Advertisement

Peircean Semiotic Indeterminacy and Its Relevance for Biosemiotics

  • Robert Lane
Chapter
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 11)

Abstract

This chapter presents a detailed explanation of Peirce’s early and late views on semiotic indeterminacy and then considers how those views might be applied within biosemiotics. Peirce distinguished two different forms of semiotic indeterminacy: generality and vagueness. He defined each in terms of the “right” that indeterminate signs extend, either to their interpreters in the case of generality or to their utterers in the case of vagueness, to further determine their meaning. On Peirce’s view, no sign is absolutely determinate, i.e., every sign is indeterminate to at least some degree and so exhibits some degree of generality or vagueness. If Peirce was right about this, then no instance of biosemiosis is completely determinate—every biosign must be general or vague to some degree. I show that on Peirce’s view, whether a sign is general or vague depends on its immediate object, “the idea which the sign is built upon,” and I explain how Peirce would go about identifying the immediate object of a sign lacking both a minded utterer and a minded interpreter—an identification that must be possible if any biosign is indeterminate.

Keywords

Collateral Experience Concrete Individual Genuine Sign Conversational Exchange Quantifier Phrase 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bergman, M. (2009). Peirce’s philosophy of communication. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  2. Brock, J. (1969). C. S. Peirce’s logic of vagueness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  3. Brock, J. (1982). Peirce’s anticipation of game theoretic logic and semantics. In M. Herzfeld & M. Lenhart (Eds.), Semiotics 1980, proceedings of the fifth annual meeting of the semiotics society of America, held October 16-19, 1980, in Lubbock, Texas (pp. 55–64). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fisch, M. (1986). Peirce, semeiotic and pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch, Ketner, K., and Kloesel, C., eds. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hilpinen, R. (1982). On C. S. Peirce’s theory of the proposition: Peirce as a precursor of game-theoretical semantics. The Monist, 65(2), 182–188; reprinted in Eugene Freeman. (Ed.). (1983) The relevance of Charles Peirce (pp. 264–270). La Salle: The Hegeler Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Hilpinen, R. (2007). On the Objects and Interpretants of Signs: Comments on T. L. Short’s Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 43(4), 610–618.Google Scholar
  7. Keefe, R., & Smith P. (1996). Vagueness: A reader. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ketner, K. (1995). A thief of Peirce: The letters of Kenneth Laine Ketner and Walker Percy. In P. Samway (Ed.). Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.Google Scholar
  9. Kull, K., et al. (2009). Theses on biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a theoretical biology. Biological Theory, 4(2), 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lane, R. (1997). Peirce’s ‘Entanglement’ with the principles of excluded middle and contradiction. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 33(3), 680–703.Google Scholar
  11. Lane, R. (2009). Persons, signs, animals: A Peircean account of personhood. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 45(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ransdell, J. M. (1976). Another interpretation of Peirce’s semiotic. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 12(2), 97–110.Google Scholar
  13. Salthe, S. (2007). Meaning in nature: Placing biosemiotics with pansemiotics. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Biosemiotics: Information, codes and signs in living systems (pp. 207–217). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Short, T. (2007a). “Response” to contributions to a symposium on Short 2007. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 43(4), 663–693.Google Scholar
  15. Short, T. L. (2007b). Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Vehkavaara, T. (2002). Why and how to naturalize semiotic concepts for biosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies, 30(1), 293–313. The page reference is to the version of the paper posted at http://utafi.academia.edu/TommiVehkavaara/Papers/267417/Why_and_how_to_naturalize_semiotic_concepts_for_biosemiotics. Accessed 27 July 2012.
  17. Vehkavaara, T. (2007). From the logic of science to the logic of the living: The relevance of Charles Peirce to biosemiotics. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics (pp. 257–282). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilkinson, P. R. (1993). A thesaurus of traditional english metaphors (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of West GeorgiaCarolltonUSA

Personalised recommendations