Abstract
Peirce’s sign model is introduced as incompatible with structural semiology in the majority of semiotics textbooks. In this paper, I would like to argue against this general polarization of the semiotic discipline. I focus on compatibilities between Lucien Tesnière’s syntactic theory (verbal valency) and Peirce’s logic of relatives. My main argument is that structural linguistics is not necessarily dyadic, and that Peirce’s sign doctrine is perfectly structural. To define the structural approach in Peirce, I analyze the notions of form (structure) and substance in Hjelmslev and Peirce. The aim of my argument is to contribute to attempts to introduce Peirce’s theory to the field of linguistics in the hope that such an integration will be beneficiary for general linguistics. To extend and support my argument, I provide some examples from biology where Peirce’s theory has been applied. I demonstrate an analogy between the biological structures of proteins and the structure of a sentence with Peirce’s own writings. I consequently introduce Peirce as the first structural semiologist and as the first biolinguist.
Funding source: Czech Ministery of Education, Youth and Sports
Award Identifier / Grant number: FPVČ 2023
-
Research funding: This paper was supported by the internal grant of Palacký University FPVČ 2023 funded with Czech Ministery of Education, Youth and Sports.
References
Andrews, Edna. 1990. Markedness theory: The union of asymmetry and semiosis in language. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.2307/j.ctv120qs2wSearch in Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Bennett, Tyler J. 2021. Detotalization and retroactivity: Black pyramid semiotics. Tartu: University of Tartu PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1969. Sémiologie de la langue (1). Semiotica 1(1). 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Bisanz, Elize, Scott R. Cunningham, Clyde Hendrick, Levi Johnson, Kenneth Laine Ketner, Thomas McLaughlin & Michael O’Boyle. 2011. Peirce’s nonreduction and relational completeness claims (CP 3.421): In the context of first-order predicate logic. KODIKAS/CODE 34. 3–14.Search in Google Scholar
Blasi, Damian, Søren Wichmann, Harald Hammarström, Peter F. Stadler & Morten H. Christiansen. 2016. Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(39). 10818–10823. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605782113.Search in Google Scholar
Burch, Robert W. 1992. Valental aspects of Peircean algebraic logic. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 23(6). 665–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-1221(92)90128-5.Search in Google Scholar
Burch, Robert W. 1997. Peirce’s reduction thesis. In Nathan Houser, Don D. Roberts & James Van Evra (eds.), Studies in the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, 234–251. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chávez Barreto, Eugenio I. 2019. Funktionskreis and the stratificational model of semiotic structures: Jakob von Uexküll, Luis Prieto and Louis Hjelmslev. Sign Systems Studies 47(1/2). 69. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.2019.47.1-2.02.Search in Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles & Félix Guattari. 1980. A thousand plateaus. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Search in Google Scholar
Denton, Michael J., Craig Marshall & Michael Legge. 2002. The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. Journal of Theoretical Biology 219(3). 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2002.3128.Search in Google Scholar
Diatka, Vojtěch & Jiří Milička. 2017. The effect of iconicity flash blindness: An empirical study. In Angelika Zirker, Mathhias Bauer, Olga Fischer & Christina Ljunberg (eds.), Dimensions of iconicity, 3–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.15.01diaSearch in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1884. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Max Nänny (eds.). 2001. The motivated sign. In Iconicity in language and literature, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.2Search in Google Scholar
Fontanille, Jacques. 1992. Approche morphodynamique de l’iconicité des stemmas. In Françoise Madray-Lesigne & Jeannine Richard-Zappela (eds.), Lucien Tesnière aujourd’hui, 105–112. Louvain & Paris: Editions Peeters.Search in Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, Michael S. 2018. The consciousness instinct. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2007. Iconicity in the grammar-lexis interface. In Elżbieta Tabakowska, Olga Fisher & Christina Ljungberg (eds.), Iconicity in language and literature, 269–289. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.5.23glySearch in Google Scholar
Greimas, Algirdas J. & Joseph Courtés. 1982. Semiotics and language: An analytical dictionary, vol. 10. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky & William T. Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598). 1569–1579. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569.Search in Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1928. Principes de grammaire générale. Copenhagen: A. F. Host.Search in Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1935. La catégorie des cas: étude de grammaire générale (Acta Jutlandica 7[1]). Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus.Search in Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1954. La stratification du langage. Word 10(2–3). 163–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659521.Search in Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1957 [1943]. Prolegomena to a theory of language, Francis Whitfield (trans.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ketner, Kenneth (ed.). 2012. The Ralph Gregory Beil memorial volume: Papers in theoretical physics (Peirce studies number 9). Lubbock, TX: Institute for Studies in Pragmaticism, Texas Tech University.Search in Google Scholar
Krivochen, Diego G. & Ľudmila Lacková. 2020. Iconicity in syntax and the architecture of linguistic theory. Studies in Language 44(1). 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19017.lac.Search in Google Scholar
Lacková, Ľudmila. 2016. Topic and focus as instruments for a contrastive analysis: Iconicity of functional sentence. Perspective in French and Italian. In Paola Dardano (ed.), Grammatiche e grammatici. Teorie, testi e contesti. Atti del XXXIX Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia, 261–266. Rome: Il Calamo.Search in Google Scholar
Lacková, Ľudmila. 2019. Towards a processual approach in protein studies. Biosemiotics 12(6). 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019-09370-y.Search in Google Scholar
Lacková, Ľudmila. 2022. Participative opposition applied. Sign Systems Studies 50(2–3). 261–285. https://doi.org/10.12697/sss.1.Search in Google Scholar
Lacková, Ľudmila & Lukáš Zámečník. 2020. Logical principles of a topological explanation. Chinese Semiotic Studies 16(3). 493–514. https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2020-0027.Search in Google Scholar
Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien. 1927. L’âme primitive. Paris: Félix Alcan.Search in Google Scholar
Markoš, Anton & Jana Švorcová. 2019. Epigenetic processes and evolution of life. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.10.1201/9781351009966Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, Winfried. 1999. Peircean semiotics in the study of iconicity in language. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 35(3). 613–619.Search in Google Scholar
Paolucci, Claudio. 2006. Lucien Tesnière autore della logica dei relativi: Su alcune insospettate corrispondenze tra Peirce e lo strutturalismo. E/C 1. 1–16.Search in Google Scholar
Pattee, Howard H. 2008. Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages. Biosemiotics 1. 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9012-6.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1870. Description of a notation for the logic of relatives, resulting from an amplification of the conceptions of Boole’s calculus of logic. Cambridge, MA: Welch, Bigelow.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1877. The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly 12. 1–15.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1967. Manuscripts in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin, Annotated catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. [Reference to Peirce’s manuscripts will be designated MS or L.]Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 2009 [1897]. Logic of relatives. In Elize Bisanz (ed.), The logic of interdisciplinarity: Charles S. Peirce, The Monist series, 186–229. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.10.1524/9783050047331.186Search in Google Scholar
Pelkey, Jamin. 2013. Analogy, automation, and diagrammatic causation: The evolution of Tibeto-Burman *lak. Studies in Language 37(1). 144–195. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.1.04pel.Search in Google Scholar
Pelkey, Jamin. 2015a. Deep congruence between linguistic and biotic growth: Evidence for semiotic foundations. In Ekaterina Velmezova, Stephen J. Cowley & Kalevi Kull (eds.), Biosemiotic perspectives on language and linguistics, 97–119. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-20663-9_6Search in Google Scholar
Pelkey, Jamin. 2015b. Peircean evolutionary linguistics: A prospectus. In Jamin Pelkey, Stéphanie Walsh Matthews & Leonard Sbrocchi (eds.), Semiotics 2014: The semiotics of paradox, 585–597. Ottawa: Legas.10.5840/cpsem201446Search in Google Scholar
Pelkey, Jamin. 2020. Peircean semiotic for language and linguistics. In Tony Jappy (ed.), The Bloomsbury companion to contemporary Peircean semiotics, 391–418. London: Bloomsbury Academic.10.5040/9781350076143.ch-14Search in Google Scholar
Prieto, Luis J. 1975. Pertinence et pratique. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Search in Google Scholar
Scott, Frances W. 2006. C. S. Peirce’s system of science: Life as a laboratory. Elsah, IL: The Press of Arisbe Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Shapiro, Michael. 1983. The sense of grammar: Language as semeiotic. Bloomington, IL: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 2015 [1959]. Elements of structural syntax, Timothy Osborne & Sylvain Kahane (trans.). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamin.10.1075/z.185Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1917. On growth and form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Vepřek, Miroslav. 2015. Komparativní tvarosloví staroslověnštiny a staré češtiny [Comparative morphology of ancient Slavic and old Czech]. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
