Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Classifications of Signs : 1903

The Commens Encyclopedia: The Digital Encyclopedia of Peirce Studies (2001)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. 10cubes and 3N3: Using interactive diagrams to investigate Charles Peirces classifications of signs.Priscila Farias & João Queiroz - 2004 - Semiotica 2004 (151):41-63.
    This article presents some results of a research on computational strategies for the visualization of sign classification structures and sign processes. The focus of this research is the various classifications of signs described by Peirce. Two models are presented. One of them concerns specifically the 10-fold classification as described in the 1903 Syllabus (MS 540, EP 2: 289–299), while the other deals with the deep structure of Peirce’s various trichotomic classifications. The first is 10cubes, an interactive 3-D model of Peirce’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Images, diagrams, and metaphors: hypoicons in the context of Peirce's sixty-six-fold classification of signs.Priscila Farias & João Queiroz - 2006 - Semiotica 2006 (162):287-307.
    In his 1903 Syllabus, Charles S. Peirce makes a distinction between icons and iconic signs, or hypoicons, and briefly introduces a division of the latter into images, diagrams, and metaphors. Peirce scholars have tried to make better sense of those concepts by understanding iconic signs in the context of the ten classes of signs described in the same Syllabus. We will argue, however, that the three kinds of hypoicons can better be understood in the context of Peirce's sixty-six classes of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Dicent Symbols in Non-Human Semiotic Processes.João Queiroz - 2012 - Biosemiotics 5 (3):319-329.
    Against the view that symbol-based semiosis is a human cognitive uniqueness, we have argued that non-human primates such as African vervet monkeys possess symbolic competence, as formally defined by Charles S. Peirce. Here I develop this argument by showing that the equivocal role ascribed to symbols by “folk semiotics” stems from an incomplete application of the Peircean logical framework for the classification of signs, which describes three kinds of symbols: rheme, dicent and argument. In an attempt to advance in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Peircean Semiotic Indeterminacy and Its Relevance for Biosemiotics.Robert Lane - 2014 - In Vinicius Romanini (ed.), Peirce and Biosemiotics: A Guess at the Riddle of Life. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.
    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., (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations