❝I think we need to reflect upon the circumstance that every word implies some proposition or, what is the same thing, every word, concept, symbol has an equivalent term — or one which has become identified with it, — in short, has an “interpretant”.
❝Consider, what a word or symbol is; it is a sort of representation. Now a representation is something which stands for something. I will not undertake to analyze, this evening, this conception of standing for something — but, it is sufficiently plain that it involves the standing to something for something. A thing cannot stand for something without standing to something for that something. Now, what is this that a word stands to? Is it a person?
❝We usually say that the word “homme” stands to a Frenchman for “man”. It would be a little more precise to say that it stands to the Frenchman's mind — to his memory. It is still more accurate to say that it addresses a particular remembrance or image in that memory. And what “image”, what remembrance? Plainly, the one which is the mental equivalent of the word “homme” — in short, its interpretant. Whatever a word addresses then or stands to, is its interpretant or identified symbol. […]
❝The interpretant of a term, then, and that which it stands to are identical. Hence, since it is of the very essence of a symbol that it should stand to something, every symbol — every word and every “conception” — must have an interpretant — or what is the same thing, must have information or implication.❞ (Peirce 1866, Chronological Edition 1, pp. 466–467).
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations #TriadicRelations
#Cybersemiotics #Interpreter #Interpretant #Hermeneutics #Hermenaut