The Controversy Concerning the Nature of the Sign

Piotrowski, David

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55325-2_2

David Piotrowski³

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Morphogenesis ((LECTMORPH))

162 Accesses

Abstract

The question of the sign, of its indivisible unity and of its internal forms, is related to that of expressivity. Indeed, in its essential and most salient characters, the sign comprises an expressive feature, from the angle of which it allows itself to be somewhat approached and, moreover, to be grasped in its being as such.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Rosenthal and Visetti (2008, p. 187), our emphasis.
2.
Kant in Philonenko (1989, p. 87).
3.
“[P]henomena are of course necessarily consistent a priori with the conditions of their appearing which are the forms of intuition” (Petitot 1992, p. 61).
4.
Taylor (1985, p. 219), our emphasis.
5.
Ibid.
6.
Rosenthal and Visetti (2008, pp. 186–187).
7.
Taylor (1979, p. 78).
8.
Ibid., p. 73.
9.
Rosenthal and Visetti (2008, p. 187).
10.
PW, pp. 40, 59.
11.
PhP/L, pp. 185–186.
12.
Rosenthal and Visetti (2008, p. 187).
13.
PW, p. 8.
14.
Granger (1979, p. 200).
15.
Saussure (2006, p. 17).
16.
N9.2 in Godel (1969, p. 137).
17.
in Godel (1969, p. 48).
18.
RL1/F, p. 188.
19.
CLG/B, p. 65.
20.
RL1/F, p. 189.
21.
RL1/F, p. 184.
22.
RL1/F, p. 184.
23.
CLG/B, p. 182.
24.
Or “significant sign” (bedeutsam Zeichen) as opposed to the “indicative sign” (Anzeichen).
25.
CLG/B, p. 8.
26.
CLG/B, p. 113.
27.
RL1/F, p. 187.
28.
Ibid., p. 199.
29.
Ibid., p. 188.
30.
Leçons, p. 30.
31.
Ibid.
32.
RL1/F, p. 194.
33.
Ibid., p. 192.
34.
PhP/L, p. 182.
35.
Ibid.
36.
Ibid., pp. 183–184.
37.
Ibid., p. 187.
38.
Ibid.
39.
Ibid., p. 194.
40.
Ibid., p. 196.
41.
Jørgensen and Stjernfelt (1987, p. 90).
42.
Tamba-Mecz (1991, p. 37).
43.
Ibid., p. 3.
44.
RL1/F, p. 214.
45.
Benveniste (1971, p. 45).
46.
Ibid.
47.
CLG/B, p. 112.
48.
Ibid.
49.
Ibid.
50.
Ibid., p. 113.
51.
Ibid., pp. 111–112.
52.
Tamba-Mecz (1991, p. 44).
53.
Ibid., pp. 36–37.
54.
PhP/L, p. 182.
55.
Ibid., p. 183.
56.
Ibid., p. 187.
57.
PW, p. 10.
58.
Ibid., p. 3.
59.
Ibid.
60.
Ibid.
61.
Ibid., p. 7.
62.
PW, p. 7.
63.
PhP/L, p. 184.
64.
Ibid., pp. 184–185.
65.
RL5/F, p. 105.
66.
Ibid., pp. 137–138.
67.
Benoist (2001a, p. 33).
68.
RL1/F, p. 190.
69.
Ibid., pp. 193–194.
70.
Ibid., p. 192.
71.
PhP/L, p. 199.

References

Benoist, J. (2001). Intentionalité et langage dans les “Recherches logiques” de Husserl. Paris: PUF, coll. Epiméthée.
Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in general linguistics (M. E. Meek, Trans.). Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.
Google Scholar
de Saussure, F. (2006). In S. Bouquet, R. Engler, C. Sanders, & M. Pires (Eds.), Writings in general linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Godel, R. (1969). Les sources manuscrites du Cours de Linguistique Générale de F. de Saussure (Vol. 61). Genève: Droz, coll, Publications Romanes et Françaises.
Google Scholar
Granger, G.-G. (1979). Langage et épistémologie. Paris: Klincksieck, coll, Horizons du langage.
Google Scholar
Jørgensen, H., & Stjernfelt, F. (1987). Substance, substrat, structure. Langages, 86, 79–94.
Article Google Scholar
Lo Piparo, F. (2007). Saussure et les Grecs. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, 60, 139–162.
Google Scholar
Petitot, J. (1992). Physique du sens: de la théorie des singularités aux structures sémio-narratives. Paris: Editions du CNRS.
Google Scholar
Philonenko, A. (1989). L’oeuvre de Kant (Vol. 1). Paris: Vrin, coll, A la Recherche de la Vérité.
Google Scholar
Rosenthal, V., & Visetti, Y.-M. (2008). Modèles et pensées de l’expression: perspectives microgénétiques. Intellectica, 3(50), 177–252.
Google Scholar
Tamba-Mecz, I. (1991). La sémantique (Vol. 655). Paris: PUF, coll, Que sais-je ?.
Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1979). Act as expression. In G. E. M. Anscombe, C. Diamond, & J. Teichman (Eds.), Intention and intentionality: Essays in honour of GEM Anscombe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophical papers: Human agency and language (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

CNRS-EHESS, Paris, France
David Piotrowski

Authors

David Piotrowski
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Piotrowski .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Piotrowski, D. (2017). The Controversy Concerning the Nature of the Sign. In: Morphogenesis of the Sign. Lecture Notes in Morphogenesis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55325-2_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55325-2_2
Published: 11 April 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55323-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55325-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics