Vol. I of Oeuvres (Paris: Editions Gamier Frercs, 1958), 589-620. Page references
are to the English trans. by R. Aldington under the same title, in Aurelia (London: Chatto
and Windus, 1932), 73-1 11.
NEWMAN, Mildred.
1979. Mimeographed working paper (SUNY Buffalo: Center for Study of Cultural Transmission).
NEWTON, Isaac.
1686. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (London: Jussu Societatis Regiac ac Typis Joscphi
Streater), translated into English by Andrew Mottc in 1729, revised and supplied with
an historical and explanatory appendix by Florian Cajori under the title Sir Isaac Newton’s
Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System of the World (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1946).
NICOLAS DE LYRA.
c.1330. Commentarium in Epistolam ad Galalhas, caput IV, col. 4, in Biblia cum postillis Nicolai de Lyra
(Nuremberg: Arthur Koberger, incunabula 1485), vol. 4, no pagination. The cited text
is at the bottom of the fourth column.
NIDDITCH, Peter H.
1975 (hardcover), 1979 (corrected paperback). Foreword, Notes, and Critical Apparatus to new
Oxford edition of Locke 1690.
NIETZSCHE, Friedrich.
1883-1888. Der Wille zur Machl, in Vols. XV and XVI of Nietzsche’s Werke (Leipzig: Alfred Kroner,
1911), Vol. XV: 129-489; Vol. XVI: 1-521. References arc to the English trans. by An­
thony M. Ludovice, The Will to Power, Vol. XV of The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche
(London: T. N. Foulis, 1930).
NOVALIS (Friedrich, Freiherr von Hardenburg).
a. 1801. Sdmtliche Werke, Erganzungsband (Leipzig: Eugcn Diederichs, 1901).
NUTINI, Hugo.
1970. “Some Considerations on the Notion of Social Structure and Model Building’’, in Hayes
and Hayes 1970 [q.v.]: 70-107.
NYE, Russel B.
1966. “History and Literature: Branches of the Same Tree’’, in Essays on History and Literature,
ed. Robert H. Brcmner (Columbus: Ohio State University Press), 123-159.
OESTERLE, Jean.
1962. Translation with Introduction (pp. 1-15), Aristotle: On Interpretation. Commentary by St. Thomas
and Cajetan (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press).
OESTERLE, John A.
1944. “Another Approach to the Problem of Meaning”, The Thomist VII, 233-263. A valuable
analysis of key distinctions in Poinsot, which docs not however penetrate to the level of
his semiotic proper, concluding with a point-by-point comparison between Poinsot and
Ogden and Richards 1923.
OGDEN, Charles K., and Ivor A. RICHARDS.
1923. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science
of Symbolism (New York: Harcourt, Brace). Page references are to the 1938 reprint edition.
ORIGEN.
c.232-250. Origenis in Ezechielem, in Patrologiae Cursus Completus, ed. J.-P. Migne, Series Graeca (P.G.),
Vol. XIII (Paris: Migne, 1857), cols. 665-787.
 REFERENCES 311

c.232*250a. Origenis in Genesim Homiliae, translated by Rufmo, in Patrologiae Cursus Completus, edited
by J.-P. Migne, Series Gracca (P.G.), Vol. XII (Paris: Mignc, 1857), columns. 146-
262.
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY.
1933. Original edition by Oxford University Press in 13 volumnes; reprinted by micrographic
means in 2 volumes by the same press, 1971.
PANTALEONI, M.
1892. “Osscrvazioni sulla semiologia economica”, Revue d’economie politique (octobre).
PARKER, F. H., and Henry VEATCH.
1959. Logic as a Human Instrument (New York: Harper).
PARMENIDES of Elea.
i.500-400BC. Fragments, in Vol. I. of Die Fragmenle der Vorsokratiker, ed. Hermann Diels (Berlin:
Wcidmann, 1934), 217-246.
PARRETT, Herman.
1984. “Peirce and Hjclmslev: The Two Semiotics”, Language Sciences 6.2, 217-227.
PASQUINELLI, Angelo, ed.
1958. I presocratici. Frammenti e testimonianze, Vol. I (Turin: Einaudi).
PEANO, G.
1889. Arithmetices principia, novo methodo exposita (Turin: Augustae Taurinormu).
PEIRCE, Charles S. CP references in this entry arc to The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders
Peirce, Vols. I-VI ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1931-35), Vols. VII-VIII ed. Arthur W. Burks (same publisher, 1958),
and arc here abbreviated as CP followed by volume and paragraph numbers (separated
by a point or ‘period’ according to the custom that has been established in this matter
among users of the Collection). Chronology for CP references is based on the Burks
bibliography in Volume VIII of the Collected Papers, pp. 249-330.
Numbers and dates of unpublished manuscripts are as listed in Richard S. Robin,
Annotated Catalogue oj the Papers of Charles S. Peirce (Worcester, MA: The University of
Massachusetts Press, 1967).
References to Peirce’s The New Elements of Mathematics, in 4 vols., ed. Carolyn Eiseh
(The Hague: Mouton, 1976), are abbreviated NEM. Chronology is based on the Robii
catalogue.
1865-1909. “Logic”, notebook listed as MS 339 in the Robin catalogue.
1867. “On a New List of Categories”, in Vol. 2 of Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological
Edition, ed. Edward C. Moore et al. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), 49-59.
Also in CP 1.545-567. (Burks p. 261.)
1868. “Grounds of Validity in the Laws of Logic: Further Consequences of Four Incapacities”,
CP 5.318-357. Originally in The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2, 193-208. (Burks p.
262.)
1871. Review of Fraser’s Edition of the Works of George Berkeley, CP 8.7-38. Originally in
The North American Review 113 (October), 449-472. (Burks p. 262.)
1878. “The Doctrine of Chances”, CP 2.645-660. Originally in Popular Science Monthly 12 (March),
604-615. (Burks p. 265.)
1885. “On the Algebra of Logic: A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation”, CP 3.359-403.
From an article of the same title originally published in The AmericanJournal of Mathematics
7.2, 180-202. (Burks p. 273.)
1889. Letters to the editor of The Nation dated 13 June, 20 June, and 27 June, in Ketner and
Cook, eds. 1975 [q.v.]: 75-78.
c. 1893. Segments from “The Short Logic”, CP 2.282, 286-291, 295-296. (Burks p. 280.)
c.1895. Segment from “That Categorical and Hypothetical Propositions arc one in essence, with
some connected matters”, CP 2.332-356. (Burks p. 286.)
c.1896. “The Logic of Mathematics; An Attempt to Develop My Categories from Within”, CP
1.417-519. (Burks p. 287.)
c.1897. “Ground, Object and Interprctant”, CP 2.227-229. (Burks p. 287.)
1898. “The Logic oPEvents”, CP 6.1-5, 6.214-221. (Burks p. 288.)
1898a. “The Logic of Continuity”, CP 6.185-213 (with deletions). (Burks p. 288.)
1898b. “Detached Thoughts Continued and the Dispute between Nominalists and Realists”, Robin
MS 439, 30-31.
1902. Symbol”, CP 2.307. Originally an entry in Volume II of the Dictionary of Philosophy and
Psychology, edited by James Mark Baldwin (New York: Macmillan), 640. (Burks p.
292.)
r
312 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

c.1902. Segments from “Syllabus”, CP 2.274-277, 283-284, 292-294, 309-331. (Burks p. 296.)
c.l902a. “A Detailed Classification of the Sciences”, CP 1.203-283. Originally Section 1, ch. 2
of the Minute Logic (Peirce c. 1902b, q.v.). (Burks p. 294.)
c. 1902b. Minute Logic, draft for a book complete consecutively only to Ch. 4. Published in the Col­
lected Papas in extracts scattered over six of the eight volumes; details in Burks, pp. 293-294.
1903. “Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations, as far as they are determined”, CP
2.233-272. (Burks p. 296.)
1903a. “The Categories Continued”, Lecture III of the Lectures on Pragmatism, CP 5.66-92.
j (Burks p. 294.)
1903b. “Three Types of Reasoning”, Lecture VI of the Lectures on Pragmatism, CP 5.151-179.
(Burks p. 294.)
c.1903. “Of Euler’s Diagrams”, CP 4.350-371. (Burks p. 296.)
p.1903? (undated ms.) From “Lady Welby, What Is Meaning?", CP 8.177-185. (Burks p. 301.)
1904. “On Signs and the Categories”, CP 8.327-341. (Burks p. 321.)
1904a. Kaiva otoixeia, MS 517 in the Robin catalogue. Published in NEM 4: 235-263.
1904b. Letter to Lady Welby dated 12 October, in Hardwick, ed. 1977 [q.v.]: 22-36.
1905. “Phancroscopy”, MS 298 in the Robin catalogue.
1906. “Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism”, CP 4.530-572. Originally in The Monist
16, 492-546. (Burks p. 297.)
1906a. “Basis of Pragmaticism” portions, CP 1.573-574, 5.549-554 (continuing 1.574), 5.448
n. 1 (following somewhat after 5.554). (Burks p. 298.)
c.1906. “A Survey of Pragmaticism”, CP 5.464-496. (Burks p. 299.)
c.1907. “Pragmatism”, MS 318 in the Robin catalogue. (A small segment of this MS is pub­
lished under the title of “From Pragmatism” in NEM III. 1: 489-494.)
1908. “On the Classification of Signs”, from a partial draft of a letter to Lady Welby dated
24, 25, and 28 December, CP 8.342-379. (Burks p. 321.)
c.1910. “Additaments”, comments on “A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God”, CP
6.486-490. (Burks p. 301.)
PEKELIS, Alexander.
1950. “Legal Techniques and Political Ideologies”, in Law and Social Action, ed. M. R. Konvitz
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 42-74.
PELC, Jerzy.
1971. Studies in Functional Logical Semiotics oj Natural Languages (The Hague: Mouton).
PERRON, Paul.
1983. “Preface’ ’ to Paris School Semiotics: Texts and Documents. I. Theory (Victoria University: Toronto
Semiotic Circle Monograph, Number 3).
PHILODEMUS.
C.54BC. nepi £tih£ICOOE£OV, trans. Philip Howard De Lacy and Estelle Dc Lacy with Greek text
facing as Philodemus: On Methods of Injaence. A Study in Ancient Empiricism (Philadelphia:
American Philological Association, 1941). This edition contains considerable critical ap­
paratus; text of Philodemus’ work on pp. 22-120.
PIAGET, Jean.
1968. Le Structuralisme (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France). References are to the English
trans. by Chaninah Maschler, Structuralism (New York: Harper & Row, 1970).
1972. Problemes de psychologic genetique (Paris: Denoel/Gothier). References are to the English trans.
by Arnold Rosen, The Child and Reality: Problems oj Genetic Psychology (New York: Grossman,
1973).
PIGNATARI, Decio.
1971. In/ormafdo (Sao Paulo: Perspectiva).
PLATO. All textual references are by Stephanus numbers.
1.367-36lBC. Sophist, trans. F. M. Cornford, in Hamilton and Cairns, eds. 1961: 957-1017.
(Stephanus numbers 216al-268d5.)
1.367-36lBCa. Theaetetus, trans. F. M. Cornford, in Hamilton and Cairns, eds. 1961: 845-919.
(Stephanus numbers 142al-210d4.)
p.353BC. Leila VII, trans. L. A. Post, in Hamilton and Cairns, eds. 1961: 1574-1598. (Stephanus
numbers 323el-352a5.)
PLOCHMANN, George K.
1954. “Socrates, the Stranger from Elea, and Some Others”, Classical Philology 49, 223-231.
POCIUS, G. L.
1979. < « Hooked Rugs in Newfoundland”, Journal of Amaican Folklore 92, 273-284.
POINSOT, John.
1631. Artis Logicae Prima Pars (Alcaic, Spain). The opening pages 1-11 a 14 of this work and the

Vi
 REFERENCES 313

“Quaestio Disputanda I. De Termino. Art. 6. Utrum Voces Significant per prius Con-
ceptus an Res” pages 104b3l-108a33, relevant to the discussion of signs in the Secunda
Pars of 1632 (entry following), have been incorporated in the 1632a entry (second entry
following, q.v., pp. 4-30 and 342-351 “Appendix A. On the Signification of Language”,
respectively) for the independent edition of that discussion published by the University
of California Press. The Reiser edition of Poinsot’s work (Vol. I; Turin: Marietti, 1930:
pp. 1-247, arranged by columns—a, b—and line numbers within each column) was used
as source for the Latin text.
1632. Artis Logicae Secunda Pars (Alcala, Spain). The Reiser edition of this work (also arranged
as described in preceding 1631 entry; Vol. I; Turin: Marietti, 1930: pp. 249-839) was
used as source for the Latin text.
1632a. Tractatus de Signis, subtitled The Semiotic ofJohn Poinsot, extracted from the Artis Logicae Prima
et Secunda Pars of 1631-1632 (above two entries) and arranged in bilingual format by John
Dcely in consultation with Ralph A. Powell (First Edition; Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1985), as explained in Dcely 1985, q.v. Pages in this volume are set up in matching
columns of English and Latin, with intcrcolumnar numbers every fifth line. (Thus,
references to the volume are by page number, followed by a slash and the appropriate
line number of the specific section of text referred to—c.g., 287/3-26.)
POLANYI, Michael.
1969. Knowing and Being: Essays by Michael Polanyi, ed. Marjorie Grene (Chicago: The Univer­
sity of Chicago Press).
POP, Mihai.
1972. "Lc laboratoirc de semiotique de l’Universitc de Bucarcst, Roumanie”, Semiotica 5, 301-302.
POPPER, Karl R., and John C. ECCLES.
1977. The Self and the Brain (New York: Springer International).
POWELL, Ralph Austin.
1977, July 30. “Memorandum on the Translation of‘Ratio’ in Poinsot”, published in substan­
tially complete form in Dcely 1985: 468-471.
1983. Freely Chosen Reality (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America).
PRESTI, David, Wan-Jean HSU, and Max DELBRUCK.
1977. “Phototropism in Phycomyccs mutands lacking {5-Carotene” Photochemistry and Photobiolog
26, 403-405.
PREZIOSI, Donald.
1979. The Semiotics of the Built Environment (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
PRIOR, William.
1979. “Plato’s Account of Being and Non-Being in the Sophist”, paper presented at the American
Philosophical Association Western Division Conference, Denver, Colorado, April 19.
PRISCIAN of Lydia.
c.526. De Voce”, chapter of Institutiones Grammaticae, cd. M. Hertz, in Vol. II of Grammatici
Lalini (Leipzig, 1855; rpt. Hildcsheim, 1961).
PSEUDO-MARSILIUS of INGHEN (Anonymous).
1495. Commentum emendatum et correctum in primum et quartum tractatus Petri Hyspani et super tractatibus
Marsilii de Suppositionibus, ampliationibus, appelationibus et consequents (Hagcnau). Reprinted
as Marsilius von Inghen, Commentum in primum et quartum tractatum Petri Hispani (Frankfurt:
Minerva, 1967). For discussions of the mistaken attribution of this work to the fourteenth-
century philosopher Marsilius of Inghen by the Frankfurt editors, sec Maieru 1972: 234
n. 57 and Bos 1983: 32.
PTOLEMY (“Claudius Prolcmacus”).
c.150. KXau5iOU riioXeqaiou apriovuccov (5i(5Xia y Claudii Ptolomaei Harmonicorum libri ires, J.
Wallis . . . edidit, versione et notis illustravit, et auctarium adjecit (Oxford: E Thcatro
Sheldoniano, 1682).
p.150. Almagest, trans. annotated by G. J. Toomer (London: Duckworth, 1984).
RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R.
1941. “The Study of Kinship Systems”, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain
and Ireland 71.1, 1-18: seminal source of the reductive influence of RaddifTc-Brown discussed
in Dcely 1980: csp. 215 n. 7, and Dcely 1982: 122. Gathered with other influential essays
in 1952 following.
1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Society (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press).
RAMNOUX, Clemcncc.
1968. Heraclite ou Thomme entre les choses et les mots (2nd cd.; Paris: Lcs Belles Letters).
RANDALL, Jr., John Herman.
1961. The School oj Padua and the Emergence of Modem Science (Padua: Editricc Antcnorc).
314 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

1962.The Career of Philosophy, Volume I, From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment (New York:
Columbia).
RANSDELL, Joseph.
1966. Charles Peirce: The Idea of Representation (New York: Columbia University, unpublished doc­
toral dissertation).
1979. “Semiotic Objectivity”, Semiotica 26.3/4, 261-288.
1980. Semiotic and Linguistics”, in The Signifying Animal, ed. Irmengard Rauch and Gerald
<t

F. Carr (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 135-185.

READ, Allen Walker.
1948. “An Account of the Word Semantics”, Word 4, 78-97.
REISIG, Karl.
1839. Professor K. Reisig’s Vorlesungen uber lateinische Sprachwissenschaft, hrsg. mit Anmerkungen
von Dr. Friedrich Haase (Leipzig: Lehnhold).
1872. This work, presumably the English of Rcisig 1839, is referred to by Sebeok 1976: 50 (p.
257 above). We were unable to track down the specific reference, and rely for our date
on a letter from Professor Sebeok dated 8/16/85.
REISMAN, K.
1970. “Cultural and Linguistic Ambiguity in a West Indian Village”, in Afro-American Anthropology,
ed. N. E. Whitten and J. Szwed (New York: Free Press), 129-144.
REMAK, Joachim.
1967. The Origins of World War I (Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press).
RESCHER, Nicholas.
1966. The Logic of Commands (New York: Dover).
RESNIKOW, Lasar Ossipowitsch.
1968. Erkenntnistheoretische Fragen der Semiotik (Berlin: VEB Deutschcr Vcrlag dcr Wissenschaftcn).
[Enlarged edition from the original Russian, 1964; in 1967 an Italian translation was publish­
ed under the tide, Semiotica e Marxismo: Iproblemignoseologici della semiotica (Milan: Bornpiani).]
REY, Abel.
1933. La jeunesse de la science grecque (Paris: La Renaissance du Livre).
REY, Alain.
1969. ‘Remarques semantiques”, Langue Franfaise 4: 5-29.
1973. Theories du Signe et du Sens, I (Paris: Klincksieck).
RICOEUR, Paul.
1962. “Hermeneutique et reflection”, in Demmitazionee immagine, ed. E. Castelli (Padua: Cedam).
1963. “Structure et hermeneutiques”, Esprit 31, 596-652.
1968. “Structure, Word, Event”, Philosophy Today 12, 114-129.
1975. La Melaphore vive (Paris: Scuil). English trans. by Robert Czcmy, The Rule of Metaphor (Toron­
to: University of Toronto Press).
ROBERT, Paul.
1967. Dictionnaire alphabelique & analogique de la languefranfaise (Paris: Societe du Nouveau Littre,
Le Robert).
ROCHBERG-HALTON, Eugene.
1979. Cultural signs and urban adaptation: The meaning of cherished household possessions”,
t(

dissertation summary (mimeographed), Behavioral Sciences, University of Chicago.

ROLLAND, Romain.
1952. Le Cloitre de la rue d’Ulm (Paris: Albin Michel).
ROLLIN, Bernard E.
1976. Natural and Conventional Meaning: An Examination of the Distinction (The Hague: Mouton).
ROMEO, Luigi.
1976. “Heraclitus and the Foundations of Semiotics”, Versus 15.5 (dicembre), 73-90.
1977. “The Derivation of‘Semiotics’ through the History of the Discipline”, in Semiosis 6.2, 37-49.
1977a. “The Semiotic Foundation of Linguistics”, Semiotic Scene 1.2, 31-38.
1979. “Pedro da Fonseca in Renaissance Semiotics: A Segmental History of Footnotes”, Ars
Semeiotica II.2, 187-204.
ROSS, Robert E.
1912. The Law of Discovery (London: Butterworth & Co.).
ROSSI-LANDI, Ferrucio.
1974. Linguistics and Economics”, in Vol. 12 of Current Trends in Linguistics, ed. Thomas A.
Sebeok (The Hague: Mouton).
1975. Signs about a Master of Signs”, Semiotica 13, 155-197. Review article of Morris 1971.
t 4

RUNCIMAN, W. G.
1973. What Is Structuralism?”, in The Philosophy of Social Explanation, ed. Alan Ryan (Lon­
don: Oxford University Press), 189-202.
 REFERENCES 315

RUSSELL, Anthony F.
1981. “The Logic of History as a Semiotic Process of Question and Answer in the Thought
of R. G. Collingwood”, in Semiotics 1981 (Proceedings of the Semiotic Society of America),
ed. John N. Deely and Margot D. Lenhart (New York: Plenum Press, 1982), 179-189.
1984. Logic, Philosophy, and History (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America).
RUSSELL, Bertrand.
1905. “On Denoting”, Mind XIV, 479-493. See gloss on entry for Russell 1919.
1910. “Incomplete Symbols”, third introductory chapter to Whitehead and Russell 1910-1913
(q.v.): 66-84. See gloss on entry for Russell 1919.
1919. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.). Russell’s
so-called “Theory of Descriptions” first appeared in 1905 (q.v.). The most technical and
logically simple” exposition of the theory is perhaps the version incorporated into the
third introductory chapter of the Principia Mathematica under the title “Incomplete Sym­
bols”. See entry for 1910. But insofar as philosophy is more concerned with underlying
assumptions and principles than with the resolution of problems into definite conclusions,
the most philosophically important exposition of the theory is perhaps the one set out in
Chapters 15-17 of this 1919 book. Discussion in Deely 1975a: 262ff.
RUSSELL, L. J.
1939. “Note on the Term EHMEIQTIKH [sic] in Locke”, Mind 48, 405-06.
RUSSMAN, Thomas A.
1981. “Two Paradigms of Reality and Objectivity”, The New Scholasticism LV (Winter), 1-15.
SALLIS, John.
1975. Being and Logos: The Way of Platonic Dialogue (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press).
SALUCCI, Brunero, and Giovanni GILARDONI, eds.
1968. Eraclito. Tutti i jrammenti (Florence: Lc Monnicr).
SARTON. George.
1954. Galen oj Pergamon (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press).
SARTRE, Jean-Paul.
1943. L 'Eire el le neant, essai d’ontologie phenomenologique (Paris: Gallimard). References are to the
English trans. by Hazel E. Barnes, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology
(New York: Philosophical Library, 1956).
SAUSSURE, Ferdinand dc.
i. 1906-1911. Lectures delivered at the University of Geneva and published from auditors’ notes by
Charles Bally and Albert Scchehayc under the tide Cours de linguislique generate (Paris: Payot,
1915). Page references in Sebeok arc to the cd. of R. Engler (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
1916); see also the critical ed. of Tullio de Mauro (Paris: Payot, 1972). Page reference;
in Merrell are to the English trans. by Wade Baskin, Course in General Linguistics (Nev
York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).
SAVAN, David.
1976. An Introduction to C. S. Peirce's Semiotics: Part / (Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle Mono­
graphs).
1983. “Toward a Refutation of Semiotic Idealism”, Recherches Semiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry 3.1, 1-8.
SCAPULA, Joannes.
1579-1580. Lexicon Graeco-Latinum (Basel: Ex officina Hervagiana). This work went through several
editions: Lexicon Graeco-Latinum novum (Basel: Per Sebastianum Hcnricpetri, 1605); Lex­
icon Graecorum novum (London: Impensis Ioscosae Norton, 1637); Lexicon Graeco-Latinum
(Lyons: Typis B. & A. Elzcviriorum & F. Hackii, 1652). Romeo (1977: 46 n. 5) explains
this series of editions as follows: “Henricus Stephanus’ Thesaurus Graecae linguae was first
published in 1572. Joannes Scapula’s pirated abridgement of the Thesaurus started in 1579
and generated several editions until the nineteenth century”. It must be noted that Romeo
(1977: 43) mentions a 1663 edition of Scapula as in Locke’s possession along with the
1605 edition, but Romeo gives no bibliographical information whatever concerning this
1663 edition.
SCHAFF, Adam.
1964. J(ezyk a poznanie (Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe). References are to the
English trans. by Olgierd Wojtasiewicz, Language and Cognition (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1973).
SCHLEIERMACHER, Friedrich D. E.
1807. “Herakleitos der Dunkel, von Ephesos”, Museum der Altcrthums-Wissenschafl I, 313-533
SCHOKNECHT, W., E. KARRER, and K. DRYSCH.
1980. Sauerstoffmessungen in pflanzenrcichen Raumen”. Working paper (mimeographed),
Institut fur Arbeits- und Sozialmedizin, Universitat Tubingen.

y
316 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

SCHOLEM, Gerhardt.
1960. Zur Kabbala und ihrer Symbolik (Zurich: Rhein). Page references are to the English trans.
by Ralph Mannheim, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken, 1965).
SCHOLES, Robert.
1974. Structuralism in Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press).
SCHRODER, E.
1877. Der Operationskreis des Logikkalkuls (Leipzig).
1890-1905. Vorlesungen uber die Algebra der Logik (Leipzig: I, 1890; II.1, 1891; III, 1895; II.2, 1905).
SCHRODINGER, Erwin.
1945. What Is Life? (New York: Macmillan).
SCHUCHMAN, Philip.
1979. Problems of Knowledge in Legal Scholarship (Storrs, Conn.: University of Connecticut Law
School Press).
SCHUR, Edwin M.
1968. Law and Society (New York: Random House).
SCHUSTER, Paul Robert.
1872. Heraklit von Ephesus. Ein Versuch, dessen Fragmentein ihrer urspringlichen Ordnung wiederherzustellen
(Leipzig: Teubner).
SCHWIMMER, Eric.
1979. “Reciprocity and Structure", Man n.s. 14, 271-285.
SCRUTON, Roger.
1980. “Possible Worlds and Premature Sciences”, in The London Review of Books, 7 February
1980, reviewing Prcziosi 1979 and Eco 1976, without much good to report, but without
much depth, either.
SEARLE, John R.
1965. “What Is a Speech Act?”, in Philosophy in America, cd. Max Black (London: George Allen
and Unwin), 221-39. Page references are to the reprint in The Philosophy of Language, ed.
John Scarle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 39-53.
SEBEOK, Thomas A.
1963. “Communication among social bees; porpoises and sonar; man and dolphin”, Language
39, 448-466.
1968. “Zoosemiotics”, American Speech 43, 142-44.
1968a. “Is a Comparative Semiotics Possible?”, in Echanges el communications: Melanges offerts a
Claude Levi-Strauss a l’occasion de son 60eme anniversaire, ed. Jean Pouillon et Pierre Maranda
(The Hague: Mouton), 614-627, reprinted in Scbeok 1976: 59-69.
1970. “The Word ‘Zoosemiotics’”, Language Sciences 10, 36-37.
1971 (original composition), “ ‘Semiotics’ and Its Congeners”, first published in Jazayery, Polome,
and Winter 1976: 283-295, and reprinted in Sebeok 1976: 47-58 [q.v.]. Page references
are to Sebeok 1976.
1972. Perspectives in Zoosemiotics (The Hague: Mouton).
1974. “Semiotics: A Survey of the State of the Art”, in Linguistics and Adjacent Arts and Sciences,
Vol. 12 of the Current Trends in Linguistics series, ed. by Sebeok (The Hague: Mouton),
211-264. Page references are to the reprint in Sebeok 1976 (q.v.): 1-45.
1974a. “La dynamique des signes”, in L ’Unite de I’homme: Invariants biologiques et universaux culturels,
ed. Edgar Morin and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini (Paris: Seuil), 61-77, reprinted in Sebeok
1976: 95-110.
1975. “The Semiotic Web: A Chronicle of Prejudices”, Bulletin of Literary Semiotics 2, 1-63, as
reprinted with essential corrections and additions in Sebeok 1976 (q.v.): 149-188.
1975a. “Zoosemiotics: At the Intersection of Nature and Culture”, in The Tell-Tale Sign, ed.
Thomas A. Sebeok (Lisse, The Netherlands: Peter de Ridder Press), 85-95.
1976. ' Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs (Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press; reprinted with a new Preface
by Brooke Williams and with arabic pagination unchanged as Volume IV of the Sources
in Semiotics Series of the University Press of America, 1985).
1976a. “Final Report: Narrative” for the National Endowment for the Humanities on the Pilot
Program in Semiotics in the Humanities at Indiana University’s Bloomington campus,
1 August 1975-31 July 1976; report dated 1 June 1976, distributed by the Research Center
for Language and Semiotic Studies, 14 pages; subsequently published as “Appendix III.
Teaching Semiotics: Report on a Pilot Program”, in Sebeok 1979: 272-279. Page references
are to this published copy.
1977. “Ecumcnicalism in Semiotics”, in A Perfusion of Signs, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok (Bloom­
ington and London: Indiana University Press), 180-206.
1977a. “The French Swiss Connection”, Semiotic Scene I, 27-32.
 REFERENCES 317

1978. “Looking in the Destination for What Should Have Been Sought in the Source”, Diogenes
104, 112-138.
1979. The Sign & Its Masters (Austin: University of Texas Press).
1979a. “Prefigurements of Art”, Semiotica 27, 3-73.
1980. Statement distributed to participants in the colloquium “The Role of the Observer” held
as a Plenary session of the seventh Annual Meeting of the Semiotic Society of America,
Buffalo, New York, October 1982.
1981. The Play of Musement (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
1982. “Foreword” to Introducing Semiotic. Its History and Doctrine (Bloomington: Indiana Univer­
sity Press), ix-xi.
1984. “S601. Introduction to Semiotic Studies”, graduate seminar taught in the Fall at Indiana
University, Bloomington.
1984a. “Signs of Life”, International Semiotic Spectrum 2 (June 1984), 1-2.
1984b. October 12. “Vital Signs” (Presidential Address to the Ninth Annual Meeting of the
Semiotic Society of America), The American Journal of Semiotics 3.3 (1985), 1-27.
SEBEOK, Thomas A., cd.
1969. Approaches to Semiotics 1- (The Hague: Mouton).
SEBEOK, Thomas A., Alfred S. HAYES, and Mary Catherine BATESON, eds.
1964. ' Approaches to Semiotics: Cultural Anthropology, Education, Linguistics, Psychiatry, Psychology (The
Hague: Mouton).
SEBEOK, Thomas A., and Robert ROSENTHAL, cds.
1981. The Clever Hans Phenomenon: Communication with Horses, Whales, Apes, and People (New York:
The New York Academy of Sciences).
SEBEOK, Thomas A., and Jean UMIKER-SEBEOK.
1979. “ ‘You Know My Method’: A Juxtaposition of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes”,
Semiotica 26: 203-250. Subsequently reprinted in an enhanced monograph form under the
same title (Bloomington: Gaslight Publications, 1980).
SEBEOK, Thomas A., and Jean UMIKER-SEBEOK, eds. (Further under UMIKER-SEBEOK).
1976. Speech Surrogates: Drum and Whistle Systems, in 2 vols. (The Hague: Mouton).
1980. Speaking of Apes. A Critical Anthology of Two- Way Communication with Alan (New York: Plenum).
This anthology is a landmark in the study of man-animal communication, bringing to
bear, as it docs, a state of the art critical consciousness that has so far been conspicuousl-
lacking in this area of research. Further under Umikcr-Sebcok.
SEMIOTICS 1984 (10th Annual Proceedings of the Semiotic Society of America).
1984. “Style Sheet for Semiotic Society of America Proceedings”, in loc. cit., ed. J. N. Dee
(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), 715-739.
SEVE, Lucien.
1969. ( ( Metodo estructural y metodo dialectico”, trans. Antonio G. Valientc, in Eslructuralismo
y marxismo (Barcelona: Ediciones Martinez Roca), 108-150.
SEXTUS EMPIRICUS.
c.200. Outlines of Pyrrhonism, bilingual Greck/English text with an English trans. by R. G. Bury
(The Loeb Classical Library), Vol. I of Sextus Empiricus (London: Heinemann, 1933).
SHAFFER, Peter.
1974. Equus, in Equus and Shrivings: Two Plays (New York: Atheneum), 1-106.
SHERZER, D., andj. SHERZER.
1976. ( ( Mormaknamaloc”, in Ritual and Symbol in Native Central America, ed. P. Young and J.
Howe (University of Oregon Anthropology Papers, Number 9).
SHORT, T. L.
1981. “Semeiosis and Intentionality”, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, XVII.3 (Sum­
mer), 197-223.
1981a. “Peirce’s Concept of Final Causation”, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, XVII.4
(Fall), 369-382.
1983. “Teleology in Nature”, American Philosophical Quarterly 20.4 (October), 311-320.
SHOUBY, E.
1951. “The Influence of the Arabic Language on the Psychology of the Arabs”, The Middle East
Journal 5, 284-302.
SILVERSTEIN, Michael.
1976. “Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description”, in Meaning in Anthropology,
ed. K. Basso and H. Selby (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press), 11-55.
SIMON, Yves R.
1955. “Foreword” to The Material Logic ofJohn of St. Thomas, selections made and trans. from
the Latin ofPoinsot 1632 by Yves R. Simon, John J. Glanvillc, and G. Donald Hollcnhorst
318 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), pp. ix-xxiii. This work is unusable as a guide
to Poinsot’s semiotic—details in Deely 1985: 406 n. 15, here quoted in part: “Nonetheless,
in view of the scarcity of works in this area and the difficulty of the problems involved in
their mastery, this pioneering effort of Simon and his collaborators is an indispensable mine
of scholastic lore in Simon’s ‘Notes’ and ‘Foreword’ to the text. Simon’s vignettes of re­
flection on the distinction between formal and material logic in the scholastic context (pp.
ix-xviii) bear particular mention in this regard.’’
1961. “To Be and To Know’’, Chicago Review 15.4 (Spring), 83-100.
SIMPSON, George Gaylord.
1963. “Biology and the Nature of Science”, Science 139, 81-88.
SINGER, Milton.
1984. Man's Glassy Essence: Explorations in Semiotic Anthropology (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press).
SLUGA, Hans.
1980. Gottlob Frege (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
SMART, Benjamin Humphrey.
1831. An Outline of Semalology: or an Essay Towards Establishing a New Theory of Grammar, Logic,
and Rhetoric, in Smart 1839.
1837. Sequel to Sematobgy. An Attempt to Clear the Way of r the Regeneration of Metaphysics, in Smart 1839.
1839. Beginnings of a New School ofMetaphysics: Three Essays, with an Appendix (London: J. Rich­
ardson).
SODER, Karl.
1964. “Beitragc J. H. Lamberts zur formalen Logik und Semiotik”. Dissertation, Greifwald.
SONTAG, S.
1978. Illness as Metaphor (New York: Vintage Books).
SOTIROPOULOS, Dimitri.
1977. “Diglossia and the National Language Question in Modern Greece”, Linguistics 197, 5-31.
SPADE, Paul Vincent.
1980. Critical apparatus and notes to d’Ailly c. 1372, q.v.
STAIANO, Kathryn Vance.
1979. “A semiotic definition of illness”, Semiotica 28: 107-25.
STEINTHAL, Heyman.
1863. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschafl bei den Griechen und Romem mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Logik,
in 2 vols. (Berlin: Diimmler).
1871. Einleitung in die Psychologic und Sprachwissenschafl (Berlin: Dummlcrs).
STEPHANUS, Hcnricus.
1572-1573. Thesaurus Graecae linguae, in 6 vols. (Geneva: Excudebat H. Stephanus). Two subsequent
editions are important for the present context. [1] Thesaurus Graecae linguae, editio nova auctior
el emendatior, in 8 vols. (London, 1815-1828). Of this edition Romeo remarks (1977 original
publication: 46 n. 5): “all lexica to date are still based on the original Thesaurus which, itself,
had several editions. However, Locke could only have been exposed to the original edition,
for only in the nineteenth century was a major change made through the Editio nova auctior
et emendatior, London: 1815-1828 (8 volumes).” Unfortunately, Romeo gives no indica­
tion as to those responsible for the alleged “increased authority and corrections” of this post­
humous edition, as neither for the publisher. (Compare discussion of the 1663 Lyons edition
of Poinsot’s work in Deely 1985: 396, 397, 402 n. 7, 403 n. 8, 442, 459 n. 95.) [2] Thesaurus
Graecae linguae ab Henrico Stephanus conslructus. Post editionem Anglicam novis additamentis auclum
ordineque alphabetico tertio ediderunt, ed. C. B. Hase et al. (Paris: 1831-1865; reprint Graz:
Akademischc Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1954-1955). Romeo continues (ibid.): “I was able
to consult only the Paris edition of 1831-1865 (Thesaurus Graecae linguae ab Henrico Stephano
conslructus. Post editionem Anglicam novis additamentis auclum ordineque alphabetico tertio ediderunt, C.
B. Hase (et alii]), reprinted in Graz by Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1954-1955”.
STIRLING, Paul.
1965. Turkish Village (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson).
STRAWSON, P. F.
1952. Introduction to Logical Theory (London: Methuen).
STRUEVER, Nancy S.
1974. “The Study of Language and the Study of History”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 4,
401-415.
SUAREZ, Francis.
1605. De Sacramentis (Venice: Apud Societatem Minimam). Vol. XX of the Opera omnia editio
nova, a Carolo Berton (Paris: Vives, 1860) was used in preparing the present work.
 REFERENCES 319

SUPPE, Frederick.
1974. “The Search for Philosophical Understanding of Scientific Theories”, in The Structure of
Scientific Theories, ed. Frederick Suppe (Urbana: University of Illinois Press), 1-241.
SWIFT, Jonathan.
1726. Gulliver’s Travels, critical edition by Robert A. Greenberg (2nd redaction; New York: W.
W. Norton, 1970).
SYPHER, Wylie.
1968. Literature and Technology (New York: Random House).
TATE, Allen.
1952. “The Angelic Imagination and the Power of Words”, Kenyon Review, 14.3 (Summer), 455-
475.
TAYLOR, A. E.
1956. Plato: The Man and His Work (New York: World Publishing Co.).
THOLFSEN, Trygve R.
1967. Historical Thinking: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row).
THOM, Rene.
1972. Stabilite structurelle et morphogen'ese: essai d’une theoriegenerate des modeles (Reading, MA: W. A.
Benjamin). References to this work are to the version updated by the author and trans­
lated into English by D. H. Fowler, Structural Stability and Morphogenesis: An Outline of a
General Theory of Models (same publisher, 1975).
1973. De l’iconc au symbole: Esquissc d’unc theorie du symbolisme”, Cahiers Inlemalionaux
du Symbolisme 22/23, 85-106; English version entitled “From the Icon to the Symbol” is
reproduced in Innis cd. 1985: 275-291, q.v.
TILLINGHAST, Pardon E.
1972. The Specious Past (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company).
TODOROV, Tzvetan.
1977. Theories du symbole (Paris: Seuil).
1978. Symbolisme el interpretation (Paris: Seuil).
TOPOROV, N.
1972. “K proiskhozhdeniiu nekotorykh pocticheskikh simvolov (Palcolitichcskaia epokha)”, in
Rannie formy iskusstva [Early Forms of Art] (Moscow). Page references are to the English
translation, “Toward the Origin of Certain Poetic Symbols: the Palaeolithic Period”, in
Semiotics and Structuralism: Readingsfrom the Soviet Union, ed. Heinrich Baran (White Plains,
New York: International Arts and Sciences Press), 184-225.
TOULMIN, Stephen.
1953. The Philosophy of Science (London: Hutchinson’s University Library).
1958. The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
1961. Foresight and Understanding (New York: Harper and Row).
TRUBETSKOY, N. S.
1939. Grundzuge der Phonologic, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7. References are to the French
trans. byj. Cantincau, Principes de Phonologic (Paris: Klincksieck, 1964).
UEXKULL, Jakob von.
1899-1940. Kompositionslehre der Natur. Biologic als undogmatische Naturwissenschaft, selected writings
ed. and with an introduction by Thurc von Uexkull (Frankfurt a. M.: Ullstcin).
1920. Theoretische Biologic (Berlin). The English trans. by D. L. MacKinnon, Theoretical Biology
(New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926) was consulted.
1922. Wie sehen wir die Natur und wic sieht sie sich selber?” Die Naturwissenschaft 14, 316-322.
1934. Slreifzuge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen, with illustrations by Georg Kriszat
(Berlin). The English trans. by Claire H. Schiller “A Stroll through the Worlds of Animals
and Men”, in Instinctive Behavior: The Development of a Modern Concept, ed. Claire H. Schiller
(New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1957), 5-80, was used.
1935. “Die Bedeutung der Umweltforschung fur die Erkenntnis des Lebens”, Zeitschrift fur die
gesamle Naturwissenschaft 7, 257-272.
1940. “Bedeutungslehre”, Bios, vol. 10 (Leipzig). Reprinted in Slreifzuge durch die Umwelten von
Tieren und Menschen/Bedeulungslehre, by Jakob von Ucxkiill and Georg Kriszat (Frankfurt
a. M.: S. Fischer Verlag, 1970). Page references are to the 1970 reprint. English trans.
by Barry Stone and Herbert Weiner as “The Theory of Meaning”, Semiolica 42.1 (1982),
Special Issue guest edited by Thurc von Uexkull, 25-82. See commentary on the trans­
lation of “Umwelt” in this Special Issue in Deely 1985a References.
UEXKULL, Thure von.
1980. “Vorwort des Hcrausgebers” (pp. 7-15), “Einleitung: Pliidoyer fur einc sinndeutende
Biologie” (pp. 17-85), and “Vorbemerkungen des Herausgcbers” (passim) tojakob von
Uexkull 1899-1940, q.v.
320 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

UEXKULL, Thure von, ed.

1979. Lehrbuch der psychosomatischen Medizin (Munchen: Urgan & Schwarzenberg).
ULLMANN, Stephen.
1951. The Principles of Semantics (Glasgow: Jackson, Son & Co.).
UMIKER-SEBEOK, Jean, and Thomas A. SEBEOK.
(The five articles comprising this entry constitute a single, jointly produced, ongoing critique,
substantially expanded and—between 1979-1981—continually updated in each stage or
version, that probably marks a turning point in the discussion of animal “language”.
The order of the names in this particular case does not uniformly represent priority of
authorship for the component entries, as this seems to have shifted, e.g., between the 1980
and 1981a versions.)
1979. Performing Animals: Secrets of the Trade”, Psychology Today 13.6, 78-91.
i<

1980. “Questioning Apes”, in Scbeok and Umiker-Scbcok cds. 1980: 1-59.

1981. “Clever Hans and Smart Simians: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Kindred Methodo­
logical Pitfalls”, Anthropos 76.1-2, 89-165.
1981a. “Smart Simians: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Kindred Methodological Pitfalls”, in
Scbeok 1981: Chapter 8, 134-209.
1982. “Rejoinder to the Rumbaughs”, Anthropos “Reports and Comments” 77, 574-578.
VALERY, Paul.
a. 1945. Oeuvres, Vol. I (Paris: Gallimard, 1957).
VEATCH, Henry B.
1952. Intentional Logic (New Haven: Yale University Press).
VEINOGLOU, Tzon (“John”).
1976. “EXXtviKOtaTeo i pi^ea to0 p£(ieTiKO0” (“The roots of the rebelika are very Hellenic”),
Ta Nea, in Greek, May 10, 11, 12.
VESCOVINI, G. Fedcrici.
1965. Studi sulla prospettiva medievale (Turin: Giappichelli).
VOIGT, Vilmos.
1969. “Modcllalas a folklorisztik£ban”, Studia Ethnographica 5, 347-430.
VYGOTSKY, Lev Semenovich.
1962. Myshlenie irech ’, trans. by Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar as Thought and Language
(Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1962).
WALLACE, William A.
1980. “Albertus Magnus on Suppositional Necessity in the Natural Sciences”, in Wcishcipl,
ed. 1980 [q.v.]: 103-128. Wallace documents a remarkable discussion in Albert’s De
Praedicabilibus, tract. 7, ch. 2, and tract. 8, ch. 10 (in Vol. I of the Opera Omnia, Borgnet
ed. pp. 122a-b and 140a, respectively) of the conditions of egg-formation under which
a crow that was not black would be produced.
WALLIS, J., ed.
1682. Latin trans. of Ptolemy c. 150, q.v.
WALZER, Richard R.
1939. Eraclito (Florence: Pubblicazione della Reale Scuola Normale di Pisa; reprinted Hildesheim:
Georg Olms, 1964).
WEBBER, J.
1973. Review article, Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 4, 32-41.
WEDGWOOD, C. V.
1956. Literature and the Historian, Presidential Address to the English Association (London: Ox­
ford University Press). Page references are to the reprint in Truth and Opinion (New York:
Macmillan, 1960), 62-81. Truth and Opinion was reissued in 1967 under the title of The
Sense of the Past. Thirteen Studies in the Theory and Practice of History (New York: Collier Books),
with pagination identical to the 1960 edition.
WEISHEIPL, James A.
1974. Friar Thomas d’Aquino. His Life, Thought, and Works (New York: Doubleday).
1980. “Life and Works of Albert the Great”, in Weisheipl, ed. 1980 [q.v.]: 13-51.
1980a. “Appendix I. Albert’s Work on Natural Science (libri naturales) in Probable Chronological
Order”, in Weisheipl, ed. 1980 [q.v.]: 565-577.
WEISHEIPL, James A., ed.
1980. Albertus Magnus and the Sciences. Commemorative Essays 1980 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute
of Mediaeval Studies).
WEISS, Paul, and Arthur W. BURKS.
1945. “Peirce’s Sixty-six Signs”, The Journal of Philosophy 42.13 (June 21), 383-388.
 REFERENCES 321

WEIZENBAUM, Joseph.
1977. “Computers as ‘Therapists’ , Science 198, 354.
WELBY, Victoria Lady.
1896. “Sense, Meaning, and Interpretation’’, MindV. 17-18, 24-37 (Vol. 17), 186-202 (Vol. 18).
WELTRING, Georg.
1910. Das Semeion in der aristotelischen, stoischen, epikureischen und skeptischen Philosophie. Ein Beitrag
zur Geschichle der Antiken Methodenlehrc (Bonn: Hauptmann’sche Buchdruckcrei).
WEYL, Hermann.
1932. The Open World (New Haven: Yale University Press).
WHEELER, John Archibald.
1981, July. Lecture presented at “Scientific Concepts of Time in Humanistic and Social Perspec­
tive” Conference, held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Study and Conference Center in
Bcllagio, Italy, 6-10 July 1981.
WHEWELL, William.
1837. History of the Inductive Sciences, From the Earliest to the Present Time (London), in 3 volumes.
1840. Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (London).
WINNER, Irene P. and Thomas G.
1976. “The Semiotics of Cultural Texts”, Semiotica 18, 101-156.
WHITE, Hayden.
1978. Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press).
WHITE, Jr., Lynn.
1956. “The Changing Past”, in Frontiers of Knowledge in the Study of Man, ed. Lynn White, Jr.
(New York: Harper & Brothers), 68-78.
WHITEHEAD, Alfred North.
1948. Science and the Modern World (New York: Macmillan). References in Baer arc to the 1967
reprint (New York: The Free Press).
WHITEHEAD, Alfred North, and Bertrand RUSSELL.
1910-1913. Principia Malhemalica (Cambridge), 3 vols.
WHITNEY, William Dwight, cd.
1897. The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, in 10 vols. (New York: The Century Co.).
WHORF, Benjamin Lee.
1956. “An American Indian Model of the Universe”, in Language, Thought, and Reality, ed. Joh
B. Carroll (Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press), 57-64.
WHYTE, Lancelot Law.
1944. The Next Development in Man (London: Cresset Press). Page references in this volume ai
to the New American Library edition, New York, 1950.
WIENER, Norbert.
1967. The Human Use of Human Beings (New York: Avon).
WIGMORE, John H.
1928. A Panorama of the World’s Legal Systems, in 3 vols. (St. Paul: West Publishers).
WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, Ulrich von.
1922. “Gedachtnisrcde des Hm. v. Wilamowitz-Mocllcndorff auf Herman Diels”, in Silz-
ungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin: Vcrlag dcr Akademie der
Wissenschaftcn), 104-107.
WILD, John.
1947. “An Introduction to the Phenomenology of Signs”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
VIII (December), 217-244.
1956. Review of The Material Logic ofJohn of St. Thomas (sec entry for Simon 1955, above), in
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research XVII (June), 556-559.
WILDEN, Anthony.
1968. “Lacan and the Discourse of the Other”, in Wildcn’s English trans. of Lacan 1956 [q.v.],
159-311.
1972. System and Structure (London: Tavistock Publications).
1981. “Semiotics as Praxis: Strategy and Tactics”, Recherches Semiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry 1.1, 1-34.
WILLIAMS, Brooke.
1981. “The Feminist Revolution in ‘Ultramodern’ Perspective”, Cross Currents XXXI.3 (Fall),
307-319.
1985. “What Has History To Do with Semiotic?”, Semiotica 54.3/4, 267-333; preprinted in revised
monograph form with index and historically layered bibliography under the title History
and Semiotic (Victoria College of the University of Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle Number
4, Summer).
322 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

1985a. “Challenging Signs at the Crossroads”, prefatory essay to Thomas A. Sebeok, Contribu­
tions to the Doctrine of Signs ( = Sources in Semiotics IV; uncorrected reprint edition of 1976
original; Lanham, MD: University Press of America), xv-xlii.
WINANCE, Eleuthere.
1983. “Review” of Introducing Semiotic (Deely 1982), Revue Thomiste LXXX (juillet-aout), 514-516.
1986. “Echo de la querelle du psychologisme et dc l’antipsychologisme dans l’Ars Logica de
Jean Poinsot”, Semiolica 55.3/4, 225-259.
WITTGENSTEIN, Ludwig.
1919. Traclatus Logico-Philosophicus, German with English trans. by D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuin-
ness (London: Routledge and Regan Paul, 1961).
WOLLEN, Peter.
1969. Signs and Meaning in the Cinema (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
WOOD, W. B.
1961. From Miasmas to Molecules (New York: Columbia University Press).
WORTH, Sol.
1969. “The Development of a Semiotic of Film”, Semiolica 1, 282-321.
XENOPHON.
C.365BC. 7t£pi iTinutffc, On the Art of Horsemanship, Greek with facing English trans. by E. C. Mar-
chant, in Vol. VII of Xenophon (Loeb Classical Library cd.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1925), 296-363.
ZUMTHOR, Paul, and Eugene VANCE, organizers.
1977, August 2-12: Colloquium “L’Archcologie du Signc”, held at Centre Culturcl International
de Cerisy, Cerisy-la-Salle (Normandy), France.
 Index

Aalto, A.: 303 Augustine, Saint Binsse, H. L.: 308

Aaron, Richard I.: 255, 291 (“Augustinus”): 5, 10, 12, Black, Max: 316
Abelard, Peter: 70, 72, 291 14, 65, 66, 70, 72, 170, Blonsky, Marshall: viii
Abraham: 170 176, 226, 292 Bloomfield, Leonard: 74, 293
Abrahams, R. D.: 189, 291 Austin, J. L.: Ill, 280, 292 Bochenski, I. M.: 25, 31-33,
Academicians: 64 Bacchus: 11 258, 293
Adam, Charles: 297 Bachclard, Gaston: 281, 283, Boehner, Philotheus: 8, 294
Adler, Mortimer J.: 15, 291 292 Boethius: 15, 66-68, 292
Acgidius Romanus: 9, 10 Bachi, Riccardo: 292 Bohr, Niels: 36, 125, 138,
Ailly, Pierre d’: 9, 10, 291, Bacon, Francis: 26, 292 294
304 Bacon, Roger: 69, 71, 72, Boisacq, Emile: 230, 294
Albert the Great (“Albcrtus 276, 292 Boole, George: 30, 294
Magnus”): 9, 10, 11, 26, Baer, Eugen: xx, 292, 297 Borgnet, Auguste: 292, 320
64, 291, 320 Baird, George: 261, 304 Bos, Egbert P.: 294
Alcmaeon: 39 Baldwin, James Mark: 311 Bosserel, J. B.: 11, 294
Aldington, R.: 310 Bally, Charles: 315 Bouchard, Donald F.: 299
Alice in Wonderland: 57 Bambrough, Renford: 154 Bouche-Leclerq, Auguste:
Alperson, Burton L.: 206, Baran, Heinrich: 319 230, 294
291 Barnes, Hazel E.: 315 Bouissac, Paul: 186, 288,
Althusser, Louis: 125, 283, Barthes, Roland: 120, 121, 292, 294, 300
291 125, 126, 199, 200, 202, Braudel, Fernand: 305
Ammonius Hermeiou: 64, 204-207, 213, 260, 261, Braunsberg, Andrew: 292
66, 275, 291 281, 293 Breal, Michel: 258, 294
Anderson, Fulton F.: 292 Baskin, Wade: 315 Bremner, Robert H.: 310
Anderson, Myrdene: xviii, Bass, Alan: 297 Bremond: 126
xix, 291 Basso, K.: 298, 317 Brereton, C.: 293
Angelicus, Robertus: 304 Bastide, Roger: 293, 307 Brewster, Ben: 291
Anselm of Canterbury: 300 Bateson, Gregory: 258, 281, Bridgman, Percy: 132, 133,
Anshen, Ruth Nanda: 309 293 283, 294
Apel, Karl-Otto: 7 Bateson, Mary Catherine: Brinton, Crane: 221, 294
Apollonius Dyscolus: 275, 317 Brock, Jarrett: 279, 294
291 Baudelaire, Charles Pierre: Broglie, Louis de: 124, 294
Aquinas, Thomas: xvi, 7, 9, 174 Bronowski, Jacob: 125, 294
14, 20, 58, 63, 68, 69, 99, Baumann, Richard: 189, 291 Brother Klaus von der Flue:
171, 274, 275, 277, 283, Beal, Edward: 194, 293 165
291, 320 Beare, J. L.: 292 Brouwer, L. E. J.: 141, 142,
Archduke Franz Ferdinand: Bense, Max: 257, 293 294
222 Benveniste, Emil: xii, 55, Brown, Clarence: 41, 294
Ardener, E. W.: 185, 262, 280, 293 Brunschvicq, Leon: 153
284, 292 Berger, Arthur Asa: viii, 293 Buber, Martin: 291
Aristotle: xiv, 7, 8, 9, 13, Bergson, Henri: 57, 58, 135, Bucephalus: 41
14, 19, 23, 25, 26, 58, 293 Buhler, Karl: xii, 257, 294,
64-67, 99, 102, 149, 225, Berkeley, Bishop George: 17, 303
227, 233, 291, 292, 295, 35, 242, 266, 293, 311 Burks, Arthur W.: 278, 311,
309 Bernard of Clairvaux: 300 312, 320
Arnauld, Antoine: 292 Berolzheimer, Fritz: 192, 293 Burnet, John: 229, 294
Ashby, Hal: 39, 292 Bertalanffy, Ludwig von: Burnyeat, M. F.: 208, 294
Ashley, Benedict: 19, 292 134, 135, 293 Burtt, E. A.: 293, 303
Audra, A.: 293 Billuart: 292 Bury, R. G.: 317
323
324 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Bussc, Adolfus: 291 Czerny, Robert: 314 Eddington, Arthur Stanley:

Buyssens, Eric: 261, 294 Dalbicz, Roland: 60, 296 85, 86, 126, 132, 133,
Bywatcr, Ingram: 226, 285, Dalgarno, George: 38, 296 137, 283, 298
294 Dante Alighieri: 168, 178, Edghill, E. M.: 292
Caesar: 10 296 Edwards, Paul: 305
Cahalan, John C.: 264, 295 Darwin, Charles: 74, 233, Ehrenzweig, Anton: 145, 298
Cairns, Huntington: 191, 296 Einstein, Albert: 133, 283
285, 295, 301, 312 De Lacy, Estelle: 312 Eisclc, Carolyn: 280, 311
Cajetan (‘Thomas Gaeta’): Dc Lacy, Philip Howard: 312 El Guindi, Fadwa: 284, 298
14, 291, 295 Dc Lubac, Henri: 168, 296, Eli-yaku Kohen Ithamari of
Cajori, Florian: 310 300 Smyrna, Rabbi: 172
Calliclcs: 242 De Morgan, Augustus: 30, Eliza (the computer pro­
Cantincau, J.: 303, 319 32, 296 gram): 39
Capck, Milic: 124, 132-135, Dc Rijk, L. M.: 291 Englcr, R.: 315
281-283, 295 Dc Rubcis: 292 Epicureans: 64
Carmcllo, P.: 291 De Ruggcrio, Guido: 296 Epimcnidcs: 281
Carnap, Rudolf: 30, 257, Deely, John: xii, xiii, xviii, Eschbach, Achim: xii, 5,
295 xix, xxi, 5, 8, 9, 10, 296, 298
Carr, Gerald F.: 296, 314 12-22, 25, 30-33, 52, 97, Euclid: 281
Carroll, Lewis: 129 219-223, 273, 274, 276, Eudoxus: 268
Carroll, Roland C.: 92, 295 287, 290-292, 296, 297, Euler: 312
Carter, James Earl (“Jim­ 305, 313, 315, 318, 319 Evans, Jonathan: 297
my”): 279 Dcgcnkolbe, J.: 297 Evans, Joseph: 309
Cassirer, Ernst: 39, 157, 295 Del Monte, Albert: 296 Fabiola: 304
Cataudclla, Quintino: 295 Delacroix: 153, 154 Faris, J. C.: 189, 298
Caws, Peter: 130, 293, 295 Dclbruck, Max: 87, 297, 313 Fauchcr, P.: 292
Chantavoine: 61 Delphic Oracle: xxi, 228ff., Ferguson: 185, 298
Charbonnier, Georges: 207, 232, 233, 254 Ferreira Gomes, Joaquim:
295 Derrida, Jacques: 129, 173, 294, 298, 299
Cherry, Colin: 308 184, 297 Ferri, S.: 230, 298
Chomsky, Noam: 183, 245, Descartes, Rene: xii, 6, 8, Fcrricros, Alejandro: 307
249, 250, 253 12, 16, 18, 21, 25, 123, Fichte, Johann Gottlieb: 149
Choquette, Imelda: 308 248, 266, 268, 297 Ficino, Marsilio: 8
Christ: 153, 168, 170 Devcreux: 183 Fillmore, C. J.: 186, 298
Chrysippus: 64, 255 Diels, Hermann: 225, Firth, Raymond: 154, 155,
Chwistek, Leon: 257 226-234, 285, 297, 299, 166, 298
Cicero: 256 302, 311, 321 Fisch, Max H.: 27, 191,
Clement of Alexandria: 167 Dictze, Gottfried: 193, 297 280, 298, 299
Clever Hans: 41, 93, 214, Diogenes Laertius: 255 Fishman, Joshua A.: 185,
320 Dion: 201 299
Cohen, Jonathan: 295 Dionysius I: 201 Fitzgerald, Robert: 303
Cohen, Morris R.: 29, 295 Dobzhansky, Theodosius: 75, Fonseca, Peter (“Petrus
Cole, Peter: 301 297 Fonsccus”): 9-16, 296, 314
Collingwood, R. G.: xii, Dodds, John H : 88, 297 Foote, Kenneth E.: 288, 300
219, 220, 295, 315 Donato, Eugenio: 297 Foucault, Michel: viii, 184,
Comas del Brugar, Miguel Doneaud, Doina: 298 211, 215, 283, 299
(“Michael Comas”): 25, Douglas, Mary: 292 Fowler, Thomas: 292, 319
295 Doyle, John P.: xviii, 9, 11, Frank, Jerome: 191, 299
Compagnon, Andre: 167, 296, 297 Fraser, Alexander Campbell:
295 Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan: 25, 299, 307, 311
Conimbricenses: 10, 11, 13, 41, 297 Frcdborg, K. M.: 292
14, 20, 295, 297 Dracula: 42 Freeman, Kathleen: 228, 299
Conkin, Paul K.: 218, 295 Drysch, K.: 297, 315 Frege, G.: 30-32, 298, 299
Cook, James Edward: 305, Du Boulay, J.: 189, 297 Freud, Sigmund: 60, 135,
311 Dubois, Jean: 280, 297 156, 160, 166, 183, 299
Copi, Irving M.: 29, 31, 295 Dumitriu, Anton: 32, 297 Fricdl, E.: 189, 299
Cornford, F. M.: 312 Dummett, Michael: 30, 298 Friedman, Lawrence: 193,
Coseriu, Eugenio: 226, 295 Durkhcim, Emil: 183 198, 299
Count, Earl W.: 258 Eccles, John C.: 274, 313 Friedrich, W.: 297
Creuzer, G. F.: 163, 164, Eco, Umberto: xix, xxi, 9, Futuyma, D. J.: 152, 300
295 19, 28, 41, 42, 63, 125, Gaeta, Thomas: see Cajetan
Crick, M.: 185, 295 156, 159, 164, 179, 182, Galen (“Galenus”): 29, 228,
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly: 187, 202, 204, 219, 262, 285, 286, 300, 315
93, 295 265, 267, 270, 274, 275, Galileo Galilei: 123
Culler, Jonathan: xii, 128, 283, 298, 300, 301, 303, Galileo Galilei: 31
296 310, 316 Gallie, W. B.: 218, 300
 INDEX 325

Gandelsonas, Mario: 261, Havelock, Eric: 301 Husscr), Edmund: 256, 285,
300 Hawkcs, Terence: ix, x, 301 302, 303
Gardin, Jcan-Claudc: 288, Hayes, Nelson E.: 258, 295, Huxley, Julian S.: 74
300 302, 317 Hyland, Drew A.: 228, 303
Garvin, Paul: 199, 300 Hayes, Tanya: 258, 295, 302 Iakovidhis, Khristos: 188,
Geach, Peter: 31, 32, 300 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm 303
Geny, Francois: 191, 300 Friedrich: viii, 149, 163, Innis, Robert E.: xii, xvi,
Gilardoni, Giavonni: 229, 164, 302 303, 319
315 Heidegger, Martin: x, xi, Ionesco: 153
Gilbert of Stanford: xx, 169, 14, 34, 130, 166, 172, Isenbcrg, M. W.: 201
300, 306 199, 200, 270, 284 Isidore of Seville: 64
Gilson, Etienne: 6, 7, 9, Heisenberg, Werner: 132, Ivanov: 183
265, 300 134, 136, 138, 302 Jackson, John Hughlings:
Giurcaneanu, Dinu: 298 Helmholtz, Hermann Lud­ 263, 303
Glanville, John J.: 317 wig von: 157, 159, 163 Jacobson, Claire: 307
Godcl, Robert: 261, 300 Hcmpcl, Carl: 217, 302 Jakobson, Roman: viii, 40,
Goethe: 91, 136, 162, 300 Henderson, Lawrence J.: 96, 48, 74, 121, 122, 125,
Goldmann, Lucicn: 128, 102, 302 128, 182, 183, 258, 263,
280, 282 Heraclitus: xxi, 40, 224-227, 280, 281, 303, 304
Goldstein, LeonJ.: 187, 301 230, 231, 233, 234, 285, James, William: 124, 135,
Golopentia-Erctescu, Sanda: 294, 302, 313-315, 316, 241
xix, 260, 301 320 Jameson, Frcdric: xii, 121,
Gombrich, E. H.: 41 Herbert, Wray: viii 304
Goody, E. N.: 184, 187, 301 Hcrculano dc Carvalho, Jose Jeanningros, General: 61
Goody, Jack: 301 G.: 6, 296, 302 Jeans, James: 123, 134, 135,
Gould, Stephen J.: 269, 301 Hermes: 256, 302 304
Goux, Jacques: 156 Hcrschcl, Sir John: 10, 26, Jcncks, Charles: 261, 304
Gredt, Josephus: 25 302 Jerome, Saint: 168, 304
Green, William M.: 292 Hershbell, Jackson: 301 Jessop, T. E.: 293
Greenberg, Robert A.: 319 Hertz: 157 Jevons, W. S.: 30, 304
Greenlee, Douglas: 278, 279, Herzfcld, Michael: xx, xxi, John Damascene: 275, 304
301 xxiii, 186, 187, 190, 270, John of Sacrobosco: 268, 304
Greimas, Algirdas Julien: 286, 292, 296, 302 Johnson, B.C.: 185, 304
125, 126, 281, 301 Heurtin, Marie: 53, 54 Jolif, Jean Yves: 300
Grenc, Marjorie: 313 Hikins, James: 204, 302 Jones, W. H. S.: 303
Grice, H. P.: 110, 111, 158, Hilberg, Isidorus: 304 Joos, Martin: 257, 304
175, 301 Hilbert, D.: 30, 302 Joseph, H. W. B.: 26, 29,
Gross, G. R. T.: 297 Hill, Archibald A.: 225, 257, 304
Grundfest, Brooke: 307 262, 302, 304 Joyce, James: 174, 176, 304
Grycz, Czeslaw Jan Hillgarth, Jocelyn Nigel: Jung, Carl Gustav: 161, 164,
(“Chet”): xxii 303, 308 304
Guiraud, Pierre: 261, 301 Hippocrates: 39, 65, 225, Jupiter: 60
Gulliver: 125 226, 228, 234, 286, 300, Kaczmarck, Ludger: xviii, 9,
Guthrie, W. K. C.: 301 303 11, 304
Haase, Friedrich: 314 Hirschfcld, L. A.: 190 Kant, Immanuel: x, 18, 42,
Haberland, G.: 88, 301 Hjclmslcv, Louis: 157, 159, 253, 266-268, 280, 281,
Haidu, Peter: xxi, 217, 301 160, 183, 199, 200, 202, 304
Haldane, Elizabeth S.: 297 262, 280, 300, 303 Karmin, O.: 153
Hall, Michael A.: 88, 297 Hobbes, Thomas: 247, 253 Karrer, E.: 315
Halverson, William: 29, 301 Hoffman, Carol A.: 92, 295 Katzir, A.: 297
Hamilton, Allan McLanc: Hoffmann, E.: 303 Kendall, M. B.: 186, 305
263, 301 Holcnstein, Elmar: 206, 215, Kennelly: 159
Hamilton, Edith: 285, 301, 303 Kepler, Johannes: 253
312 Hollcnhorst, G. Donald: 317 Kerferd, George B.: 201,
Hammurabi: 196 Holmes, Oliver Wendell: 202, 207, 211, 305
Hanfmann, Eugenia: 320 191, 192, 298 Ketner, Kenneth Laine: 280,
Hardwick, Charles: 301, Holmes, Sherlock: 298, 317 299, 305, 311
307, 312 Homer: 230, 303 Kevelson, Roberta: xii, xx,
Hamad, S. R.: 309 Hopi: 283 191, 194, 195, 305
Harrison, John: 286, 301 Howard, Richard: 299 Keyser, Cassius J.: 128,
Hartshorne, Charles: 191, Howe, J.: 317 305
311 Huizinga, Johan: 221, 303 Kinser, Samuel: 222, 305
Hasenmueller, Christine: Hull, R. F. C.: 304 Klein, Jacob: 201, 305
268, 301 Hume, David: 17, 18, 21, Klcinman, Arthur: 146, 305
Havelock, Christine: 285, 26, 266, 303 Kleinpaul, Rudolph: 225,
301 Hunt, Everett L.: 209, 303 256, 305
 '
(
I

326 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS

Kloesel, Christian J. W.: Levi Isaac, Rabbi: 174 Marsilius of Inghen: 276;
280, 299 Levi-Strauss, Claude: but see esp. Pseuo-
Kneale, Martha: 25, 31, 305 120-122, 125, 126-129, Marsilius of Inghen
Kneale, William: 25, 31, 305 132, 156, 207, 250, 253, Marwick, Arthur: 218, 309
Koehler, O.: 74, 305 280-283, 295, 302, Marx, Karl: 86, 136, 183,
Konvitz, M. R.: 312 305-307 309
Kosinski, Jerzi: 39, 292, 305 Levin, David: 215 Maschler, Chaninah: 312
Krader, Lawrence: 123, 133, Levy-Bruhl, Lucicn: 6, 56, Matson, Floyd W.: 123, 309
305 307 Mauro, Tullio de: 315
Krampen, Martin: xix, 37, Liddell & Scott: 285 Mauss, Marcel: 307
97-100, 102, 103, 276, Lieb, Irwin C.: 278, 279, Mayenowa, Maria R.: 259,
277, 291, 305 307 309
Kranz, Walther: 226, 297, Lieber, Francis: xii, 191, 305 Mazzantini, Carlo: 309
305 Lilly Library: xxii, 295, 307, McCormack, T. J.: 307
Krcmpel, A.: 19, 305 308 McKcchnie, George E.: 94,
Kretzmann, Norman: 255, Lindsay, T. F.: 296 309
305 Linnaeus, Carolus: 127, 282 McKcon, Richard: 292, 309
Kripke, Saul: 279, 305 Lippizaners: 41 Mead, Margaret: 258, 262
Kristeller, Paul O.: 7, 305 Lissman, H.: 74 Mead, Margaret: 28
Kristcva, Julia: 120, 182, Livingstone, Robert: 308 Meibom (“Mcibomius”),
204, 259, 261, 262, 282, Locke, John: x, xi, xii, xvi, Marcus: 256, 285, 309
306 xxi, 3, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, Melctinsky, Elcazar: 259,
Kriszat, Georg: 319 23-25, 193, 223, 226, 309
Krois, John Michael: 279, 255-257, 262, 264, 270, Mennc, Albert: 32, 309
306 273, 286, 288, 299, 301, Merleau-Ponty, Maurice: xx,
Kuhn, Carolus Gottlob: 300 307, 315, 318 200, 204, 213-215, 285,
Kuhn, Thomas: 131-132, Logid: 83, 307 306, 309
184, 283, 306 Lombard, Peter: 10, 307 Merrell, Floyd: xx, 219, 222,
Kung, Guido: 274, 306 Loras College Library: 295 280. 293, 303, 306, 315
La Coulouche: 61 Lorenz, Konrad: 74 Michelangelo: 243
Labov, W.: 187, 306 Lotman, Juri: 181, 184, 259, Micl, Jan: 306
Lacan, Jacques: viii, 120, 308 Migne, J. P.: 292, 304, 310
125, 126, 129, 132, 156, Lotz, John: 257, 308 Mill, John Stuart: 26, 309
157, 170, 280, 306, 321 Lotze, Hermann: 26, 308 Miller, Jacqucs-Alain: 306
Lachance, Lydwine: 53 Ludovice, Anthony M.: 310 Minerva: 60
Lachelier, Jules: 99, 277, Lukacs, Georg: 282, 308 Minio-Palucllo, L.: 292
306 Lukasiewicz, J.: 32 Miranda, Pierre: 316
Lalande, Andre: 153, 267, Lull, Ramon: 30, 308 Misncr, C. W.: 149, 309
306 Lyons, John: 200, 308 Moerbeke, William: 67
Lamb, Sydney M.: 257, 306 MLA Style Sheet: 290 Mona Lisa: 243
Lambert, J. H.: 256, 286, MacCannell, Dean: 270, 308 Monod, Jacques: 133, 277,
306 MacCannell, Juliet Flower: 310
Lambertini, Roberto: xix, 270, 308 Moore, Edward C.: 299, 311
63, 274, 275, 298 MacKinnon, D. L.: 319 Morris, Charles W.: xxi, 42,
Langan, Thomas: 221, 306 Macksey, Richard: 297 256-258, 262, 273, 310,
Langandoen, D. T.: 298 Maday, Stefan von: 41, 308 314
Langley, A. G.: 307 Maieru, A.: 276, 308 Morris, Mary: 308
Lanigan, Richard: xx, 200, Makowski, Simon Stanislaus: Moscow-Tartu School: 36,
206-209, 215, 284, 293, 25, 308 259
303, 306 Mallarme: 60, 174 Moses: 168
Laplace, Pierre Simon de: Mannheim, Ralph: 295, 316 Motte, Andrew: 310
123, 136 Mannoury, G.: 257, 308 Mounin, Georges: 261, 262,
Laslett, Peter: 286, 301 Marcel, Gabriel: 145 310
Lassalle, Ferdinand: 306 Marchant, E. C.: 322 Nagel, Ernest: 29, 295
Laszlo: 135 Marcus, Solomon: 208, 308 Napoleon Bonaparte: 112
Lavers, Annette: 293 Margaret Mary Alacoque: Naville, Adrien: 261, 310
Leach, Edmund: 42, 265, 166 Neill, Thomas P.: 287, 310
281, 287, 306 Maritain, Jacques: xvi, xviii, Nerval, Gerard de: 310
Lefebvre, Henri: 281, 307 15, 23, 25, 26, 29, 51, 53, Newman, James R.: 305
Leibniz, G. W. F.: 11, 12, 58, 266, 274, 282, 287, Newman, Mildred: 94, 310
25, 30, 36 302, 307-309 Newton, Isaac: 123, 266,
Lemert, Charles C.: 207 Marmo, Costantino: xix, 63, 281-283, 310
Lenhart, Margot D.: xx, 274, 275, 298 Nicholas of Cusa: 8
296, 297 Marrou, Henri-Irenee: Nicholas of Lyra: 168, 310
Lerner, Daniel: 303 218-220, 309 Nicole, Pierre: 292
Lester, K. H.: 297 Marshack, A.: 48, 309 Nidditch, Peter H.: 307, 310

L
 INDEX 327

Nielsen, L.: 292 Pickard-Cambridge, W. H.: Rey, Alain: 5, 287, 314

Nietzsche, F.: 124, 125, 129, 292 Rey-Dcbove, Josettc: 306
310 Picot: 297 Rcymond, A.: 294
Nogar, Raymond J.: 292 Pignatari, Dccio: 260, 312 Richards, Ivor A.: 310
Noreen: 257 Pinborg, Jan: 292 Ricocur, Paul: 134, 136,
Novalis: 140, 149, 310 Pirotta, A. M.: 291 166, 280, 314
Nutini, Hugo: 310 Plato: xiv, xx, 199-202, 204, Rilke, Maria Rainer: 148
Nye, Russel B.: 310 206-209, 211-215, 231, Robert, Paul: 259, 315
Ockham, William of: 6, 7, 239, 242, 268, 284, 301, Roberts, W. Rhys: 292
9,11, 294 302, 305, 308, 309, 312, Robertson, D. W.: 292
Oesterle, Jean: 295, 310 313, 319 Robey, David: 296
Oesterle, John: 15, 291, 292, Pliny: 64 Robin, Richard S.: 299,
310 Plochmann, George K.: 312 311, 312
Ogden, Charles K.: 310 Pocius, G. L.: 189, 312 Rochbcrg-Halton, E.: 93,
Olson, Robert J.: 309 Poinsot, John: ix, xii, xiii, 296, 314
Oracle at Delphi: see Delphic xviii, 9, 12, 13-16, 18-24, Rolland, Roman: 61, 314
Oracle 27, 33, 51, 52, 53, 58, 67, Rollin, Bernard E.: 13, 314
Origen (“Origines”): 167, 221, 264, 269, 273, 274, Romeo, Luigi: xxi, 5, 6, 10,
168, 310 296, 297, 299, 302, 308, 285, 286, 296, 297, 299,
Osiris (Egyptian God): 196 310, 312, 313, 317, 318, 300, 314, 315, 318
Osmaston, F. P. B.: 302 322 Roos, Fred: 293
Otho I (first king of modem Polom6, Edgar C.: 303, 316 Rosen, Arnold: 312
Greece): 284 Polyani, Michael: 127, 313 Rosenthal, Robert: 214, 317
Oxford English Dictionary: Pomponazzi, Pietro:: 8 Ross, Robert E.: 194, 314
286, 311 Pop, Mihai: 260, 313 Ross, W. D.: 292
Pantaleoni, M.: 311 Pope Pius XII: 166 Rossi-Landi, Ferrucio: 156,
Pare, Ambroise: 260 Popper, Karl: 274, 313 314
Parker, Francis H.: 15, 311 Porphyry: 64 Rumbaughs: 320
Parmenides: 124, 137, 149, Posner, Roland: 292 Runciman, W. G.: 208, 314
311 Pouillon, Jean: 316 Russell, Anthony F.: xii, 97,
Parrctt, Herman: ix, 311 Powell, Ralph Austin: 20, 194, 219, 315
Pascal, Blaise: 129 21, 221, 290, 306, 313 Russell, Bertrand: 30, 32,
Pasquinelli, Angelo: 226-229, Presocratics: 299 281, 315, 321
285, 311 Prcsti, David: 87, 297, 313 Russell, John: 307
Paul, Hermann: 258 Preziosi, Donald: xviii, 44, Russell, L. J.: 255, 285, 31'
Paul, Robert A.: 307 97, 313, 316 Russmann, Thomas: 23, 31
Paul, Sherry Ortner: 307 Prior, William: 208, 313 Ryan, Alan: 314
Pauli: 138 Priscian: 275, 313 SSA Style Sheet: sec Semioh
Peano, G.: 30 Protagoras: 226, 233 1984
Peckham, John: 304 Pscudo-Marsilius of Inghcn: Sacrobosco: see John of
Peirce, Charles S.: ix, xii, 72, 313 Sacrobosco
xvii, xix, xxi, 6, 7, 25-29, Ptolemy (“Ptolemacus”): Sallis, John: 201, 202,
32, 36, 39-42, 89, 96, 255, 268, 286, 304, 313, 207-211,315
105-109, 111, 112, 320 Salucci, Brunero: 229, 315
114-119, 157-159, 183, Pythagoras: 148 Salzinger, Ivo: 308
184, 191, 194, 195, 198, Quine, W. V. O.: 30 Sapir, Edmund: 283
219, 226, 236, 239, 240, Radcliffe-Brown, A. R.: 269, Sarton, George: 300, 315
243, 254, 256, 257, 258, 313 Sartre, Jcan-Paul: 130, 315
262, 264, 267, 270, Ramnoux, Clemence: 229, Saussure, Ferdinand de: ix,
273, 274, 277-280, 313 x, xii, xvii, xxi, 89, 121,
286-288, 298, 299, 305, Ramsay, Alexandra: 295 122, 133, 135, 138, 157,
307, 311, 312, 314, 315, Randall, John Herman: 6, 159, 183, 253, 259-261,
317, 320 313 273, 280, 281, 315
Pekelis, Alexander: 193, 312 Ransdell, Joseph: xxi, 15, Savan, David: 6, 42, 211,
Pelc, Jerzy: 259, 312 18, 264, 291, 314 315
Perez (Botero), Louis: 285 Rauch, Irmengard: 296, 314 Sazbon, Jose: 307
Perron, Paul: xv, 312 Read, Allen Walker: 257, Scapula, Joannes: 231, 285,
Perrot, Georges: 61 258, 314 286, 315
Peter the Apostle: 154 Reagan, Ronald: 270, 279 Schaff, Adam: 283, 315
Phelan, Gerald B.: 309 Reiser, B.: 313 Schiller, Claire H.: 319
Philo of Alexandria: 167 Rcisig, Karl: 257, 314 Schleicher: 74
Philodemus: 255, 312 Reisman, K.: 189, 314 Schleicrmacher, Friedrich D.
Piaget, Jean: 128, 135, 280, Remak, Joachim: 222, 314 E.: 315
283, 312 Rescher, Nicholas: 197, 314 Schneider, Richard: 291
Piatelli-Palmarini, Massimo: Resnikow, Lasar Schoknecht, W.: 315
316 Ossipowitsch: 256, 314 Scholcm, Gerhardt: 165, 316
 I
!
328 FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS
i

Scholes, Robert: 120, 316 Spivak, Chakravorty UexkuII, Jacob von: xii, 36,
i
Schroder, E.: 30, 316 Gayatri: 297 40, 42, 74, 84-91, 94, 95,
Schrodingcr, Erwin: 133, Staiano, Kathryn Vance: 98, 267, 269, 319
134, 316 147, 318 Uexkull, Thure von: 84, 86, 1
Schuchman, Philip: 191, 316 Stambaugh, Joan: 302 91, 95, 291, 319, 320
Uhlig, Gustav: 291 1
Schur, Edwin: 192, 316 Steele, R.: 292
Schuster, Paul Robert: 316 Stcinthal, Heyman: 225, Ullmann, Stephen: 320 i

Schwimmcr, Eric: 186, 190, 263, 318 Umiker-Sebeok, Donna

316 Stcldis, H. D.: 309 Jean: xix, 219, 299, 317, !
Scot, Michael: 304 Stcphanus, Henricus: 285, 320
Scruton, Roger: 316 286, 312, 315, 318 University of Chicago Manual
Searlc, John: 110, 173, 301, Sternberg, Tom: 293 of Style: 290
316 Stevens, Wallace: 144 Vakar, Gertrude: 320
Scbcok, Thomas Albert: viii- Stirling, P.: 189 Valery: 140, 320
xii, xvi, xviii, xix, xxi, 5, Stirling, P.: 189, 318 Valcsio, Paolo: 298
18, 25, 35, 91-93, 96, 97, Stoics: 22, 64-70, 167, Valicntc, Antonio G.: 317
100, 214, 217, 219, 226, 266 Van Bicma: 153
258, 262, 265, 267, 270, Stone, Barry: 319 Van Breda, H. L.: 303
273, 274, 277, 285, 286, Strachey, James: 299 Vance, Eugene: 265, 322
291-296, 298, 299, 305, Strawson, P. F.: 274, 301, Vcatch, Henry: 15, 311, 320
306, 308, 314-317, 320, 308 Vcinoglou, Tzon: 188, 320
322 Stroick, Clemens: 291 Vcitch, John: 307
Sechchayc, Albert: 315 Stromberg, Roland N.: 218, Vcscovini, G. Fredcrici: 320
Segal, Dmitri: 259, 309 295 Voigt, Vilmos: 259, 320
Scinmctz: 159 Strowski, Fortunat: 61 Von Frisch, Karl: 55, 299
Selby, Henry A.: 284, 298, Strucvcr, Nancy: 220, 318 Vrba, Elisabeth S.: 269, 301
317 Suarez, Francis: 9, 12, Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich:
Semiotics: xiii, 290 318 283, 320
Scvc, Lucien: 128, 317 Suppc, Frederick: 132, 283, Wainhousc, Austryn: 310
Sextus Empiricus: 64, 255, 319 Wallace, William A.: 26, 320
317 Swift, Dean Jonathan: 41, Wallis. John: 255, 256, 285,
Shaffer, Peter: 41, 317 319 313, 320
Shcridan-Smith, A. M.: 299 Swycr, Rupert: 299 Walzer, Richard R.: 320
Sherzcr, Dina: 190, 317 Syphcr, Wylie: 280, 319 Watson, John: 244
Sherzcr, Joel: 190, 317 Szwcd, J.: 314 Waugh, Linda: 48, 304
Short, Thomas L.: xix, 105, Tabarroni, Andrea: xix, 63, Weaver, William: 298
277-279, 301, 317 274, 275, 298 Webber, J.: 185, 320
Shouby, E.: 185, 317 Tannery, Paul: 297 Webber, Samuel: 297
Sibyl: 226 Tartu: see Moscow-Tartu Webster, E. W.: 292
Silvcrstein, Michael: 284, School Wedgwood, C. V.: 221, 320
317 Tate, Allen: 60, 319 Wcightman, Doreen: 295,
Simon, Sherry: 299 Taylor, A. E.: 209, 213 307
Simon, Yves R.: 15, 317, Thcactetus: 212, 213 Wcightman, John: 295, 307
318, 321 Thcagencs of Rcgium: 167 Weiner, Herbert: 319
Simpson, G. G.: 74, 318 Tholfscn, Trygve R.: 221, Wcisheipl, James
Singer, Milton: 274, 318 319 Athanasius: 291, 320
Skinner, B. F.: 241, 242, Thom, Rene: 40, 41, 143, Weiss, Paul: 278, 311, 320
244, 245, 253, 254 149, 319 Weizenbaum, Joseph: 39,
Sluga, Hans: 30, 318 Thomas, Ivo: 294 321
Smart, Benjamin H.: 257 Thorndike, Lynn: 304 Wclby, Lady Victoria: 257,
Smart, Benjamin Humphrey: Thorne, K. S.: 309 301, 307, 312, 321
xiii, 257, 318 Thorvaldsen: 159, 160 Wells, Rulon: 74
Smeaton, Amcthe: 295 Thrasymachus: 242 Wcltring, Georg: 225, 255
Smith, Colin: 293, 309 Tillinghast, Pardon E.: 217, Wcyl, Hermann: 135, 321
Smith, J. A.: 292 319 Wheeler, John Archibald:
Smith, Norman Kemp: 304 Tinbergen, N.: 74 43, 309, 321
Socrates: 213, 225, 254 Todorov, Tzvetan: 125, 126, Whewell, William: 26, 321
Soder, Karl: 256, 318 158, 319 White, Hayden: 218, 321
Sontag, Susan: 293, 318 Toomcr, G. J.: 313 White, Lynn: 221
Sorijarri, A.: 303 Toporov, N.: 48, 319 Whitehead, Alfred North:
Sotiropoulos, D.: 186, Torah: 172, 173, 174 30, 124, 135, 315, 321
318 Toulmin, Stephen: 130-132, Whitfield: 262, 303
Spade, Paul Vincent: 9, 11, 195 283 319 Whitney, William: 74, 321
291, 318 Traba’nt, jQrgcn: 5, 296, 298 Whitten, N. E.: 314
Spiazzi, Raymundus: 291 Trubetskoy, N. S.: 280, 303, Whorf, Benjamin Lee: 283,
Spiegel: 193 319 321
 INDEX 329

Whyte, Lancelot Law: 120, Williams, Brooke: xx, xxi, 7, Wojtasiewicz, Olgicrd:
135 15, 20, 51, 53, 58, 270, 315
Wiener, Norbert: 128, 135, 273, 316, 321 Wollcn, Peter: 261, 322
282, 321 Williams, Forrest: 309 Wood, W. B.: 146, 322
Wigmore, John H.: 195-197, Winance, Eleuthcre: xvi, 322 Worth, Sol: 261, 322
321 Winner, Irene P.: xx, 187, Xenophon: 41, 322
Wilamowitz-Moellcndorff, 308, 321 Young, J. Z.: 80
Ulrich von: 321 Winner, Thomas G.: 187, 321 Young, P.: 317
Wild, John: 15, 321 Winter, Werner: 304, 316 Zamfircscu, Duiliu: 298
Wilden, Anthony: 128, 129, Wittgenstein, Ludwig: 138, Zohar: 170, 172
132, 222, 280, 306, 321 142, 282, 322 Zumthor, Paul: 265, 322

:•

•i