This inquiry illustrates how Peirce’s Energetic Interpretant facilitates consciousness-raising between sign users. Because it forces attention and progression of action, the Energetic Interpretant highlights perfective aspectual characteristics, namely atomistic/punctual cause-effect sign relations by featuring junctures between events: beginning, middle, end. For example, the stops and starts of events are influenced by the nature of the action, in addition to the agent’s idiosyncratic preferences and predilections. The Thirdness underlying it further perpetuates the punctual component (Vendler 1967) present in action relations, operational when effort produces resistance against an opposing force. Because effort can materialize physically, or internally, it demonstrates the continued primacy of Peirce’s categories in fostering certain consequences. Energetic Interpretants can inhibit (Secondness), i.e., attention to one stimulus, while ignoring another. Nonetheless, consciously inhibiting/resisting a force (via Energetic Interpretants) introduces control beyond the self—another’s reflections upon the conscious acts of an agent (ms 318). This influence between interlocutors satisfies Peirce’s maxim of a “common place to stand” (ms 614), demonstrating mutual comprehension of the sign’s proper effect (5.475). In fact, Energetic Interpretants may result in an effect of such proportion upon either or both interlocutors that a habit-change materializes. As such, Energetic Interpretants epitomize the perfectivity exercised by particular efforts, intimating the likelihood of their discursive success. Inherent in punctual events (versus dynamic ones) is the element of surprise, which ultimately hastens the kind of habit-change especially exhibited in Peirce’s double consciousness (5.53)—self talking to self or other.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Abraham, Werner. 2008. “On the Logic of Generalizations about Cross-linguistic Aspect-modality Links”, Modality-Aspect Interfaces: Implications and Typological Solutions, ed. Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 3–13.
Anderson, John M. 1973. An Essay Concerning Aspect (The Hague: Mouton).
Atkins, Richard Kenneth. 2018. Charles S. Peirce’s Phenomenology: Analysis and Consciousness (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Bains, Paul. 2006. The Primacy of Semiosis: An Ontology of Relations (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).
Bergman, Mats. 2010. “C.S. Peirce on Interpretation and Collateral Experience”, Signs 4, 134–61.
Bergman, Mats. 2016. “Beyond explication: Meaning and habit-change in Peirce’s pragmatism”. In Donna West & Myrdene Anderson (Eds.), Consensus on Peirce’s Concept of Habit, 171–197. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Coward, Harold, and K. Kunjunni Raja. 1990. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol. 5: The Philosophy of the Grammarians. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Deely, John. 2009. Purely Objective Reality (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Deely, John, 2015. “From Semiosis to Semioethics”, The International Handbook of Semiotics, ed. Peter P. Trifonas, (Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 771–789.
Haack, Susan. 2014. “Do Not Block the Way of Inquiry”, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 50.3, 319–339.
Harris, Paul, and Robert Kavanaugh. 1993. “Young Children’s Understanding of Pretense”, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 58.1, v–92.
Ibri, Ivo. 2015. Kósmos Noetós: The Metaphysical Architecture of Charles S. Peirce. trans. H. Mallett (Heidelberg: Springer, 2017).
Joos, Martin. 1968. The English Verb: Form and Meanings (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press).
Kilpinen, Erkki. 2016. “In What Sense Exactly is Peirce’s Habit-concept Revolutionary?”, Consensus on Peirce’s Concept of Habit: Before and Beyond Consciousness, ed. Donna West & Myrdene Anderson (Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 199–213.
Kravchenko, Alexander. 2018. “On the Implicit Observer in Grammar: Aspect”, The Explicit and the Implicit in Language and Speech, ed. Liudmila Liashchova (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 12–34.
Leiss, Elisabeth (2012). Epistemicity, evidentiality, and Theory of Mind (ToM). In Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss, eds., Modality and Theory of Mind Elements Across Languages (37–66). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Miller, Jim. 1972. “Towards a Generative Semantic Account of Aspect in Russian”, Journal of Linguistics 8, 217–236.
Peirce, Charles S. i.1866–1913. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce Vols. I–VI, ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1931–1935); Vols. VII–VIII, ed. Arthur Burks (ibid., 1958). Cited in-text with the cp convention of volume and paragraph number cp X.yyy.
Peirce, Charles S. i.1866–1913. The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings Vol. 1, ed. Nathan Houser & Christian Kloesel; Vol. 2, ed. Peirce Edition Project, (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1992–1998). [Cited in-text as EP volume number: page number.]
Peirce, Charles S. i.1866–1913. Unpublished manuscripts are dated according to the Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce, ed. Richard Robin (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1967), Cited according to the convention of the Peirce Edition Project, using the numeral “0” as a place holder. [Cited in-text as MS or R: page number.]
Peirce, Charles S. 1903. Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism, ed. Patricia Turrisi (Albany: SUNY Press, 1997). [Cited in-text as PPM: page number.]
Peirce, Charles S., and Victoria, Lady Welby.i.1898–1912. Semiotic and Significs: The Correspondence Between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria, Lady Welby, ed. Charles Hardwick & James Cook (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1977). [Cited in-text as SS: page number.]
Pietarinen, Ahti-Veikko. 2006. Signs of Logic: Peircean Themes of the Philosophy of Language, Games, and Communication (Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag).
Salaberry, Rafael & Dalila Ayoun. 2005. “The Development of L2 Tense-aspect in the Romance Languages”, Tense and Aspect in Romance Languages, ed. Dalila Ayoun & Rafael Salaberry (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 1–33.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2002. “Recent Activity in the Theory of Aspect: Accomplishments, achievements or just non-progressive state”, Linguistic Typology 6, 199–271.
Saylor, Megan. 2004. “Twelve and 16-Month-old Infants Recognize Properties of Mentioned Absent Things”, Developmental Science 7.5, 599–611.
Shirai, Yasuhiro & Roger Andersen. 1995. The Acquisition of Tense-aspect Morphology: A prototype account”, Language 71.4, 743–762.
Short, Thomas L. 2007. Peirce’s Theory of Signs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Stjernfelt, Frederik. 2014. Natural Propositions: The Actuality of Peirce’s Doctrine of Dicisigns (Boston: Docent Press).
van der Auwera, Johan, and Hana Filip. 2008. “(Tense,) Aspect, Mood, and Modality: An imperfect 2008 state of the art report”, Unity and Diversity of Languages, ed. Piet van Sterkenburg (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 201–214.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
West, Donna. 2011. “Deixis as a symbolic phenomenon”, Linguistik Online 50.6, 89–100.
West, Donna. 2013. Deictic Imaginings: Semiosis at Work and at Play (Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag).
West, Donna. 2016a. “Peirce’s Creative Hallucination in the Ontogeny of Abductive Reasoning”, Public Journal of Semiotics 7.2, 51–72.
West, Donna. 2016b. Reflections on Complexions of Habit”, Consensus on Peirce’s Concept of Habit: Before and Beyond Consciousness, ed. Donna West & Myrdene Anderson, 421–432.
West, Donna. 2016c. “Indexical Scaffolds to Habit-formation”, Consensus on Peirce’s Concept of Habit: Before and Beyond Consciousness, ed. Donna West & Myrdene Anderson, 215–240.
West, Donna. 2016d. “Pretense as Creative Hallucination”, Respectus Philologicus 30.35, 63–73.
West, Donna. 2017. “Virtual habit as episode-builder in the inferencing process”, Cognitive Semiotics 10.1, 55–75.
West, Donna. 2018. “The Work of Peirce’s Dicisign in Representationalizing Early Deictic Events”, Semiotica. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0042.
West, Donna. 2019a. “Index as Scaffold to Logical and Final Interpretants: Compulsive Urges and Modal Submissions”, Semiotica Special Invitation Issue 228, 333–353.
West, Donna. 2019b. “Index as Scaffold to the Subjunctivity of Early Performatives”, The American Journal of Semiotics DOI: 10.5840/ajs201971551.
Wilson, Aaron. 2016. Peirce’s Empiricism: Its Roots and Its Originality. (Lanham: Lexington Press).
Yaska. ca. 7th c. bce. The Nighantu and the Nirukta: The Oldest Indian Treatise on Etymology, Philology and Sementics [sic], ed. and trans. from Sanskrit, L. Sarup (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1967).
Zeman, Sonja. 2016. “Perspectivization as a Link Between Narrative Micro-and macro-structure”, Perspectives on Narrativity and Narrative Perspectivization, ed., Natalia Igl & Sonja Zeman (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 17–42.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 413 | 110 | 16 |
Full Text Views | 16 | 6 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 36 | 15 | 0 |
This inquiry illustrates how Peirce’s Energetic Interpretant facilitates consciousness-raising between sign users. Because it forces attention and progression of action, the Energetic Interpretant highlights perfective aspectual characteristics, namely atomistic/punctual cause-effect sign relations by featuring junctures between events: beginning, middle, end. For example, the stops and starts of events are influenced by the nature of the action, in addition to the agent’s idiosyncratic preferences and predilections. The Thirdness underlying it further perpetuates the punctual component (Vendler 1967) present in action relations, operational when effort produces resistance against an opposing force. Because effort can materialize physically, or internally, it demonstrates the continued primacy of Peirce’s categories in fostering certain consequences. Energetic Interpretants can inhibit (Secondness), i.e., attention to one stimulus, while ignoring another. Nonetheless, consciously inhibiting/resisting a force (via Energetic Interpretants) introduces control beyond the self—another’s reflections upon the conscious acts of an agent (ms 318). This influence between interlocutors satisfies Peirce’s maxim of a “common place to stand” (ms 614), demonstrating mutual comprehension of the sign’s proper effect (5.475). In fact, Energetic Interpretants may result in an effect of such proportion upon either or both interlocutors that a habit-change materializes. As such, Energetic Interpretants epitomize the perfectivity exercised by particular efforts, intimating the likelihood of their discursive success. Inherent in punctual events (versus dynamic ones) is the element of surprise, which ultimately hastens the kind of habit-change especially exhibited in Peirce’s double consciousness (5.53)—self talking to self or other.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 413 | 110 | 16 |
Full Text Views | 16 | 6 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 36 | 15 | 0 |