37-22-1-sm

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

1/14

Cassirer, Benveniste, and Peirce on deictics and pronominal communication 7

Cassirer, Benveniste, and Peirceon deictics and pronominal communication

Han-liang Chang

Comparative Literature and World Literature,Department of Chinese, Fudan University

220 Handan Road, Shanghai 200433, Chinae-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. For all his pro ound in eres in Secondness and i s mani es a ion in vari-ous kinds o indices, including deic ics, Peirce rarely addresses he in er-pronomi-nal rela ionships. Whils he American ounder o semio ics would designa e lan-

guage as a whole o Tirdness, only wi hin he larger ramework o which deic icscan work, he German philosopher Cassirer observes ha wha charac erizes he very rs spa ial erms ha we nd in language is heir embracing o a deni e deic ic unc ion. For Cassirer he signicance o pronominals, especially he I-Tourela ionship, lies in i s impac on he developmen o spa ial concep ha lays heounda ion o symbolic orms. I may look s range why he designa ives o I,Tou, He, in Peirces own erms, so obvious in heir ca egorial and empirical di -eren ia ion, should ail o be reduceable o he riad o Firs ness, Secondness, andTirdness. I is in eres ing, however, ha in his 1906 correspondence wi h Lady Welby, Peirce should re er o he s range CommunicationalIn erpre an , or heCominterpretant , which is a de ermina ion o ha mind in o which he minds o u -erer and in erpre er have o be used in order ha any communica ion should akeplace. Peirce asser s ha his communica ion o a Form, say, being in love, is madepossible by sign. Tis paper discusses Peirces and Cassirers re erences o deic icsor indexical sign, in par icular, in er-personal rela ionships, in ligh o Benvenis esconcep o discourse, and probes in o a possible sub ex underlying he Peirce- Welby correspondence.

Keywords: Benvenis e, Cassirer, deixis, Jakobson, Peirce, pos -s ruc uralism,pronoun, s ruc uralism

Sign Systems Studies 41(1), 2013, 720

http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2013.41.1.01

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

2/14

8 Han-liang Chang

1. Introduction: Is Cassirer a semiotician?

In his A glance a he developmen of semio ics, delivered a he opening of heFirs In erna ional Congress of Semio ics in Milan on June 2, 1974, Roman Jakobson(1974: 199218) refers o Erns Cassirers lec ure given a he New York Linguis icCircle (Cassirer 1945) o he following effec : Te rela ionship of he science of lan-guage and languages wi h ha of he sign and of differen signs was dened brieyand explici ly by he philosopher Erns Cassirer in his address o he New YorkLinguis ic Circle, poin ing ou ha linguis ics is a par of semio ics (Jakobson1974: 212). In he same survey Jakobson (1974: 201202) atemp s o nego ia e and

bridge he gap be ween Husserlian phenomenology and semio ic hinking abou lan-guage before Charles Sanders Peirce and Ferdinand de Saussure.I would like o ake my cue rom Jakobsons quo a ion rom Cassirer in he pos -

Saussurian enquiry in o Cassirers concep o linguis ics and semio ics. I is wor hno ing ha Jakobsons quo a ion, which can be misleading, is a par ial one, whileCassirers ull sen ence reads: Linguis ics is a par o semio ics, no o physics(Cassirer 1945: 115), and he immedia e con ex o his discussion is no semio ics, bu physics. Cassirer uses he ermsemiotics only in passing, and he does so as a cri-

ique o na ural sciences, represen ed by physics, which, o him, perhaps bes qual-ies he deni ion o a science ha deals wi h physical objec s (Cassirer 1945:114). As i ollowing in he oo s eps o Wilhelm Dil hey who declared he inde-pendence oGeisteswissenschafenrom Naturwissenschafen , Cassirer (1945: 111) believes linguis ics belongs appropria ely o he ormer domain.

In he paragraph rom which he quo a ion is aken in ac , o which he quo-a ion is he concluding sen ence Cassirer rs discusses how linguis ic phenom-ena could be s udied, albei wrongly, as physical phenomena, and hen he crosses he borderline ha separa es human language rom he physical world (Cassirer1945: 114). As can be expec ed by he ime he lec ure was delivered, he border-line is no o her han his well-known symbolic orm:

Language is a symbolic form. I consis s of symbols, and symbols are no parof our physical world. Tey belong o an en irely differen universe of discourse.Na ural hings and symbols canno be brough o he same denomina or.Linguis ics is a par of semio ics, no of physics. (Cassirer 1945: 114115)

Here as elsewhere, Cassirer is no clear as o wha he means by semio ics. Teuse o he word is an isola ed ins ance in he lec ure delivered shor ly be ore hissudden dea h. One plausible in erpre a ion is ha i is a parody o he amousSaussurian s a emen ha linguis ics is only one branch o his general science[i.e., semiology] (Saussure 1983: 16).

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

3/14


In his ci a ion o linguis ic s ruc uralis s, Cassirer does begin wi h he Swiss lin-guis , hen he men ions rube zkoy, Jakobson, and o her members o he PragueLinguis ic Circle, all in passing. I one is allowed o bracke he ill-dened semioics, one would no ice Cassirer is rehearsing his li e-long obsession wi h he word orm and i s various deriva ions, ei her e ymological or concep ual, wi hou whichi would no have been possible or him o ramble rom Goe hean biological mor-phology o Humbold ian linguis ic ypes, and nally o Ges al psychology. Tegoverning principle, indeed he mas er-code, i you like, o bo h na ural and humansciences, is orm, albei an ex remely complex pre-linguis ic concep harkening back o Immanuel Kan . Maybe one could simpli y he mater by saying ha whadifferen ia es he wo kinds oWissenschafen is he humani ies i ular honour, hesymbolic. However, rom he perspec ive o semio ics, a logical consequence would be he produc ion o a higher-order me a-semio ics o orm ha serves omodel and nego ia e all he branches o knowledge, or, in our parlance, objec -semio ics, such as physics and linguis ics, which are already in hemselves me asemio ics. Tis procedure would ironically pu in o ques ion he very concep osymbolic orm as a preroga ive o he human sciences, no only because all he exac sciences are symbolic, bu because he discourse ha media es and represen s

hem, linguis ic or o herwise, is i sel symbolic. Le me briey digress o Peirce orhis curious commen s on symbol.

2. Peirce on symbol not symbolic form

We are all amiliar wi h Peirces amous apology in which he says: Te wordsym-bol has so many meanings ha i would be an injury o he language o add a newone (Peirce 1998: 9). Peirces s a emen was made as early as 1894, and or all hisinsigh , he ounding a her o modern semio ics ailed o oresee o her injuriesadded o one language afer ano her gran ed ha he major European onguesderived he word rom he Greek. A major injury is probably done byCassirer, who, hrough a me onymical subs i u ion, has come o be iden ied wi h he symbolic orm he erm being an ins ance o he eroglossia combiningGreek and La in. Given he Indo-European languages his orical shifs and rup uresduring he pas millennia, his resor o e ymology may no be relevan and carrylitle hermeneu ic orce in our atemp o nego ia e Peirce and Cassirer. One musseek clues rom elsewhere, such as rom bo h philosophers common Kan ian heri-age. Te asser ion o Cassirer (1955: 86) in he rs volume oTe Philosophy o

Symbolic Forms ha all ruly s ric and exac hough is sus ained by hesymbolics and semiotics on which i is based is revela ory. Te s a emen no only equa es a

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

4/14

10 Han-liang Chang

heory o symbols o a heory o signs, bu also asser s he media ing unc ion ohe sign be ween subjec and objec , experience and world, which reminds one ohe Kan ian schema a.

Cassirer observes ha he objec o knowledge can be dened only hroughhe medium o a par icular logical and concep ual s ruc ure, and each science,rom i s s andpoin , subjec s na ure o a special in erpre a ion and orma ion(Cassirer 1955: 76). Ta unc ional uni y lays he ounda ion or na ural sciencesas well as human sciences, including language and ar s. Te posi ion can be ap lyrecas in he Peircean logic o sign. For example, wha precedes and indeed under-lies each objec -semio ics is a me a-semio ics; we may call i Tirdness, in erpre-an , or eventertium relationis. Having said so, ra her han dwelling on Peircean se-miosis in general, I shall address one par icular kind o linguis ic sign, he pronominals, and I hope o be able o demons ra e ha he in erac ion o pronominals, noshor o power rela ionships, represen s an impor an ace o semiosis.

3. The pronominal sign in discourse

For all his in eres in Secondness and i s mani es a ion in various kinds o indices,including deic ics, Peirce rarely addresses he in er-pronominal rela ionships. Whils Peirce would designa e language as a whole o Tirdness, only wi hin helarger ramework o which deic ics can work, Cassirer (1957: 151) observes roma phenomenological poin o view ha wha charac erizes he very rs spa ialerms ha we nd in language is heir embracing o a deni e deic ic unc ion.For Cassirer, he signicance o pronominals, especially he I-Tou rela ionship,lies in i s impac on he developmen o he spa ial concep ha , oge her wi ho hera priori ca egories, lays he ounda ion o symbolic orms. I may look s range why he designa ives o I, Tou, He, in Peirces own erms (1908), so obvious inheir ca egorical and empirical differen ia ion, should ail o be reducible o heriad o Firs ness, Secondness, and Tirdness.

Full-leng h discussions o human subjec ivi y as a pronominal ca egory hado wai or a ew more years when Emile Benvenis e and Jakobson began o reahe issue. I some kind o cri ical anachronism is allowed, one could say ha nei-her Peirce nor Cassirer was a linguis in he Benvenis ian or Jakobsonian senseor a any even , bo h ailed o ully address he rela ionship be ween discourse andsubjec . However, i would be un air o say nei her o hem was in eres ed in heissue. I shall begin by rehearsing Cassirers discussion o he sphere o inner in ui ion, hen in roduce Benvenis es discussion o subjec ivi y, and nally move on oPeirce as an unwiting accomplice in he I-Tou pragma ics, especially in his corre-spondence wi h Lady Vic oria Welby.

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

5/14


Discussions o deic ics are scatered in Cassirers wri ings on language; mos ohose are passing re erences, al hough hey can be hema ically unied. Te ollow-ing samples may give us a rough pic ure o his concep ualiza ion.

(1) Sensory-physical grasping becomes sensory in erpre a ion, which inurn conceals wi hin i he rs impulse oward he higher unc ions osignica ion mani es ed in language and hough . We migh sugges he scopeo his developmen by saying ha i leads rom he sensory ex reme o mereindica ion (Weisen) o he logical ex reme o demons ra ion ( Beweisen).From he mere indica ion by which an absolu ely single hing (a inhe Aris o elian sense) is designa ed, he road leads o a progressively generalspecica ion: wha in he beginning was a mere deic ic unc ion becomes heunc ion o apodeixis. (Cassirer 1955: 181182)(2) However, i mus be borne in mind ha nei her imi a ion nor indi-ca ion nei her he mime ic nor he deic ic unc ion represen s a simple,uni orm opera ion o consciousness, bu ha elemen s o diverse origin andhe signicance are in ermingled in bo h o hem. (Cassirer 1955: 83)(3) Aside rom mere in erjec ions [...] here is scarcely any class o words in which he charac er o na ural sounds is so pronounced as in hose which

designa e here and here, he near and he dis an . (Cassirer 1955: 201)(4) For he beginnings o Indo-Germanic language, Brugmann dis inguishesa hree old orm o indica ion. I-deixis is dis inguished, bo h in con en andlinguis ic expression, rom hou-deixis which in urn merges wi h he moregeneral orm o ha -deixis. (Cassirer 1955: 201)(5) Wherever he deni e ar icle has developed, i can clearly be recognized asan offshoo o he demons ra ive pronouns. I grows ou o he orm o ha -deixis, designa ing he objec o which i re ers as ou side and here, anddis inguishing i spa ially rom he I and he here. (Cassirer 1955: 205)(6) In nearly all languages, spa ial demons ra ives provided he ounda ion orhe personal pronouns. (Cassirer 1955: 213)(7) I is he same hal -mime ic, hal -linguis ic ac o indica ion, he sameundamen al orms o deixis, which gave rise o he opposi ion ohier , da ,dort and o ha o I, hou and he. (Cassirer 1955: 213)

Tese samples derive rom Cassirers rs volume oSymbolic Forms , a volumedevo ed specically o language. A ew ideas can be abs rac ed rom he samples.Firs , personal pronouns belong o he general linguis ic ca egory o deic ics, viz.demons ra ives (Examples 5 and 7). Second, his ca egory includes adverbials oime and space, which serve presumably secondary bu suppor ing unc ions opronominals (Examples 3, 5, 7). Tird, he pronominals can be divided in o hreeypes, as clearly indica ed by radi ional La in-based grammar (Examples 4, 5 and

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

6/14

12 Han-liang Chang

7). Finally, deic ics represen he indica ive or demons ra ive unc ion o languageas opposed o he imi a ive unc ion.

Wi h hese abs rac ions one may examine he con ex o Example 1, which isaken rom he chap er en i led Language in he phase o sensuous expression(Cassirer 1955: 177197). Here language is being rea ed as an immanen spiri ualorm which calls in o ques ion no only he prior exis ence o an ex erior me aphysi-cal en i y ha de ermines i , bu he dicho omy be ween ou ward and inward sphereso reali y. Cassirers observa ion ha spiri ual con en and sensuous expression are inseparable, ha he wo, con en and expression, become wha hey are only in heirin erpene ra ion, and ha only hrough he later rela ion is signica ion produced,can be read as a paraphrase o he Saussurian congura ion o linguis ic sign as consis ing o he sensuous signier (image-accoustique) and he spiri ual (i.e., con-cep ual) signied, hough here is a major difference be ween Cassirers psychologism and he physicalism rom which Saussure ries o dis ance himsel .

For Cassirer, he immanen na ure o he linguis ic sign applies bo h o i s rep-resen a ional (imi a ive) and demons ra ive (indica ive) unc ions. And evenhe concep , or ra her, he consciousness o he I is produced hrough he samemechanism.

I is rue ha a rs his orm o expression does no seem o be any hingmore han a reproduc ion o he inward in he ou ward. An ou ward s imuluspasses rom he sensory o he mo or unc ion, which however seems oremain wi hin he sphere o mere mechanical reexes, giving no indica ion o ahigher spiri ual spon anei y. And ye his reex is i sel he rs indica ion oan ac ivi y in which a new orm o concre e consciousness o he I and o heobjec begins o develop. (Cassirer 1955: 179180)

According o Cassirer, wha differen ia es humans rom animals is exac ly he indica ive ges ure, which carries spiri ual signicance and which gives rise o he consciousness o he I.

I is one o he rs s eps by which he perceiving and desiring I removes aperceived and desired con en rom himsel and so orms i in o an objec ,and objec ive con en [...] Te oreign reali y is brough in o he power ohe I in a purely ma erial sense i is drawn in o he sphere o he I. (Cassirer1955: 181)

Te con inui y rom physical grasping o concep ual grasping ha gives bir h oin erpre a ion is represen ed by he use o deic ics rom indica ion o demons ra-ion.

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

7/14


As is charac eris ic o his idealis ic posi ion, Cassirer concedes ha whenusing language we are dealing wi h correla ive spheres o in ui ion, he subjec iveas well as he objec ive. Every congura ion o objec ive reali y produces a newpic ure o subjec ive reali y (Cassirer 1955: 249250). However, here is a spe-cial ea ure o language, which is concerned primarily, i no exclusively, wi h hesubjec ive exis ence. I is represen ed by he pronoun. Ra her han s anding orhe noun ha represen s an en i y in he objec ive sphere, he pronoun, especiallyhe rs -person pronoun, as Wilhelm Humbold asser s, is he rs par o speech.Cassirer paraphrases Humbold o he effec ha or he rs elemen in he aco speech is he personali y o he speaker himsel , who s ands in cons an con ac wi h na ure and in speaking mus inevi ably express he opposi ion be ween his Iand na ure (Cassirer 1955: 250). He ur her quo es Humbold as saying:

Bu in he I, he hou is au oma ically given, and hrough a new opposi ionhe hird person arises, which, now ha language has gone beyond he circleo hose who eel and speak, is ex ended o dead hings. (Cassirer 1955: 250)

Te s a emen would sound amiliar o anyone who knows Benvenis e, as I shall

discuss la er, bu , un or una ely, Cassirer s ops here. Being a philosopher ra herhan a linguis , he insis s ha he original eeling [o he I] described above can-no be sough exclusively in he explicidesignation o he I as he rs person pro-noun, because o herwise [ ]he philosophy o language would indeed reduce i -sel o he narrow, logical-gramma ical view which i comba s [...]. (Cassirer 1955250). Cassirer goes on o develop he origin o he sel wi h ones consciousness ohe body, in a way an icipa ing he revival o he philosophy o he body more hanhal a cen ury la er (See Bermudez e al. 1995; Lakoff, Johnson 1999).

4. Benveniste as mediator of Peirce and Cassirer

I is by no means s range ha Saussure should have bypassed he pronominals because o his in eres in language as a sys em (la langue) a he expense outerance (le parole). We shall here ore bypass Saussure and arrive a a keygure in he second genera ion o s ruc ural linguis s, namely, mile Benvenis e. According o Benvenis e, subjec ivi y is primarily a pronominal ca egory ra her

han a phenomenological or psychological ca egory. Discourse is perceived byhim as socialized language ha necessarily presupposes he par icipa ion oin erlocu ors and in erac ion be ween wo par ies, which are reciprocally regis eredas he pronominal couple I-Tou. Now, since dialogue sugges s logos carriedacross by mul i-vocali y ra her han shared (so goes he corrup ion) by bi-vocali y,

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

8/14

14 Han-liang Chang

he subjec ivi y o dialogue is mul i- ace ed and mul i-voiced. Te in erlocu orsha cons i u e his rans-subjec ivi y are mu ually implica ed, in er ered, andcon amina ed in ideology and shape o belie .

Te rs volume o Benvenis es Problems in General Linguistics (1971) con ainsve chap ers (1823), which deal wi h, and are accordingly pu under he generalheading o , Man and language. From among he numerous opics ha he au horaddresses hose relevan o us are: (1) subjec ivi y in language or, more precisely,discourse; and (2) human subjec s as pronominal ca egories. Benvenis e pusheshe Saussurean dis inc ion be weenlangue and parole o ano her direc ion by o-cusing almos exclusively ondiscours (discourse). In a sense, he abolishes he dis-inc ion and reins a es parole asdiscours.

His argumen can be summarized as ollows. Per ormed by human agen s,discourse is language in ac ion (Benvenis e 1971: 223); i is an ac o speech(Benvenis e 1971: 224). One could say ha man cons i u es himsel as a subjec in and hrough language, i.e., speech or discourse. I goes wi hou saying haBenvenis es use o discourse is differen rom he American s ylis ic use o heerm in discourse analysis beyond he sen en ial level, and has litle o do wi h heFoucauldian discourse charged wi h power, hough i may lead o i . Benvenis e

(1971: 224) observes ha whe her subjec ivi y is placed in phenomenology orpsychology, i emerges as a undamen al proper y o language. Finally, he oundaion o subjec ivi y is de ermined by he linguis ic s a us o person (Benvenis e1971: 224). In o her words, subjec ivi y is o begin wi h he problem o pronouns.

Benv enis e ur her dis inguishes be ween he personal and a-personal sys emsin he pronominal ca egory. Te persons ha cons ruc , and are hus involved in,he discursive si ua ion are he rs -person I and he second person you, whilehe or she are reduced o he a-personal (Benvenis e 1971: 217ff). Jakobson

(1971), ollowing Oto Jespersen (1922), calls hese personal pronouns shifersprecisely because o he shifing role hey play in iden i ying and dening humanrela ionship. Jespersen does no res ric shifers o personal pronouns hough headmi s hey are he mos impor an class. Tis class o words, which puzzles chil-dren in heir language acquisi ion, also includes ather , mother , enemy , andhome. According o Jespersen (1922: 123),

[a] class o words which presen grave diffi cul y o children are hose whose meaning differs according o he si ua ion, so ha he child hearshem now applied o one hing and now o ano her.

Te child says I, bu hears i s in erlocu or also say I and is here ore con used. According o Jakobson (1971: 134), discursive ca egories ha imply a re erence o

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

9/14


he speech even ( procs de lnonciation) are shifers. A no able example would be a si ua ion involving bo h he narra ed person and he speech per ormer. As heobserves, [ ]irs person signals he iden i y o a par icipan o he narra ed even wi h he per ormer o he speech even , and he second person, he iden i y wi hhe ac ual or po en ial undergoer o he speech even (Jakobson 1971: 134).Bo h persons are here ore marked, no only by he indexical signs I and you because, or ha mater, he hird person is also likewise marked by a he or she, bu also by he discursive and dialogic reciproci y which serves o cons ruc heirsubjec ivi y and in ersubjec ivi y.

Te preliminary observa ion one migh make here is ha enuncia ion does noamoun o a monologue or a dialogue bu serves as i s founda ion, indeed he veryfounda ion of all linguis ic signica ion and communica ion. I is a manifes a ion ofcorporeali y, in he manner of mobiliza ion and discharge of physical energy knownas ar icula ion. Tis physical aspec of language belongs o semio ic Firs ness, so ospeak, irrespec ive of he par icipa ion of Secondness, i.e., wi hou he subjec , e.g.,he child, being called upon. When a person, whe her male or female, newly bornor moribund, uters a sound, however incomprehensible and meaningless, he an-nounces his exis ence as a human subjec hough no ye as subjec ivi y:

Te subjec ivi y we are discussing here is he capaci y of he speaker o posihim as subjec (la capacit du locuteur de se poser comme sujet). I is denedno by he feeling which everyone experiences of being himself [] bu as hepsychic uni y ha ranscends he o ali y of he ac ual experiences i assemblesand ha makes he permanence of he consciousness. (Benv enis e 1971: 224)

Wha ollows rom his ini ial enuncia ion is appropria ely in erpersonal discourse, which Benv enis e denes in erms o I-Tou rela ionship. Posing he human capac-i y o enuncia ion does no sugges a ranscenden al I. Nor does i mean ha subjec ivi y can be equa ed o enuncia ion. In ac , subjec ivi y develops along wi hhe sophis ica ion and socializa ion o enuncia ion, which includes he dis inc ion

be ween enuncia ion (nonciation) and enuncia ed (nonc ), as well as be weenlocu or, allocu or, and in erlocu or. Ta s where and why Benvenis e in roduceshe second person. Ideology ge s involved only when his semio ic secondness hasa role o play. One canno reverse he order o he rs and second persons; norcan one a any ra e resurrec he hird person who is no available in he speechsi ua ion, or, in Humbold s words quo ed above, he hird person who can be ex-ended o dead hings (Cassirer 1955: 250).

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

10/14

16 Han-liang Chang

4. Peirces pronominal discourse

Earlier, I men ioned ha Peirce rarely dwells on he linguis ic no ion o pronouns.I a all, i is designa ed as a ype o indexical sign (or even sub-index) in rela ion oo her ypes, like demons ra ives. Bu i would be inaccura e o say ha Peirce hasrelega ed he no ion o obscuri y, given his pro ound in eres in rhe oric as one ohe hree language-rela ed disciplines carried over rom classical an iqui y. In hecelebra ed in roduc ory essay o Allegories o Reading en i led Semiology and rhe -oric, already he la e Paul de Man sugges s he in rica e and sub le link be weenspeech ac , rhe oric and Peircean semio ics (de Man 1979). o Peirce, a man is a

sign, and an ex ernal sign a ha , and he con en o consciousness, being par ohe man-sign, is also a sign resul ing rom in erence. From his i ollows ha he I-think , hecogito and he I, is also a sign (Peirce 1991: 83). Wha abou he sec-ond person? In one o his las pieces, MS 682 , writen in 1913, Peirce addresses hisreader, he second-person addressee as your Honor, perhaps hal -mockingly, buhere is a serious no e undernea h i :

I address he Reader as your Honor, simply because I sincerely do honoranybody who is disposed o under ake a sus ained endeavor o rain himsel oreason in such ways as o miss as litle as possible o such ru h as i concernshim o know, while a he same ime, as ar as circums ances permi , avoidingrisks o error; and I address him in he second person because I hink o him asa real person, wi h all he ins inc s o which we human beings are so sublimelyand so responsibly endowed. (Peirce 1998: 463464)

Whereas my presen belie is a resul o in erence or reasoning in erms o heriadic rela ionship o sign, indeed a resul o hree belie s amongs which he hird

one comes o he ore, he ac ha I as man-sign am addressing you as man-signon he opic o my curren belie in his case, pragma ism is ample evidenceha you can be affec ed, persuaded, convinced o accep my belie . On op o signin erence lie perhaps o her indexical signs, such as he discursive or epis olarycircums ances, which make us, in Peirces words, colla eral observers.

In he famous essay Pragma ism ( MS318) prefaced wi h a leter o a second-person Edi or, Peirce (1998: 404) gives ve examples o demons ra e ha he u -erer and he in erpre er can acquire shared knowledge no only hrough he utered

sign, bu hrough previous or colla eral source and ingredien s of he uterer.One ouching example ells us how Peirce in his s uden days a Harvard underwenhe experience of ransforma ion from mis aken in erpre a ion o rela ively correcunders anding of a fellow-s uden s remarks abou colours, no knowing in he rsplace ha he uterer was blind o he colour red. Here he sign utered serves only a

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

11/14


par ial or even decep ive func ion in ransmission of knowledge, and he remainingor main func ion depends on he knowledge of he uterer as man-sign.1 Al houghhe ex is a narra ive rewri e of a dialogue ha ook place some for y years ago, in

which he original in erlocu ors have been deprived of heir ac ual verbal exchange,and heir dialogue changed in o a monologic repor age, one can s ill imagine heemo ional and in ellec ual impac crea ed by he discursive si ua ion.

Te mos amous example sugges ing he in erlocu ors I-Tou rela ionship isno doub Peirces correspondence wi h Lady Vic oria Welby. I is in eres ing hain his 1906 leter o Lady Welby i sel being reexively atoken (or sinsign) opersonalized discursive genre (type or legisign), Peirce should re er o he s rangeCommunicationalIn erpre an , or heCominterpretant , which is a de ermina iono ha mind in o which he minds o uterer and in erpre er have o be used inorder ha any communica ion should ake place (1998: 478). Peirce (1998: 477)asser s ha his communica ion o a Form, say, being in love, is made possible bysign. o illus ra e wha he means by Form, Peirce (1998: 478) gives a banal-look-ing example, John is in love wi h Helen. In his proposi ion John and Helen arehe Objec signied, [b]u he is in love wi h signies he orm his sign repre-sen s i sel o represen John-and-Helens Form o be. Cassirer, no doub , would

concur wi h his linguis ic symbolic orm.1

wo years and a hal had passed, when a Chris mas o 1908, Peirce picked uphe issue again, his ime more concerned wi h he pronominal rela ionships, hus

bringing him closer o Benvenis e in he laters discussion o subjec ivi y.

[... S]hall I yield his place o a dis inc ion prominen in every language onear h, ha be ween he hree persons, amo , amas , amat ? I I and Tou arehe Objec s, we sayWe; i Tou andHe are he Objec s, we sayYe. Bu i I and

He are he Objec s o he exclusion oTee , I know no o her linguis ic ormhan he French expression Nous autres. I , Tou , and He can be expressed byhe ri-al andQuadral numbers o Polynesian languages; in English we can

1 Example 2. I remember a blazing July noon in he early six ies when a fellow-s uden in hechemical labora ory, in whose company I was crossing he Harvard College Yard, while hegrass shone like emeralds, and he red-brick buildings, no red enough by na ure for he as eof he cura or, were blazing in a fresh coa of some hing like vermillion, when his fellows uden casually remarked upon he pleasing harmony of color be ween he grass, he foliage,and he buildings. Wi h eyes feeling as if heir balls were being wis ed by some inquisi or, I ars unders ood he remark as a sorry joke, like he gibes of some Indian cap ive a he wan of

skill of his ormen ors. Bu I soon found ha i was he uterance of a sincere feeling, and hen, by a series of ques ions, soon discovered ha my friend was blind o he red elemen of color. Aman may have learned ha he is color-blind; bu i is impossible ha he should be conscious ofhe s upendous gulf be ween his chroma ic impressions and hose of ordinary men; al houghi is needful o ake accoun of his in all in erpre a ions of wha he may say abou colors. In hecourse of my examina ion of ha young gen leman, which occupied several days, I learned a moregeneral lesson, wor h mul iples of he ime i los me from he labora ory. (Peirce 1998: 405)

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

12/14

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

13/14


personal pronoun as a common ea ure o deic ics. riing as he issue may seem ars glance, his par icular discursive sign serves o link he hree au hors and shedligh on he rela ionship be ween language and man.2

References

Benvenis e, mile 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. [Meek, Mary Elizabe h, rans.] CoralGables: Universi y o Miami Press.

Bermudez, Jose Luis; Marcel, An hony; Eilan, Naomi (eds.) 1995.Te Body and the Sel .Cambridge: MI Press.

Cassirer, Erns 1945. S ruc uralism in modern linguis ics.Word 1: 99120. 1955.Te Philosophy o Symbolic Forms , vol. 1. [Manheim, Ralph, rans.] New Haven: Yale

Universi y Press. 1957.Te Philosophy o Symbolic Forms , vol. 3. [Manheim, Ralph, rans.] New Haven: Yale

Universi y Press.De Man, Paul 1979. Allegories o Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and

Proust . New Haven: Yale Universi y Press. Jakobson, Roman 1960. Linguis ics and poe ics. In: Sebeok, Tomas (ed.),Style in Language.

Cambridge: MI Press, 350377.

1971[1956]. Shifers, verbal ca egories, and he Russian verb. In:Selected Writings 2: Wordand Language. Te Hague: Mou on, 130147. 1974.Selected Writings , vol. 7. [Rudy, S ephen, ed.]. Berlin: Mou on. Jespersen, Oto 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin. London: George Allen

and Unwin.Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: Te Embodied Mind and Its

Challenge to Western Tought . New York: Basic Books.Peirce, Charles Sanders 1991. Peirce on Signs: Writings on Semiotic by Charles Sanders Peirce.

[Hoopes, James, ed.] Chapel Hill: Universi y o Nor h Carolina Press.Peirce, Charles Sanders 1998.Te Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings , vol 2 (1893

1913). [Houser, Na han; Kloesel, Chris ian, eds.] Blooming on: Indiana Universi y Press.Saussure, Ferdinand de 1983.Course in General Linguistics. [Harris, Roy, rans.] London:

Duckwor h.

2 Te paper was originally delivered a he In erna ional Symposium on Cassirer, wi h he i leo Language beyond Power, which was held a he Universi y o Aalborg and he In erna ionalCommunicology Ins i u e, a Skagen, Denmark, on June 26July 2 2006. Te au hor gra e ullyacknowledges he suppor o a 985 Research Gran rom Fudan Universi y in 20112012 or hemanuscrip s revision and publica ion.

8/11/2019 37-22-1-SM

14/14

20 Han-liang Chang

,

(Secondness) , , . (Tirdness ), -, : , , , . , , . , , , , ( ) , , (Firstness, Secondness, Tirdness). , , 1906 . (Cominterpretant ), , . , , , , . ,

, , , , -.

Cassirer, Benveniste ja Peirce deiktikutest jaasesnalisest kommunikatsioonist

Vaa ama a oma sgavale huvile eisesuse ning selle ilmnemise vas u igasugus es indeksi es,sealhulgas deik iku es, prab Peirce harva helepanu asesnadevahelis ele suhe ele. Kuiameeriklases semioo ika rajaja paigu ab keele ervikuna Kolmasusse, ksnes mille avaramaraamis uses deik ikud saavadki oimida, heldab saksa losoo Cassirer, e see, mis iseloo-mus ab kige esimesi ruumilisi mis eid, mida me keeles leiame, on nende haara us konkree -sesse deik ilisse unk siooni. Cassireri jaoks seisneb asesnade, eri i mina-sina suh e h susselle mjus ruumilisuse mis e arengule, mis paneb aluse smboolse ele vormidele. Vib nidakummalisena, miks designa iivseid mina, sina, ema, mis on oma ka egoriaalses ja empiiriliseris a avuses niivrd eneses mis e avad, pole vimalik aandada Esmasuse, eisesuse ja Kol-masuse riaadile. On aga huvi av, e Peirce 1906. aas a kirjavahe uses leedi Welbyga vii ab kummalisele kommunika sioonilisele in erpre andile vi komin erpre andile, mis mra leb sellemeele (mind), millesse vljenduja ja lgendaja meeled peavad sulanduma selleks, e kskik

milline kommunika sioon viks ase leida. Peirce kinni ab, e sellise vormikommunika siooni,ni eks armunud olemise, muudab vimalikuks mrk. Kesolevas ar iklis ksi le akse Peircei jCassireri osu usi deik iku ele vi indeksikaalse ele mrkidele, eri i inimes evahelis e suhe e raa-mes, Benvenis e diskursusemis e valguses ning vaadeldakse Peircei-Welby kirjavahe use h vimalikku all eks i.

37-22-1-sm

Documents