The secret of rendering signs effective: the import of C. S. Peirce’s semiotic rhetoric

Abstract

In this article I trace the historical development of Peirce's semiotic rhetoric from its early appearance as a sub-discipline of symbolistic to its mature incarnation as one of the three main branches of the science of semiotic, and argue that this change in status is a symptom of Peirce's broadening semiotic interest. The article shows how the evolution of Peirce's theory of signs is linked to changes in his conception of logic. This modification is not merely a minor justification in his classification of the sciences; rather, it indicates a growing understanding of the interconnection between the different semiotic sub-disciplines. The scope and character of the mature discipline of rhetoric is further discussed in terms of a possible clash between rhetorical and methodological emphases, and a conciliatory strategy is suggested. The article concludes with some reflections on the relevance of Peircean rhetoric for future work in Peirce studies and semiotics.

‘Experience is Our Great and Only Teacher’: A Peircean Reading of Wim Wenders'Wings of Desire

“…It should be underlined, however, that Peirce's formulation of these three categories should not be interpreted in a formal way. On the contrary, Peirce's broad categorical conception of the ever‐present and general features of experience ‘are first obtained abductively and inductively from the rough and tumble of ordinary experience’ (Bergman, , p. 79). Colapietro holds that these categories should not be regarded ‘static taxonomic but rather as a dynamic interrogative framework’ (Colapietro, , p. 202).…”

“…I here perform a tentative reading of Peirce on the background of a more complete interpretation of the intentions that are more clearly expressed in his later texts. Writers such as Bergman (, , ), Colapietro (, , ), Freadman (), Short () and Turrisi () have been helpful in tracking these intentions.…”

Humour production in face-to-face interaction: a multimodal and cognitive study

“…Next, the relation between multimodality and semiotics is explored, taking semiotics as the general science of representation (Bergman, 2007), and concerned with the study of any sign with communicative potential (Kress & van Leuween, 2001). The difference between semiotics and semiology is briefly covered, before moving on to explaining the field of multimodal social semiotics, as the approach favoured to study communication by pioneer advocates of multimodality (Bezemer et al, 2012;Kress, 2015 (Sperber & Wilson, 1986) to account for implicatures and explicatures of the visual modality.…”

“…Adami (2016) defined multimodality as the combination of various semiotic modes or meaning-making resources in a given communicative event (still or moving images, colour, speech, gestures, etc.). Semiotics can be defined as the general science of representation (Bergman, 2007), whereas semiology "occupies the part of semiotics which relates either to conventional communication, or intentional communication" (Daylight, 2012 p. 37). Syntax, semantics and pragmatics can be viewed as three branches of semiotics, although this discipline, in the Peircean tradition, is not restricted to language (Bergman, 2007).…”

“…Semiotics can be defined as the general science of representation (Bergman, 2007), whereas semiology "occupies the part of semiotics which relates either to conventional communication, or intentional communication" (Daylight, 2012 p. 37). Syntax, semantics and pragmatics can be viewed as three branches of semiotics, although this discipline, in the Peircean tradition, is not restricted to language (Bergman, 2007). It includes any sign with communicative potential, and from this perspective, it could merge with multimodal studies of communication.…”