PIERCE’S INDEXICAL SIGN: DEFINITION, VARIETIES AND CONNECTION WITH THE SYSTEM OF CATEGORIES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24919/2522-4700.50.9Keywords:
Piers, index, semiotics, sign, classification of signs, categoriesAbstract
The purpose of the article is a thorough analysis of the “index” – one of the most famous signs of Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotic classification. The implementation of this goal involves considering the main characteristics and examples of this type of sign, revealing its features through contextual interrelationships with other types of signs and the system of categories. Methodology.The research methodology includes the active use of semiotic methodology. In addition, comparative and analytical methods are also involved. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the introduction of the index problem into the Ukrainian scientific discourse. It is proved that this type of sign should be considered an essential part of Peirce’s general philosophical and semiotic architectonics. It is emphasized that the conceptual principles of understanding this type of sign are formed in the process of working with the problems of algebraic logic and are the result of a thoughtful reading of the works of medieval logicians. An important feature of the study is the analysis of the index problem in the context of not only a general semiotic classification, but also in its comparison with the system of categories. Conclusions. As a result of our research, we came to the following conclusions: important characteristics of the indexical sign in Peirce are its existence within the paradigm of causal relationships, the presence of a detailed typology and the ability to direct the attention of the one who knows to a certain specific subject; a detailed analysis of the index is not possible outside the philosopher’s proposed classification of signs and its connections with the system of categories (Primary, Secondary and Tertiary); an essential characteristic of both the index and Peirce’s entire philosophical project is its incompleteness and constant openness to new potential changes. Further research into the index problem can be carried out both by analyzing the main trends in its study in the existing research literature and by searching for possible options for its practical application.
References
1. Atkin, A. Pierce on the Index and Indexical Reference. Transactions of Charles S. Pierce Society, 2005. Vol. XLI, No. 1: P. 161-188.
2. Bordeleau, A. An Indexical Approach to Architecture. Architecture and Phenomenology, Footprint. 2008. Autumn, P. 79-96.
3. Burks, A. Icon, Index, Symbol. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research, 1949. Vol. IX: P. 673-689.
4. Campbell, C. Indexical Ways of Knowing: An Inquiry into the Indexical Sign and How to Educate for Novelty. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 2016.Volume 24. No. 1, P. 15–36.
5. Collected Papers. Volumes 1-6. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1931-1936.
6. Collected Papers. Volumes 7 & 8. Arthur Burks (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1958.
7. Faltýnek, D., Lacková, L. In the Case of Protosemiosis: Indexicality vs. Iconicity of Proteins. Biosemiotics. 2021. 14 P. 209–226.
8. Goudge, T. Pierce’s Index. Transactions of Charles S. Pierce Society, 1965. Vol. 1, No. 2: P. 52-70.
9. Greenlee, D. Pierce’s concept of sign. Mouton, The Hague & Paris. 1973. P. 148.
10. Houser, N. Introduction. In The Essential Pierce. Vol. 1. The Pierce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 1992. P. xix-xli.
11. Krauss, R. Notes on the Index: Part 1, In the Originality of the Avant- garde and Other Modernist Myths. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977. P. 196-209. (a)
12. Krauss, R. Notes on the Index: Part 2, In the Originality of the Avant- garde and Other Modernist Myths. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977. P. 210-219.(b)
13. Krauss, R. Tracing Nadar. October, 1978. Vol. 5, Photography. P. 29-47.
14. Liszka, J. A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of Charles S. Pierce. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 1996. P. 151.
15. Savan, D. An Introduction to C.S. Pierce’s Full System of Semeiotic. Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle. 1988. P. 453.
16. Sekula, A. Photography Between Labour and Capital. In Benjamin H. D. Buchloh and Robert Wilkie, eds., Mining Photographs and Other Pictures 1948-1968: Photographs by Leslie Shedden. Halifax: Press of Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 1983. P. 193-268.
17. Short, Т. L. Peirce’s Theory of Signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007. P. 394.
18. Sonesson, G. Pictorial concepts. Inquiries into the semiotic heritage and its relevance for the analysis of the visual world. Lund: Aris / Lund University Press. 1989. P. 369.
19. Sonesson, G. Indexicality as Perceptual Mediation. Papers from the third bi-annual meeting of the Swedish Society for Semiotic Studies edited by Christiane Pankow, Gothenburg University. 1996. SSKKII Report 9604, P. 127-143
20. The Essential Pierce. Vol. 1. The Pierce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 1992. P. 399.
21. The Essential Pierce. Vol. 2. The Pierce Edition Project (eds.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 1998. P. 584.
22. Астапова-Вязьміна О. Знакова система Ч. С. Пірса та не-фігуративне мистецтво. 2011. URL: http://eprints.cdu.edu.ua/350/1/N210p025-029.pdf (дата звернення 12.03.2025).
23. Маменко, Т. Семіотичні категорії Пірса. Мультиверсум. Філософський альманах. 2020. Випуск 2(172). Том 1. С. 123-141.
24. Маменко, Т. Критика Ч. Пірсом настанов картезіанської філософії. Філософська думка. 2023. №1. С. 176-192.
25. Мінаков, М. Історія поняття досвіду. – Київ: Парапан. 2007. 380 с.
26. Ситько, Ю. Апріорні форми досвіду як складові знаку: пірсова семіотика через призму кантової онтики. Науковий часопис НПУ імені М.П. Драгоманова. 2012. Серія 8. Філологічні науки (мовознавство). Випуск 4. C. 169-175.
27. Шепетяк, О. Класифікація знаків у семіотиці Чарльза Пірса. Університетська кафедра. 2014. № 3, C. 129-136.
