Sign relation - Revision history

Jon Awbrey: reformat bullet points as definition lists

2026-01-16T14:08:25Z

reformat bullet points as definition lists

Jon Awbrey: /* Graphical representations */ reformat

2026-01-11T18:18:02Z

Graphical representations: reformat

Jon Awbrey: delete {{anchor ...}}s

2026-01-08T18:04:20Z

delete {{anchor ...}}s

Jon Awbrey: update

2026-01-07T17:00:44Z

update

Jon Awbrey: /* Examples of sign relations */

2025-12-26T13:42:37Z

Examples of sign relations

Jon Awbrey at 13:28, 26 December 2025

2025-12-26T13:28:53Z

Jon Awbrey: format & style edits + add refs

2025-12-17T13:52:05Z

format & style edits + add refs

Jon Awbrey: linebreak

2025-12-12T17:32:30Z

linebreak

Jon Awbrey: ☞ This page belongs to resource collections on Logic and Inquiry. A sign relation is the basic construct in the theory of signs, also known as semeiotic or semiotics, as developed by Charles Sanders Peirce.

2025-12-12T17:30:17Z

☞ This page belongs to resource collections on Logic and Inquiry. A sign relation is the basic construct in the theory of signs, also known as semeiotic or semiotics, as developed by Charles Sanders Peirce.

Jon Awbrey:

Thus, if a sunflower, in turning towards the sun, becomes by that very act fully capable, without further condition, of reproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely corresponding ways toward the sun, and of doing so with the same reproductive power, the sunflower would become a Representamen of the sun.

2025-12-12T17:26:17Z

<div style="margin-left:5%; margin-right:5%"> Thus, if a sunflower, in turning towards the sun, becomes by that very act fully capable, without further condition, of reproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely corresponding ways toward the sun, and of doing so with the same reproductive power, the sunflower would become a Representamen of the sun.

@@ Line 216: / Line 216: @@
 The dyadic components of sign relations have graph&#8209;theoretic representations, as <i>digraphs</i> (or <i>directed graphs</i>), which provide concise pictures of their structural and potential dynamic properties.
-By way of terminology, a directed edge <math>(x, y)</math> is called an <i>arc</i> from point <math>x</math> to point <math>y,</math> and a self-loop <math>(x, x)</math> is called a <i>sling</i> at <math>x.</math>
+By way of terminology, a directed edge <math>(x, y)</math> is called an <i>arc</i> from point <math>x</math> to point <math>y,</math> and a self&#8209;loop <math>(x, x)</math> is called a <i>sling</i> at <math>x.</math>
 The denotative components <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> can be represented as digraphs on the six points of their common world set <math>W = O \cup S \cup I =</math> <math>\{ \mathrm{A}, \mathrm{B}, \text{“A”}, \text{“B”}, \text{“i”}, \text{“u”} \}.</math>&nbsp; The arcs are given as follows.
-<ul><li><math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“i”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{A}</math> and an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“u”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{B}.</math></li></ul>
+<dl style="margin-left:28px">
+<dt>Denotative Component <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math></dt>
-<ul><li><math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“u”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{A}</math> and an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“i”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{B}.</math></li></ul>
+<dd><math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“i”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{A}.</math> <br> <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“u”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{B}.</math></dd>
-<math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> can be interpreted as <i>transition digraphs</i> which chart the succession of steps or the connection of states in a computational process.&nbsp; If the graphs are read this way, the denotational arcs summarize the <i>upshots</i> of the computations involved when the interpreters <math>\mathrm{A}</math> and <math>\mathrm{B}</math> evaluate the signs in <math>S</math> according to their own frames of reference.
+<dt>Denotative Component <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{B})</math></dt>
-The connotative components <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> can be represented as digraphs on the four points of their common syntactic domain <math>S = I =</math> <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“B”}, \text{“i”}, \text{“u”} \}.</math>&nbsp; Since <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> are semiotic equivalence relations, their digraphs conform to the pattern manifested by all digraphs of equivalence relations.&nbsp; In general, a digraph of an equivalence relation falls into connected components that correspond to the parts of the associated partition, with a complete digraph on the points of each part, and no other arcs.&nbsp; In the present case, the arcs are given as follows.
+<math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> can be interpreted as <i>transition digraphs</i> which chart the succession of steps or the connection of states in a computational process.&nbsp; If the graphs are read in that way, the denotational arcs summarize the <i>upshots</i> of the computations involved when the interpreters <math>\mathrm{A}</math> and <math>\mathrm{B}</math> evaluate the signs in <math>S</math> according to their own frames of reference.
-<ul><li><math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> has the structure of a semiotic equivalence relation on <math>S,</math> with a sling at each point of <math>S,</math> arcs in both directions between the points of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“i”} \},</math> and arcs in both directions between the points of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“u”} \}.</math></li></ul>
+The connotative components <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> can be represented as digraphs on the four points of their common syntactic domain <math>S = I =</math> <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“B”}, \text{“i”}, \text{“u”} \}.</math>&nbsp; Since <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> are semiotic equivalence relations, their digraphs conform to the pattern manifested by all digraphs of equivalence relations.&nbsp; In general, a digraph of an equivalence relation falls into connected components which correspond to the parts of the associated partition, with a complete digraph on the points of each part, and no other arcs.&nbsp; In the present case, the arcs are given as follows.
-<ul><li><math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> has the structure of a semiotic equivalence relation on <math>S,</math> with a sling at each point of <math>S,</math> arcs in both directions between the points of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“u”} \},</math> and arcs in both directions between the points of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“i”} \}.</math></li></ul>
+<dl style="margin-left:28px">
-Taken as transition digraphs, <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> highlight the associations permitted between equivalent signs, as this equivalence is judged by the interpreters <math>\mathrm{A}</math> and <math>\mathrm{B},</math> respectively.
+<dt>Connotative Component <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math></dt>
 ==Six ways of looking at a sign relation==

@@ Line 214: / Line 214: @@
 ==Graphical representations==
-The dyadic components of sign relations have graph-theoretic representations, as <i>digraphs</i> (or <i>directed graphs</i>), which provide concise pictures of their structural and potential dynamic properties.
+The dyadic components of sign relations have graph&#8209;theoretic representations, as <i>digraphs</i> (or <i>directed graphs</i>), which provide concise pictures of their structural and potential dynamic properties.
 By way of terminology, a directed edge <math>(x, y)</math> is called an <i>arc</i> from point <math>x</math> to point <math>y,</math> and a self-loop <math>(x, x)</math> is called a <i>sling</i> at <math>x.</math>
-The denotative components <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> can be represented as digraphs on the six points of their common world set <math>W = O \cup S \cup I =</math> <math>\{ \mathrm{A}, \mathrm{B}, \text{“A”}, \text{“B”}, \text{“i”}, \text{“u”} \}.</math>&nbsp; The arcs are given as follows:
+The denotative components <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> can be represented as digraphs on the six points of their common world set <math>W = O \cup S \cup I =</math> <math>\{ \mathrm{A}, \mathrm{B}, \text{“A”}, \text{“B”}, \text{“i”}, \text{“u”} \}.</math>&nbsp; The arcs are given as follows.
-{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
+<ul><li><math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“i”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{A}</math> and an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“u”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{B}.</math></li></ul>
-−
-<p><math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“i”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{A}</math> and an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“u”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{B}.</math></p>
+<ul><li><math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> has an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“u”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{A}</math> and an arc from each point of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“i”} \}</math> to <math>\mathrm{B}.</math></li></ul>
 <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Den}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> can be interpreted as <i>transition digraphs</i> which chart the succession of steps or the connection of states in a computational process.&nbsp; If the graphs are read this way, the denotational arcs summarize the <i>upshots</i> of the computations involved when the interpreters <math>\mathrm{A}</math> and <math>\mathrm{B}</math> evaluate the signs in <math>S</math> according to their own frames of reference.
-The connotative components <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> can be represented as digraphs on the four points of their common syntactic domain <math>S = I =</math> <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“B”}, \text{“i”}, \text{“u”} \}.</math>&nbsp; Since <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> are semiotic equivalence relations, their digraphs conform to the pattern manifested by all digraphs of equivalence relations.&nbsp; In general, a digraph of an equivalence relation falls into connected components that correspond to the parts of the associated partition, with a complete digraph on the points of each part, and no other arcs.&nbsp; In the present case, the arcs are given as follows:
+The connotative components <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> can be represented as digraphs on the four points of their common syntactic domain <math>S = I =</math> <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“B”}, \text{“i”}, \text{“u”} \}.</math>&nbsp; Since <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> are semiotic equivalence relations, their digraphs conform to the pattern manifested by all digraphs of equivalence relations.&nbsp; In general, a digraph of an equivalence relation falls into connected components that correspond to the parts of the associated partition, with a complete digraph on the points of each part, and no other arcs.&nbsp; In the present case, the arcs are given as follows.
-{| align="center" cellspacing="6" width="90%"
+<ul><li><math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> has the structure of a semiotic equivalence relation on <math>S,</math> with a sling at each point of <math>S,</math> arcs in both directions between the points of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“i”} \},</math> and arcs in both directions between the points of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“u”} \}.</math></li></ul>
-−
-<p><math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> has the structure of a semiotic equivalence relation on <math>S,</math> with a sling at each point of <math>S,</math> arcs in both directions between the points of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“i”} \},</math> and arcs in both directions between the points of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“u”} \}.</math></p>
+<ul><li><math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> has the structure of a semiotic equivalence relation on <math>S,</math> with a sling at each point of <math>S,</math> arcs in both directions between the points of <math>\{ \text{“A”}, \text{“u”} \},</math> and arcs in both directions between the points of <math>\{ \text{“B”}, \text{“i”} \}.</math></li></ul>
 Taken as transition digraphs, <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{A})</math> and <math>\mathrm{Con}(L_\mathrm{B})</math> highlight the associations permitted between equivalent signs, as this equivalence is judged by the interpreters <math>\mathrm{A}</math> and <math>\mathrm{B},</math> respectively.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 Tracing the passage of inquiry through the medium of signs calls for an active, intricate form of cooperation between the converging modes of investigation.&nbsp; Its proper character is best understood by realizing the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject the theory of signs is specialized to treat from comparative and structural points of view.
-=={{anchor|Examples}}Examples of sign relations==
+==Examples of sign relations==
 Despite their simplicity, the examples to follow have subtleties of their own and their careful treatment serves to illustrate important issues in the general theory of signs.
@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 Already in this elementary context, there are several different meanings that might attach to the project of a <i>formal semiotics</i>, or a formal theory of meaning for signs.&nbsp; In the process of discussing these alternatives, it is useful to introduce a few terms that are occasionally used in the philosophy of language to point out the needed distinctions.
-=={{anchor|Dyadic Aspects}}Dyadic aspects of sign relations==
+==Dyadic aspects of sign relations==
 For an arbitrary triadic relation <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I,</math> whether it happens to be a sign relation or not, there are six dyadic relations obtained by <i>projecting</i> <math>L</math> on one of the planes of the <math>OSI</math>&#8209;space <math>O \times S \times I.</math>&nbsp; The six dyadic projections of a triadic relation <math>L</math> are defined and notated as shown in Table&nbsp;2.
@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 |}
-=={{anchor|Semiotic Equivalence Relations 1}}Semiotic equivalence relations==
+==Semiotic equivalence relations==
 A <i>semiotic equivalence relation</i> (SER) is a special type of equivalence relation arising in the analysis of sign relations.&nbsp; As a general rule, any equivalence relation is closely associated with a family of equivalence classes which partition the underlying set of elements, frequently called the <i>domain</i> or <i>space</i> of the relation.&nbsp; In the case of a SER, the equivalence classes are called <i>semiotic equivalence classes</i> (SECs) and the partition is called a <i>semiotic partition</i> (SEP).
@@ Line 172: / Line 172: @@
 |}
 A few items of notation are useful in discussing equivalence relations in general and semiotic equivalence relations in particular.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 Tracing the passage of inquiry through the medium of signs calls for an active, intricate form of cooperation between the converging modes of investigation.&nbsp; Its proper character is best understood by realizing the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject the theory of signs is specialized to treat from comparative and structural points of view.
-==Examples of sign relations==
+=={{anchor|Examples}}Examples of sign relations==
 Despite their simplicity, the examples to follow have subtleties of their own and their careful treatment serves to illustrate important issues in the general theory of signs.
@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 Already in this elementary context, there are several different meanings that might attach to the project of a <i>formal semiotics</i>, or a formal theory of meaning for signs.&nbsp; In the process of discussing these alternatives, it is useful to introduce a few terms that are occasionally used in the philosophy of language to point out the needed distinctions.
-==Dyadic aspects of sign relations==
+=={{anchor|Dyadic Aspects}}Dyadic aspects of sign relations==
-For an arbitrary triadic relation <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I,</math> whether it happens to be a sign relation or not, there are six dyadic relations obtained by <i>projecting</i> <math>L</math> on one of the planes of the <math>OSI</math>-space <math>O \times S \times I.</math>&nbsp; The six dyadic projections of a triadic relation <math>L</math> are defined and notated as shown in Table&nbsp;2.
+For an arbitrary triadic relation <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I,</math> whether it happens to be a sign relation or not, there are six dyadic relations obtained by <i>projecting</i> <math>L</math> on one of the planes of the <math>OSI</math>&#8209;space <math>O \times S \times I.</math>&nbsp; The six dyadic projections of a triadic relation <math>L</math> are defined and notated as shown in Table&nbsp;2.
 {| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center"
@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 {| align="center" cellpadding="6" width="90%"
+|
-<p>The dyadic relation resulting from the projection of <math>L</math> on the <math>OS</math>-plane <math>O \times S</math> is written briefly as <math>L_{OS}</math> or written more fully as <math>\mathrm{proj}_{OS}(L)</math> and is defined as the set of all ordered pairs <math>(o, s)</math> in the cartesian product <math>O \times S</math> for which there exists an ordered triple <math>(o, s, i)</math> in <math>L</math> for some element <math>i</math> in the set <math>I.</math></p>
+<p>The dyadic relation resulting from the projection of <math>L</math> on the <math>OS</math>&#8209;plane <math>O \times S</math> is written briefly as <math>L_{OS}</math> or written more fully as <math>\mathrm{proj}_{OS}(L)</math> and is defined as the set of all ordered pairs <math>(o, s)</math> in the cartesian product <math>O \times S</math> for which there exists an ordered triple <math>(o, s, i)</math> in <math>L</math> for some element <math>i</math> in the set <math>I.</math></p>
 |}
@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 One aspect of a sign's complete meaning concerns the reference a sign has to its objects, which objects are collectively known as the <i>denotation</i> of the sign.&nbsp; In the pragmatic theory of sign relations, denotative references fall within the projection of the sign relation on the plane spanned by its object domain and its sign domain.
-The dyadic relation making up the <i>denotative</i>, <i>referent</i>, or <i>semantic</i> aspect of a sign relation <math>L</math> is notated as <math>\mathrm{Den}(L).</math>&nbsp; Information about the denotative aspect of meaning is obtained from <math>L</math> by taking its <i>projection</i> on the object-sign plane.&nbsp; We may visualize this as the &ldquo;shadow&rdquo; <math>L</math> casts on the 2-dimensional space whose axes are the object domain <math>O</math> and the sign domain <math>S.</math>&nbsp; The denotative component of a sign relation <math>L,</math> alternatively written in any of forms, <math>\mathrm{proj}_{OS} L,</math>&nbsp; <math>L_{OS},</math>&nbsp; <math>\mathrm{proj}_{12} L,</math>&nbsp; and <math>L_{12},</math> is defined as follows.
+The dyadic relation making up the <i>denotative</i>, <i>referent</i>, or <i>semantic</i> aspect of a sign relation <math>L</math> is notated as <math>\mathrm{Den}(L).</math>&nbsp; Information about the denotative aspect of meaning is obtained from <math>L</math> by taking its <i>projection</i> on the object&#8209;sign plane.&nbsp; The result may be visualized as the &ldquo;shadow&rdquo; <math>L</math> casts on the 2&#8209;dimensional space whose axes are the object domain <math>O</math> and the sign domain <math>S.</math>&nbsp; The denotative component of a sign relation <math>L,</math> variously written as <math>\mathrm{proj}_{OS} L,</math>&nbsp; <math>L_{OS},</math>&nbsp; <math>\mathrm{proj}_{12} L,</math>&nbsp; or <math>L_{12},</math> is defined as follows.
 <p align="center">[[File:Sign Relation Display 3.png|550px]]</p>
@@ Line 126: / Line 126: @@
 Another aspect of a sign's complete meaning concerns the reference a sign has to its interpretants, which interpretants are collectively known as the <i>connotation</i> of the sign.&nbsp; In the pragmatic theory of sign relations, connotative references fall within the projection of the sign relation on the plane spanned by its sign domain and its interpretant domain.
-In the full theory of sign relations the connotative aspect of meaning includes the links a&nbsp;sign has to affects, concepts, ideas, impressions, intentions, and the whole realm of an interpretive agent's mental states and allied activities, broadly encompassing intellectual associations, emotional impressions, motivational impulses, and real conduct.&nbsp; Taken at the full, in the natural setting of semiotic phenomena, this complex system of references is unlikely ever to find itself mapped in much detail, much less completely formalized, but the tangible warp of its accumulated mass is commonly alluded to as the connotative import of language.
+In the full theory of sign relations the connotative aspect of meaning includes the links a sign has to affects, concepts, ideas, impressions, intentions, and the whole realm of an interpretive agent's mental states and allied activities, broadly encompassing intellectual associations, emotional impressions, motivational impulses, and real conduct.&nbsp; Taken at the full, in the natural setting of semiotic phenomena, this complex system of references is unlikely ever to find itself mapped in much detail, much less completely formalized, but the tangible warp of its accumulated mass is commonly alluded to as the connotative import of language.
-Formally speaking, however, the connotative aspect of meaning presents no additional difficulty.&nbsp; The dyadic relation making up the <i>connotative</i> aspect of a sign relation <math>L</math> is notated as <math>\mathrm{Con}(L).</math>&nbsp; Information about the connotative aspect of meaning is obtained from <math>L</math> by taking its <i>projection</i> on the sign-interpretant plane.&nbsp; We may visualize this as the &ldquo;shadow&rdquo; <math>L</math> casts on the 2-dimensional space whose axes are the sign domain <math>S</math> and the interpretant domain <math>I.</math>&nbsp; The connotative component of a sign relation <math>L,</math> alternatively written in any of forms, <math>\mathrm{proj}_{SI} L,</math>&nbsp; <math>L_{SI},</math>&nbsp; <math>\mathrm{proj}_{23} L,</math>&nbsp; and <math>L_{23},</math> is defined as follows.
+Formally speaking, however, the connotative aspect of meaning presents no additional difficulty.&nbsp; The dyadic relation making up the <i>connotative</i> aspect of a sign relation <math>L</math> is notated as <math>\mathrm{Con}(L).</math>&nbsp; Information about the connotative aspect of meaning is obtained from <math>L</math> by taking its <i>projection</i> on the sign&#8209;interpretant plane and visualized as the &ldquo;shadow&rdquo; <math>L</math> casts on the 2&#8209;dimensional space whose axes are the sign domain <math>S</math> and the interpretant domain <math>I.</math>&nbsp; The connotative component of a sign relation <math>L,</math> variously written as <math>\mathrm{proj}_{SI} L,</math>&nbsp; <math>L_{SI},</math>&nbsp; <math>\mathrm{proj}_{23} L,</math>&nbsp; or <math>L_{23},</math> is defined as follows.
 <p align="center">[[File:Sign Relation Display 4.png|550px]]</p>
@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 ===Ennotation===
-A third aspect of a sign's complete meaning concerns the reference its objects have to its interpretants, which has no standard name in semiotics.&nbsp; It would be called an <i>induced relation</i> in graph theory or the result of <i>relational composition</i> in relation theory.&nbsp; If an interpretant is recognized as a sign in its own right then its independent reference to an object can be taken as belonging to another moment of denotation, but this neglects the mediational character of the whole transaction in which this occurs.&nbsp; Denotation and connotation have to do with dyadic relations in which the sign plays an active role but here&nbsp;we are dealing with a dyadic relation between objects and interpretants mediated by the sign from an off-stage position, as it were.
+A third aspect of a sign's complete meaning concerns the reference its objects have to its interpretants, which has no standard name in semiotics.&nbsp; It would be called an <i>induced relation</i> in graph theory or the result of <i>relational composition</i> in relation theory.&nbsp; If an interpretant is recognized as a sign in its own right then its independent reference to an object can be taken as belonging to another moment of denotation, but this neglects the mediational character of the whole transaction in which this occurs.&nbsp; Denotation and connotation have to do with dyadic relations in which the sign plays an active role but here we are dealing with a dyadic relation between objects and interpretants mediated by the sign from an off&#8209;stage position, as it were.
-As a relation between objects and interpretants mediated by a sign, this third aspect of meaning may be referred to as the <i>ennotation</i> of a sign and the dyadic relation making up the <i>ennotative aspect</i> of a sign relation <math>L</math> may be notated as <math>\mathrm{Enn}(L).</math>&nbsp; Information about the ennotative aspect of meaning is obtained from <math>L</math> by taking its <i>projection</i> on the object-interpretant plane.&nbsp; We may visualize this as the &ldquo;shadow&rdquo; <math>L</math> casts on the 2-dimensional space whose axes are the object domain <math>O</math> and the interpretant domain <math>I.</math>&nbsp; The ennotative component of a sign relation <math>L,</math> alternatively written in any of forms, <math>\mathrm{proj}_{OI} L,</math>&nbsp; <math>L_{OI},</math>&nbsp; <math>\mathrm{proj}_{13} L,</math>&nbsp; and <math>L_{13},</math> is defined as follows.
+As a relation between objects and interpretants mediated by a sign, this third aspect of meaning may be referred to as the <i>ennotation</i> of a sign and the dyadic relation making up the <i>ennotative aspect</i> of a sign relation <math>L</math> may be notated as <math>\mathrm{Enn}(L).</math>&nbsp; Information about the ennotative aspect of meaning is obtained from <math>L</math> by taking its <i>projection</i> on the object&#8209;interpretant plane and visualized as the &ldquo;shadow&rdquo; <math>L</math> casts on the 2&#8209;dimensional space whose axes are the object domain <math>O</math> and the interpretant domain <math>I.</math>&nbsp; The ennotative component of a sign relation <math>L,</math> variously written as <math>\mathrm{proj}_{OI} L,</math>&nbsp; <math>L_{OI},</math>&nbsp; <math>\mathrm{proj}_{13} L,</math>&nbsp; or <math>L_{13},</math> is defined as follows.
 <p align="center">[[File:Sign Relation Display 5.png|550px]]</p>
@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 |}
-==Semiotic equivalence relations==
+=={{anchor|Semiotic Equivalence Relations 1}}Semiotic equivalence relations==
 A <i>semiotic equivalence relation</i> (SER) is a special type of equivalence relation arising in the analysis of sign relations.&nbsp; As a general rule, any equivalence relation is closely associated with a family of equivalence classes which partition the underlying set of elements, frequently called the <i>domain</i> or <i>space</i> of the relation.&nbsp; In the case of a SER, the equivalence classes are called <i>semiotic equivalence classes</i> (SECs) and the partition is called a <i>semiotic partition</i> (SEP).
@@ Line 172: / Line 172: @@
 |}
 A few items of notation are useful in discussing equivalence relations in general and semiotic equivalence relations in particular.
@@ Line 348: / Line 349: @@
 [[Category:Cognitive science]]
 [[Category:Computer science]]
 [[Category:Graph theory]]
 [[Category:Inquiry]]
 [[Category:Intelligent systems]]
 [[Category:Logic]]
 [[Category:Logical graphs]]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 Tracing the passage of inquiry through the medium of signs calls for an active, intricate form of cooperation between the converging modes of investigation.&nbsp; Its proper character is best understood by realizing the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject the theory of signs is specialized to treat from comparative and structural points of view.
-=={{anchor|Examples}}Examples of sign relations==
+==Examples of sign relations==
 Despite their simplicity, the examples to follow have subtleties of their own and their careful treatment serves to illustrate important issues in the general theory of signs.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 Tracing the passage of inquiry through the medium of signs calls for an active, intricate form of cooperation between the converging modes of investigation.&nbsp; Its proper character is best understood by realizing the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject the theory of signs is specialized to treat from comparative and structural points of view.
-==Examples of sign relations==
+=={{anchor|Examples}}Examples of sign relations==
-Because the examples to follow have been artificially constructed to be as simple as possible, their detailed elaboration can run the risk of trivializing the whole theory of sign relations.&nbsp; Despite their simplicity, however, these examples have subtleties of their own, and their careful treatment will serve to illustrate many important issues in the general theory of signs.
+Despite their simplicity, the examples to follow have subtleties of their own and their careful treatment serves to illustrate important issues in the general theory of signs.
 Imagine a discussion between two people, Ann and Bob, and attend only to that aspect of their interpretive practice that involves the use of the following nouns and pronouns:&nbsp; &ldquo;Ann&rdquo;, &ldquo;Bob&rdquo;, &ldquo;I&rdquo;, &ldquo;you&rdquo;.
@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 ==Dyadic aspects of sign relations==
-For an arbitrary triadic relation <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I,</math> whether it is a sign relation or not, there are six dyadic relations that can be obtained by <i>projecting</i> <math>L</math> on one of the planes of the <math>OSI</math>-space <math>O \times S \times I.</math>&nbsp; The six dyadic projections of a triadic relation <math>L</math> are defined and notated as follows:
+For an arbitrary triadic relation <math>L \subseteq O \times S \times I,</math> whether it happens to be a sign relation or not, there are six dyadic relations obtained by <i>projecting</i> <math>L</math> on one of the planes of the <math>OSI</math>-space <math>O \times S \times I.</math>&nbsp; The six dyadic projections of a triadic relation <math>L</math> are defined and notated as shown in Table&nbsp;2.
 {| align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="text-align:center"
@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 |}
-By way of unpacking the set-theoretic notation, here is what the first definition says in ordinary language.
+By way of unpacking the set&#8209;theoretic notation, here is what the first definition says in ordinary language.
 {| align="center" cellpadding="6" width="90%"
+|
-<p>The dyadic relation that results from the projection of <math>L</math> on the <math>OS</math>-plane <math>O \times S</math> is written briefly as <math>L_{OS}</math> or written more fully as <math>\mathrm{proj}_{OS}(L),</math> and it is defined as the set of all ordered pairs <math>(o, s)</math> in the cartesian product <math>O \times S</math> for which there exists an ordered triple <math>(o, s, i)</math> in <math>L</math> for some interpretant <math>i</math> in the interpretant domain <math>I.</math></p>
+<p>The dyadic relation resulting from the projection of <math>L</math> on the <math>OS</math>-plane <math>O \times S</math> is written briefly as <math>L_{OS}</math> or written more fully as <math>\mathrm{proj}_{OS}(L)</math> and is defined as the set of all ordered pairs <math>(o, s)</math> in the cartesian product <math>O \times S</math> for which there exists an ordered triple <math>(o, s, i)</math> in <math>L</math> for some element <math>i</math> in the set <math>I.</math></p>
 |}
-In the case where <math>L</math> is a sign relation, which it becomes by satisfying one of the definitions of a sign relation, some of the dyadic aspects of <math>L</math> can be recognized as formalizing aspects of sign meaning that have received their share of attention from students of signs over the centuries, and thus they can be associated with&nbsp; traditional concepts and terminology.&nbsp; Of course, traditions may vary as to the precise formation and usage of such concepts and terms.&nbsp; Other aspects of meaning have not received their fair share of attention, and thus remain anonymous on the contemporary scene of sign studies.
+In the case where <math>L</math> is a sign relation, which it becomes by satisfying one of the definitions of a sign relation, some of the dyadic aspects of <math>L</math> can be recognized as formalizing aspects of sign meaning which have received their share of attention from students of signs over the centuries, and thus they can be associated with traditional concepts and terminology.&nbsp; Of course, traditions vary with respect to the precise formation and usage of such concepts and terms.&nbsp; Other aspects of meaning have not received their fair share of attention and thus remain innominate in current anatomies of sign relations.
 ===Denotation===

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ==Anthesis==
-<div style="margin-left:5%; margin-right:5%">
+<div style="margin-left:28px">
-<p style="margin-bottom:0px">Thus, if a sunflower, in turning towards the sun, becomes by that very act fully capable, without further condition, of reproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely corresponding ways toward the sun, and of doing so with the same reproductive power, the sunflower would become a Representamen of the sun.</p>
+<p style="margin-bottom:6px">Thus, if a sunflower, in turning towards the sun, becomes by that very act fully capable, without further condition, of reproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely corresponding ways toward the sun, and of doing so with the same reproductive power, the sunflower would become a Representamen of the sun.</p>
-<p style="margin-top:0px; text-align:right">&mdash; C.S. Peirce, <i>Collected Papers</i>, CP&nbsp;2.274</p>
+<p style="text-align:right">&mdash; C.S. Peirce, <i>Collected Papers</i>, CP&nbsp;2.274</p>
 </div>
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 One of Peirce's clearest and most complete definitions of a sign is one he gives in the context of providing a definition for <i>logic</i>, and so it is informative to view it in that setting.
-{| align="center" cellpadding="6" width="90%"
+<div style="margin-left:28px">
+<p style="margin-bottom:6px">Logic will here be defined as <i>formal semiotic</i>.&nbsp; A definition of a sign will be given which no more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.&nbsp; Namely, a sign is something, <i>A</i>, which brings something, <i>B</i>, its <i>interpretant</i> sign determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, <i>C</i>, its <i>object</i>, as that in which itself stands to <i>C</i>.</p>
-<p>Logic will here be defined as <i>formal semiotic</i>.&nbsp; A definition of a sign will be given which no more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.&nbsp; Namely, a sign is something, <i>A</i>, which brings something, <i>B</i>, its <i>interpretant</i> sign determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, <i>C</i>, its <i>object</i>, as that in which itself stands to <i>C</i>.&nbsp; It is from this definition, together with a definition of &ldquo;formal&rdquo;, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.&nbsp; I also make a historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological conception of logic has <i>virtually</i> been quite generally held, though not generally recognized.&nbsp; (C.S. Peirce, NEM&nbsp;4, 20&ndash;21).</p>
-|}
+<p style="margin-bottom:6px">It is from this definition, together with a definition of &ldquo;formal&rdquo;, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.&nbsp; I also make a historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non&#8209;psychological conception of logic has <i>virtually</i> been quite generally held, though not generally recognized.</p>
-In the general discussion of diverse theories of signs, the question frequently arises whether signhood is an absolute, essential, indelible, or <i>ontological</i> property of a thing, or whether it is a relational, interpretive, and mutable role a thing can be said to have only within a particular context of relationships.
+In the general discussion of diverse theories of signs, the question arises whether signhood is an absolute, essential, indelible, or <i>ontological</i> property of a thing, or whether it is a relational, interpretive, and mutable role a thing may be said to have only within a particular context of relationships.
-Peirce's definition of a <i>sign</i> defines it in relation to its <i>object</i> and its <i>interpretant sign</i>, and thus it defines signhood in <i>[[logic of relatives|relative terms]]</i>, by means of a predicate with three places.&nbsp; In this definition, signhood is a role in a [[triadic relation]], a role a thing bears or plays in a given context of relationships &mdash; it is not an <i>absolute</i>, <i>non&#8209;relative</i> property of a thing&#8209;in&#8209;itself, one it possesses independently of all relationships to other things.
+Peirce's definition of a <i>sign</i> defines it in relation to its <i>objects</i> and its <i>interpretant signs</i>, and thus defines signhood in <i>relative terms</i>, by means of a predicate with three places.&nbsp; In that definition, signhood is a role in a triadic relation, a role a thing bears or plays in a determinate context of relationships &mdash; it is not an <i>absolute</i> or <i>non&#8209;relative</i> property of a thing&#8209;in&#8209;itself, one it possesses independently of all relationships to other things.
-Some of the terms that Peirce uses in his definition of a sign may need to be elaborated for the contemporary reader.
+Some of the terms Peirce uses in his definition of a sign may need to be elaborated for the contemporary reader.
-<ul>
+<ul><li><b>Correspondence.</b>&nbsp; From the way Peirce uses the term throughout his work, it is clear he means what he elsewhere calls a &ldquo;triple correspondence&rdquo;, and thus this is just another way of referring to the whole triadic sign relation itself.&nbsp; In particular, his use of the term should not be taken to imply a dyadic correspondence, like the kinds of &ldquo;mirror image&rdquo; correspondence between realities and representations bandied about in contemporary controversies about &ldquo;correspondence theories of truth&rdquo;.</li></ul>
-<li><b>Determination.</b>&nbsp; Peirce's concept of determination is broader in several directions than the sense of the word that refers to strictly deterministic causal-temporal processes.&nbsp; First, and especially in this context, he is invoking a more general concept of determination, what is called a <i>formal</i> or <i>informational</i> determination, as in saying &ldquo;two points determine a line&rdquo;, rather than the more special cases of causal and temporal determinisms.&nbsp; Second, he characteristically allows for what is called <i>determination in measure</i>, that is, an order of determinism that admits a full spectrum of more and less determined relationships.</li>
+<ul><li><b>Determination.</b>&nbsp; Peirce's concept of determination is broader in several directions than the sense of the word referring to strictly deterministic causal&#8209;temporal processes.&nbsp; First, and especially in this context, he is invoking a more general concept of determination, what is called a <i>formal</i> or <i>informational</i> determination, as in saying &ldquo;two points determine a line&rdquo;, rather than the more special cases of causal and temporal determinisms.&nbsp; Second, he characteristically allows for what is called <i>determination in measure</i>, that is, an order of determinism admitting a full spectrum of more and less determined relationships.</li></ul>
-<li><b>Non-psychological.</b>&nbsp; Peirce's &ldquo;non-psychological conception of logic&rdquo; must be distinguished from any variety of <i>anti-psychologism</i>.&nbsp; He was quite interested in matters of psychology and had much of import to say about them.&nbsp; But logic and psychology operate on different planes of study even when they have occasion to view the same data, as logic is a <i>[[normative science]]</i> where psychology is a <i>[[descriptive science]]</i>, and so they have very different aims, methods, and rationales.</li>
+<ul><li><b>Non&#8209;psychological.</b>&nbsp; Peirce's &ldquo;non&#8209;psychological conception of logic&rdquo; must be distinguished from any variety of <i>anti&#8209;psychologism</i>.&nbsp; He was quite interested in matters of psychology and had much of import to say about them.&nbsp; But logic and psychology operate on different planes of study even when they have occasion to view the same data, as logic is a <i>normative science</i> where psychology is a <i>descriptive science</i>, and so they have very different aims, methods, and rationales.</li></ul>
 ==Signs and inquiry==
-: <i>Main article : [[Inquiry]]</i>
+<ul><li><i>Main article : [[Inquiry]]</i></li></ul>
-There is a close relationship between the pragmatic theory of signs and the pragmatic theory of [[inquiry]].&nbsp; In fact, the correspondence between the two studies exhibits so many congruences and parallels that it is often best to treat them as integral parts of one and the same subject.&nbsp; In a very real sense, inquiry is the process by which sign relations come to be established and continue to evolve.&nbsp; In other words, inquiry, &ldquo;thinking&rdquo; in its best sense, &ldquo;is a term denoting the various ways in which things acquire significance&rdquo; (John Dewey).&nbsp; Thus, there is an active and intricate form of cooperation that needs to be appreciated and maintained between these converging modes of investigation.&nbsp; Its proper character is best understood by realizing that the theory of inquiry is adapted to study the developmental aspects of sign relations, a subject which the theory of signs is specialized to treat from structural and comparative points of view.
+There is a close relationship between the pragmatic theory of signs and the pragmatic theory of inquiry.&nbsp; In fact, the correspondence between the two studies exhibits so many congruences and parallels it is often best to treat them as integral parts of one and the same subject.&nbsp; In a very real sense, inquiry is the process by which sign relations come to be established and continue to evolve.&nbsp; In other words, inquiry, &ldquo;thinking&rdquo; in its best sense, &ldquo;is a term denoting the various ways in which things acquire significance&rdquo; (Dewey, 38).
 ==Examples of sign relations==
@@ Line 295: / Line 298: @@
 ==References==
-* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (Autumn 1995), &ldquo;Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry&rdquo;, <i>Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines</i> 15(1), pp. 40&ndash;52.&nbsp; [https://web.archive.org/web/19970626071826/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html Archive].&nbsp; [https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052 Journal].&nbsp; [https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey/Papers/1302117/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry Online].
+* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (Autumn 1995), &ldquo;Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry&rdquo;, <i>Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines</i> 15(1), pp. 40&ndash;52.&nbsp; [https://web.archive.org/web/19970626071826/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html Archive].&nbsp; [https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052 Journal].&nbsp; Online [https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey/Papers/1302117/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry (doc)] [https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry (pdf)].
 * Deledalle, Gérard (2000), <i>C.S. Peirce's Philosophy of Signs</i>, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
 * Eisele, Carolyn (1979), in <i>Studies in the Scientific and Mathematical Philosophy of C.S. Peirce</i>, Richard Milton Martin (ed.), Mouton, The Hague.
@@ Line 314: / Line 319: @@
 * Murphey, M. (1961), <i>The Development of Peirce's Thought</i>.&nbsp; Reprinted, Hackett, Indianapolis, IN, 1993.
 * Percy, Walker (2000), pp. 271&ndash;291 in <i>Signposts in a Strange Land</i>, P. Samway (ed.), Saint Martin's Press.
@@ Line 338: / Line 345: @@
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sign_relation&oldid=161631069 Sign Relation], [https://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]
 [[Category:Computer science]]
 [[Category:Graph theory]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:32, 12 December 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	<font size="3">☞</font> This page belongs to resource collections on [[Logic Live\|Logic]] and [[Inquiry Live\|Inquiry]].~~ ~~ A <b>sign relation</b> is the basic construct in the theory of signs, also known as [[semeiotic]] or [[semiotics]], as developed by Charles Sanders Peirce.	+	<font size="3">☞</font> This page belongs to resource collections on [[Logic Live\|Logic]] and [[Inquiry Live\|Inquiry]].
		+
		+	A <b>sign relation</b> is the basic construct in the theory of signs, also known as [[semeiotic]] or [[semiotics]], as developed by Charles Sanders Peirce.

	==Anthesis==		==Anthesis==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 12 December 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	<font size="3">☞</font> This page belongs to resource collections on [[Logic Live\|Logic]] and [[Inquiry Live\|Inquiry]].	+	<font size="3">☞</font> This page belongs to resource collections on [[Logic Live\|Logic]] and [[Inquiry Live\|Inquiry]].  A <b>sign relation</b> is the basic construct in the theory of signs, also known as [[semeiotic]] or [[semiotics]], as developed by Charles Sanders Peirce.
−	A <b>sign relation</b> is the basic construct in the theory of signs, also known as [[semeiotic]] or [[semiotics]], as developed by Charles Sanders Peirce.

	==Anthesis==		==Anthesis==

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ==Anthesis==
-{| align="center" cellpadding="6" width="90%"
+<div style="margin-left:5%; margin-right:5%">
+<p style="margin-bottom:0px">Thus, if a sunflower, in turning towards the sun, becomes by that very act fully capable, without further condition, of reproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely corresponding ways toward the sun, and of doing so with the same reproductive power, the sunflower would become a Representamen of the sun.</p>
-<p>Thus, if a sunflower, in turning towards the sun, becomes by that very act fully capable, without further condition, of reproducing a sunflower which turns in precisely corresponding ways toward the sun, and of doing so with the same reproductive power, the sunflower would become a Representamen of the sun.&nbsp; (C.S. Peirce, &ldquo;Syllabus&rdquo; (<i>c</i>.&nbsp;1902), <i>Collected Papers</i>, CP&nbsp;2.274).</p>
-|}
+<p style="margin-top:0px; text-align:right">&mdash; C.S. Peirce, <i>Collected Papers</i>, CP&nbsp;2.274</p>
-In his picturesque illustration of a sign relation, along with his tracing of a corresponding sign process, or <i>[[semiosis]]</i>, Peirce uses the technical term <i>representamen</i> for his concept of a sign, but the shorter word is precise enough, so long as one recognizes that its meaning in a particular theory of signs is given by a specific definition of what it means to be a sign.
+In his picturesque illustration of a sign relation, along with his tracing of a corresponding sign process, or <i>semiosis</i>, Peirce uses the technical term <i>representamen</i> for his concept of a sign, but the shorter word is precise enough, so long as one recognizes its meaning in a particular theory of signs is given by a specific definition of what it means to be a sign.
 ==Definition==
@@ Line 338: / Line 339: @@
 [[Category:Computer science]]
 [[Category:Graph theory]]
 [[Category:Logic]]
 [[Category:Logical graphs]]
 [[Category:Mathematics]]
 [[Category:Peirce, Charles Sanders]]
 [[Category:Pragmatics]]
 [[Category:Relation theory]]