The Peircean Symbol and its Application to Symbolic Narrative

Communication

Yunhee Lee

Korea University

Abstract
This paper aims to view the potentiality of the Peirean symbol as a means of narrative communication. The
Peircean Symbol is characterized as a triadic relation in the form of sign-object-interpretant including, iconic-
indexical-symbolic features of sign, and it will reveal how the three components are bound together to produce
meaning in communication. The paper will thus show the relation between object and interpretant by way of
sign, that is, the iconic representation of a story in narrative communication. In Particular, the fact that symbol
is tied to interpretant allows us to look at symbol in order to interpret in symbol-using mind, this being
correlated with icon and index. The two types of sign are cooperative, functioning the collateral observation
and experience for the purpose of attaining a proper interpretation in communication. As an illustration, the
feature of Peircean symbol in a parable of the Bible will demonstrate and thus emphasize the symbolic
narrative communication which leads to self-control by interpreting, experiencing and using the symbol.
Consequently, the process of interpretation will affect the interpreter with a significant effect in his/her future
action in communication.

Keywords: Symbol, Interpretation, Triadic Relation, Collateral Experience, Self-control, Symbolic

Narrative Communication

1. Introductory remarks: Transition of Peirce’s sign theory

Peirce’s writing is known for its notorious reputation, insomuch as his thoughts are not consistent

throughout the work during his lifetime. His writings are available in different forms. Among them,

1
 the well-cited original writings of Peirce are in the form of Collected Papers of Charles Sanders

Peirce1 (Vols. 1-8), The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writing2 (Vols. 1-2), and Writings

of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition3 (Vols. 1-6 & 8). For careful reading Peirce demands

great effort to follow the trace of his thoughts. Particularly, the early stage of writings on sign is

different from the later stages. I will not discuss the point of how his thoughts have changed by

comparing the early sign theory with the later one in detail; however, it is necessary to mention

briefly what was the main change in his theory of sign, which will lead to an understanding of the

purpose of this paper.

I will make two main points on the transition, by which my application of Peirce’s notion of

symbol will become comprehensible to the readers of this paper. First, Peirce’s later theory of sign

concerns the triadic relation of Sign-Object-Interpretant and Symbol-Index-Icon. Second,

nonsemeiotical4 relation or interpretation is admissible in Peirce’s sign theory, which will lead to

avoiding circularity of hermetic circle in semeiosis5. In other words, recognition or restoration of the

role of Object in triadic relation of sign will be a point contributing to explaining Peirce’s mature and

developed theory of sign. I will elaborate the two points in connection with the thoughts of two

experts on Peirce.

My application of Peirce’s theory of symbol entails two factors: the first point of the change is

related to proving the capability of symbol as the Third, functioning as cognition, and concepts

involving other signs, icon and index, by means of collateral experience. Without these two signs,

1
These collections (1931-1958) are organized by theme edited by C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Vols. 1-6) and A.W. Burks (Vols. 7-8). CP
(1-8) refers to Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce.
2
These collections are organized by chronological order: Vol. 1 (1867-1893) is edited by N. Houser & C. Kloesel,(1992) and Vol. 2
(1893-1913) is edited by the Peirce Edition Project(1998). EP (1-2) refers to the Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings.
3
These collections (1981-2009) are a chronological edition by Peirce Edition Project of Indiana University-Purdue University at
Indianapolis. More forthcoming volumes will be available.
4
I follow the spelling, “semeiotic”, which Peirce insisted on using in his theory of sign.
5
Semeiosis acts through sign-activity where a sign is interpreted by another sign (an interpretant), then the interpretant-sign is
interpreted by another interpretant (a sign), ad infinitum. At this point, Object is interpreted by an interpretant, where the existence of
Object disappears by the role of interpretant-sign.

2
 symbol would not be recognized by symbol-using mind. The triad of symbol in this sense is a formal

condition for symbol to operate as a mediating role between idea and action to reach conduct and

self-control as a result of the effect of thought-activity by means of symbol. The second point, which

involves nonsemeiotic interpretation, will allow not only escaping from the hermeneutic circle but

also looking at or reconsidering the role of emotion in sign-interpretation, especially in the indicative

sphere of indices.

Two Peirce scholars, T.L. Short6 (2007) and David Savan7 (1977), observed the differences

between the early and the later theory of sign in Peirce and argued that they are very different and

even incomparable. Thus, both scholars posited that Peirce’s theory of sign in the early stage8 (1867-

69) and the later stage (1902 in particular) is quite different, and they explained this as development

of Peirce’s sign theory.

According to Savan (1977), in the early stage the definition of sign for Peirce was “Signs then are

quasi-premises themselves inferred from other quasi-premises.” (p.180). This reminds of us the

notion of semeiosis as ad infinitum where again the place for Object in sign disappears, which seems

to be in dyadic relation, and therefore sign structure appears to be abstract. However, the definition of

sign has been developed in Peirce’s later writing.

“A sign or representamen is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second,

called its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same

triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object” (Peirce CP2. para.274/1902)

6
In his book, Peirce’s Theory of Signs, (2007) T.L. Short argued against wrong interpretation of Peirce’s theory of signs, providing
intensive and compact argumentation; especially, he deals with the big difference between the early and the later theory of signs, making
a central point of the concept of “final causation” and “purposive action” as a key to understanding Peirce’s mature theory of sign.
7
Examining one of Peirce’s early writings on sign, Questions Concerning Certain Facilities Claimed for Man, Savan argued in the
same line of thought as T.L. Short in his article, “Questions concerning certain classifications claimed for signs” in Semiotica 19: 3/4,
179-195.
8
The early writings are based on three articles that appeared in Journal of Speculative Philosophy (1868-9), ‘Questions Concerning
Certain Faculties Claimed for Man’, ‘Some Consequences of Four Incapacities’, and ‘Grounds of Validity of the Laws of Logic’.

3
 As indicated clearly, the role of Object is “determination” of a Sign’s Interpretant, which will be a

Sign of the same Object, and thus determining a ground and then the Interpretant.

In the same vein, T.L. Short argued that in Peirce’s early writing, thought-sign represents

idealistic implication, omitting Object, noting that thought is a continuum from virtual to actual.

Short’s (2007) three critical points on the problem with Peirce’ early semeiotic are “it makes the

object signified to disappear; it makes significance to be arbitrary; and it fails to tell us what

significance is.” (p. 44). Especially the doctrine of thought-sign, which is also connected to Savan’s

critical observation as in sign as quasi-premises, implicates idealistic views of sign rather than

realistic ones. In connection with thought-sign, T.L. Short (2007) rightly pointed out that “…idealistic

implication that thought lacks objects not constituted by thinking. It derives from the doctrines that

every thought-sign interprets a preceding sign and that all thought-sign are general.” (p.42)

Both scholars emphasized the role of Object in triadic relation of sign. Concerning this point, a

more important point arises. The idea of Object as a Second extends to thinking the external, a

nonsemeiotic sphere. Turning to his way of thought on signs which are determined by Object, Peirce

wrote, for example, in the Fixation of Belief (1877) that “It is necessary that a method should be

found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some external permanency -

by something upon which our thinking has no effect” (Peirce CP 5, para.384).

Short’s explanation of the idea of the architectonic concept of science was fully matured and

developed in 1902, and brought out a theory of phaneroscopy9 along with other sciences involved in

Peirce’s semeiotics, namely, ethics, esthetics, and pure mathematics. Given the fact that Peirce’s

thoughts become architectonic, the theory of sign becomes more comprehensive and corresponds to

9
Peirce substituted Phaneroscopy for phenomenology and phaneron for phenomenon. Phaneron is understood as ‘idea’ according to
Short’s explanation. ‘Phaneron is something like what Locke meant by ‘idea’: it is that which forms the immediate content of awareness’
(2007, p. 66). However, it is different from Locke and the empiricist’s ideas mainly excluding psychological connotation of the ideas.

4
 his philosophical stance on pragmatism10 as a way of thinking for self-control. In this regard,

Peirce’s semeiotic is related to the idea of observational method, which is described in phaneroscopy.

The phaneroscopic observations were demonstrated in the form of the relational modes of being; they

are thus classified in three categories: the First, the Second, and the Third. For this reason, categories

of being for observations are deeply engaged with his logic, i.e. semeiotic.

In the first part, I will explain the characteristics of the Peircean symbol in a triadic relation,

focusing on three categories of being, object, and interpretants. In the second part, I will attempt to

apply Peirce’s thoughts on symbol through illustration in symbolic communication in parables in the

Bible.

2. The characteristics of Peircean symbol

2.1 What is symbol?: Triadic relation of symbol

First of all, to discuss symbol and its character, we need to know where symbol is located

and how it is classified in ten different classes of sign. By looking at three trichotomies, we will be

able to see how triadic relation of sign is revealed. Therefore, I will illustrate Peirce’s three

trichotomies according to the elements of correlates, namely the First, the Second, and the Third

Correlate, and address their implication of ten classes of sign in comparison with Peirce’s early

theory of sign classification.

There are three trichotomies of sign. The first trichotomy is based on sign in itself, that is a mere

quality (a First), an actual existent (a Second), and a general law (a Third), and thus they are called

Qualisign, Sinsign, and Legisign (Peirce, EP 2, p. 291). The second trichotomy is classified according

to the sign- to- object relation and thus called Icon, Index, and Symbol, (Peirce, EP 2, p. 291) which

is well-known typology. The third trichotomy is in connection with Interpretant: Rheme, Dicisign
10
John Deely (2001) quoted V. Colapietro’s remarks on Peirce’s pragmaticism in a telephone conversation: “Pragmaticism is in Peirce’s
context a maxim for how to conduct ourselves as investigators and a principle of translation for getting habits out of abstract concepts”.
(p. 625).

5
(Dicent), and Argument, and they are called by linguistic terms: terms (common nouns), sentences

(propositions), arguments; each represents possibilities, facts, and reason, respectively. These three

trichotomies allow production of ten classes of sign. Subdivision of each class of sign is characterized

by triadic relation according to all three correlates or dyadic relation, thus all comprising the same

nature or all different or two are the same nature while the third is different (Peirce, EP 2, p.296) (see

Table 1).

A B C
1 1 1 Qualisigns
2 1 1 Iconic sinsigns
2 2 1 Rhematic indexcial sinsigns
2 2 2 Dicent indexical sinsigns
3 1 1 Iconic legisigns
3 2 1 Rhematic indexcial legisigns
3 2 2 Dicent indexical legisigns
3 3 1 Rhematic symbols
3 3 2 Dicent symbols
3 3 3 Arguments

Table 1. Ten classes of sign(1903-4) (Taken from T.L. Short, 2007, p.237)

In contrast, in the early theory of sign, there is a two-fold classification of signs: First, there are

three categories: Quality, Relation, and Representation. Of representations or signs, there are three

kinds: icons (likeness), indices, and symbols. Of symbols, there are terms, propositions, and

arguments (Peirce, EP 1, pp.1-10) (see Figure 1).

6
 Quality
Relation Icons
Representation Indices
Terms
Symbols Propositions

Arguments

Figure 1. Symbol in the early theory of sign (taken from Peirce, EP 1, pp.6-10/1867)

As Peirce was not satisfied with the first classification in the early writing, the later theory of sign

in trichotomies shows development of his thoughts on architectonic features of triadic relation of sign.

Among ten classes of sign, 8th class, Rhematic Symbol and 9th class, Dicent Symbol, are a type of

symbol with different ways which are based on Symbol’s Quality or Ground and Symbol’s Object.

They will be good examples of how triadic relation of symbol is operative.

The 8th class of sign, a Rhematic Symbol, is composed of the First Correlate and the Third

Correlates with the same nature of the Third Correlate. Peirce wrote, “a Rhematic Symbol, or

Symbolic Rheme, is a sign connected with its Object by an association of general ideas in such a way

that its Replica calls up an image in the mind, which image, owing to certain habits or dispositions of

that mind, tends to produce a general concept, and Replica is interpreted as a sign of an Object that is

an instance of that concept. Thus, the Rhematic Symbol either is, or is very like…a general term.”

(EP 2, p.295). While Peirce explained the Rhematic Symbol with the concept of Replica of it

(Rhematic Indexical Sinsign), so as to understand it, he also stressed that any Symbol should be

Legisign. However, a Replica of Indexical Legisign is different from that of Rhematic Symbol (for

example, the word, ‘that’, the replica of Indexical Legisign, is not Symbol, in that the Replica does

not call up a concept to the mind). Then he expressed that the Symbol is to be understood in triadic

7
relation with other types of sign such as Indexical Legisign and Iconic Legisign. Concerning this

point, Peirce said, “The Interpretant of the Rhematic Symbol often represents it as a Rhematic

Indexical Legisign; at other times as an Iconic Legisign; and it does in a small measure partake of the

nature of both.” (Peirce, EP 2, p. 295). To read Symbol requires a relational sign structure, being

cooperative with other signs. Short (2007) rightly pointed out the aspect, “The function of iconic and

indexical legisigns is to facilitate communication by certain kinds of icon or index. They do this by

causing attention to be drawn to certain aspects of their replicas automatically, to the exclusion of all

other aspects. Thus, an intention to signify in exactly that way is presumed of anyone who replicates

such a legisign.” (p. 223). We will see this point in the section 3.

As for the 9th class of sign, a Dicent Symbol is called ‘a proposition’. Peirce explained that it is

acting like Rhematic Symbol which is connected to the Object by a general idea; however, the

Intentional Interpretant of Dicent Symbol represents it as being, affected by the Object, so that

existence or law in the mind must be connected with the indicated Object. So, Replica of the Dicent

Symbol is Dicent Sinsign of a peculiar kind. Therefore, Dicent Sinsign involves two signs: Rhematic

Symbol to express (Iconic Legisign as Interpretant) information and Rhematic Indexical Legisign to

indicate the subject of information (Peirce, EP 2, p.295).

As we have seen above, observing the correlation of iconic signs and indexical signs with symbol

is a prerequisite to understand what the symbol means. Moreover, a symbol is connected with the

symbol-using mind by means of ideas or concepts, and thus the symbolic sign must have a general

concept based on law, rule, or habits. Otherwise, it is not symbol as such. Then, how do we perceive

the concepts which symbol represents? The answer is through Replica of the symbol. This means

requiring instantiation from general to particular from indexical signs. Then, indexical signs

comprising ideas in the form of predicate of a proposition involve iconic signs. Following this path,

8
the ideas in the predicate encountering an individual subject composite a thought which will function

as previous cognition for another interpretant of the symbol. The above description enables us to see

another character of triadic relation. Peirce explained this while giving a definition of Thirdness.

One critical point in understanding symbol’s character comes from a concept of Thirdness. Peirce

defined Thirdness as “Thirdness is mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second

and a third into relation to each other.” (Peirce, CP 8, para. 328) Peirce sees thirdness as mediation in

the form of triadic relation. “Thirdness is the triadic relation existing between a sign, its object, and

the interpreting thought, itself a sign, considered as constituting the mode of being of a sign.” (Peirce,

CP 8, para. 332) A more important aspect in Thirdness is that it brings a mental event. The point will

be well explained in his example of the action of “giving”. Peirce said, in an event of ‘giving’, as in A

gives B to C, giving does not consist in two actions separately such as A’s putting B away from him

and C’s subsequently taking B up (Peirce, CP 8, para.331). This is not triadic; it is two dyadic

relations. B’s identity brings A into relation with C. Concerning a mental event, to put it another way,

B is a gift which reminds C, a receiver, of A, a giver, bringing A and C into relation with each other.

Therefore, A and B, B and C, C and A are in a triadic relation of B. A corresponding sign’s triadic

structure will be B is a Sign, a Third, A is Object, a Second, and C is a sign’s Interpretant, a First. In

this respect, a Sign, a third, mediates between Interpretant and Object. Likewise, sign’s triadic

relational structure is equivalent with symbol’s triadic relation we have seen in the second

thrichotomy and subdivision into ten classes of sign, particularly in 8th and 9th sign, Rhematic Symbol,

Decent Symbol. (see Figure 5).

Then, what is Symbol? Up until now, I have demonstrated how symbol is to be understood in

triadic relation with other signs, and in a triadic relation of a sign, that is Sign-Interpretant-Object.

Based on the above observation, I will present relevant definitions of symbol which show Peirce’s

9
 mature and developed theory of sign in the later writings. In the definitions, I will make further

discussion points on the Peircean symbol for its application.

Concerning the first point which I mentioned in my introductory remarks, triadic relation of sign,

symbol is defined as:

A Symbol is a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of a law, usually an association
of general ideas, which operates to cause the Symbol to be interpreted as referring to that Object. It is thus
itself a general type or law, that is legisign. As such it acts through a replica. Not only is it general itself,
but the Object to which it refers is of a general nature. Now that which is general has its being in the
instances which it will determine. There must, therefore, be existent instances of what the symbol denotes,
although we must here understand by “existent”, existent in the possibly imaginary universe to which the
symbol refers. The symbol will indirectly, through the association or other law, be affected by those
instances; and thus the symbol will involve a sort of index, although an index of a peculiar kind. It will not,
however, be by any means true that the slight effect upon the symbol of those instances accounts for the
significant character of the symbol. (Peirce, EP 2, p. 292/1903)11

Compared to the early writings on symbol, the later theory of symbol is more complex,

involving triadic relations with index and icon, in the form of instances, and ideas. As for a noticeable

change from the early to the later definition, symbol’s imputed character is modified to a mediating

character between Interpretant, a Sign, and Object. Thus, the concept of Replica, instantiation of

symbol, is very important in bringing indexical signs which then embody iconic signs. Thus, symbol

does not determine Object; rather Object determines Symbol and Interpretnat. Still, the major change

of Replica is not the significant character as Peirce noted at the end of the paragraph. We can look at

another significant point in symbol in another definition:

11
Compared to 1903, Peirce’s early writing on symbol is not concerned with triadic relation and these are some definitions of symbol:
“Those the ground of whose relation to their objects in an imputed character, which are the same as general signs, these may be termed
Symbols”(EP 1, p.7/1867). Concerning a general division of symbols, the definitions are: “1. Symbols which directly determine only
their grounds or imputed qualities, and are thus but sums of marks or terms; 2: Symbols which also independently determine their
objects by means of other term or terms, and, thus expressing their own objective validity, become capable of truth or falsehood, that is,
are propositions; and, 3: Symbols which also independently determine their interpretants and thus the mind to which they appeal, by
premising a proposition or propositions which such a mind is to admit. These are arguments” (EP1, p. 8/ 1867)

10
 Symbol grows. They come into being by development out of other signs, particularly from likeness or
from mixed signs partaking of the nature of likenesses and symbols. We think only in signs. These mental
signs are of mixed nature; the symbol-parts of them are called concepts. If a man makes a new symbol, it
is by thoughts involving concepts. So it is only out of symbols that a new symbol can grow. Omne
symbolum de symbolo.12 A symbol, once in being, spreads among the peoples. In use and in experience,
its meaning grows. Such words as force, law, wealth, marriage, bear for us very different meanings from
those they bore to our barbarous ancestors. The symbol may, with Emerson’s sphinx, say to man
Of thine eye I am eyebeam. (Peirce, EP2, p. 10/1894)

In the above definition, symbol’s Interpretant, interpretant-sign, involving mental activity of

interpretation of symbol, is implicated in the form of mental signs, meanings, concepts, thoughts

along with psychological events, use and experience. Peirce seems to emphasize symbol’s character

resided in concept and its development in sign-activity. As I have mentioned, a Third brings a mental

activity, especially, in the course of interpretation. When Peirce said symbols grow, he seems to

indicate that meanings of symbol grow. I interpret the meaning of symbol in that concepts are

developed by using and experiencing symbol, through replicas which are instances of symbol in

indexical signs. Experience of indexical signs with iconic signs motivates to construct thoughts which,

then, will help to construe the meaning of Object, generalized ideas, that is, concept. Surely symbol’s

function in human mind is cognition, controlling behavior, and forming habits.

At this point, there arises one speculative point in his concept of symbol. When we interpret

symbol by symbol, which is the form of interpretants, whether it is word, action, or feeling, they are

still a form of sign by means of a general type, iconic legisign or indexical legisign for instance. Then

we understand sign’s meaning which is already known to us insomuch as we represent something that

we only know. This problem of circularity was raised by T.L. Short, which I mentioned at the

beginning. Many Peirce scholars acknowledged that Peirce’s thoughts on sign changed from the early

12
The sentence is translated as ‘every symbol follows from a symbol.’

11
 stage to admitting the extrasemeiotic sphere in objective semeiotic logic sphere. For instance,

Hookway presented Peirce’s thoughts on the role of sentiment in rational self-control. In a particular

chapter entitled ‘Sentiment and Self-Control’, Christopher Hookway13 (2002) advocated Peirce’s

thoughts on sentiment, saying that “This chapter examines some of Peirce’s mature views about the

requirements of rational self-control: it investigates why he thinks that sentiments or emotional are

required for self-control and why he denies that this should lead us to feel alienated from our

deliberations.” (p. 225). Other scholars such as David Savan,14 Rulon S. Wells15, and Sami Paavola16

argued in different ways that emotion, sentiment, and instinct in Peirce have an important role,

influencing cognition and reasoning by presenting other aspects of Peirce’s thought. I will leave this

point which is beyond the subject of this paper. Instead, I will look at Object and Interpretant briefly

before application of the Peircean symbol to a parable.

2.2 Object and Interpretant

Peirce distinguished Object as two types: Immediate and Dynamic Object:

As to the Object, that may mean the Object as cognized in the Sign and therefore as Idea, or it may be
the Object as it is regardless of any particular aspect of it, the Object in such relations as unlimited and
final study would show it to be. The former I call the Immediate Object, the latter the Dynamical Object.
For the latter is the Object that Dynamical Science (or what at this day would be called “Objective”
science) can investigate. (Peirce, EP 2, p. 492/1909)

13
In his book entitled Truth, Rationality and Pragmatism (2002), Hookway discussed Peirce’s themes on pragmatism, truth and rational
self-control, providing Peirce’s thought development with a broader view through architectonic structure of science, thus, trying to
connect logic with other normative science, ethics and aesthetics to understand Peirce’s philosophy with a comprehensive view.
Particularly, Hookway dealt with the role of sentiment and emotions in rational self-control in the book.
14
See ‘Peirce’s Semiotic Theory of Emotion’, in Kenneth L. Ketner et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Charles S. Peirce Bicentennial
International Congress. Lubbock: Texas Tech Press, 319-33.
15
See ‘Peirce’s Notion of the Symbol’ in Semiotica 19 (3/4):197-208
16
See ‘Peirce abduction: Instinct or Inference?’ in Semiotica 153 (1/4 ): 131-154

12
 A distinction between two types of Object of a sign raised an issue on semiotic idealism versus

realism. As I mentioned earlier, when circularity in interpretation takes place, Sign interprets only

cognized Object, since a reality cannot be cognized beyond Object. This aspect represents semiotic

idealism, demonstrating there will be no reality beyond representation. Peirce’s later view on sign is

involved with observation of Dynamic Object. Thus, Sign represents partial and limited aspects of the

whole Object. Then, how do we perceive Dynamic Object? Peirce introduced the concept of

‘collateral observation’ or ‘collateral experience’ in the letter to Lady Welby:

We must distinguish between the Immediate Object, -i.e. the Object as represented in the Sign, -and the
Real (no, because perhaps the Object is altogether fictive, I must choose a different term, therefore), say
rather the Dynamical Object, which, form the nature of things, the Sign cannot express, which it can only
indicate and leave the interpreter to find out by collateral experience. For instance, I point my finger to
what I mean, but I can’t make my companion know what I mean, if he can’t see it, or if seeing it, it does
not, to his mind, separate itself from the surrounding objects in the field of vision. (Peirce, CP 8.
para.314/1909)

The quotation provides cogent points for my argumentation in terms of triadic relation of symbol

and symbol’s use and experience through ‘indexical signs’. Definition of dynamic Object by means

of collateral experience emphasizes the role of individual object by virtue of indices in that they

either embody icons or replicate symbols. Therefore, obtaining knowledge about the world would not

be possible without spatiotemporal individuals experiencing indices. In this sense, indexicality has a

central role in understanding symbol’s meaning; however, it requires general ideas by icons and

symbols. This means Immediate object and dynamic Object are not separate or in conflict, but in

collateral relation. In other words, immediate object and dynamic Object are the same Object; the

mode of seeing Object and thus experiencing it makes Object different. Therefore, with the same

Object, our collateral observation operates with different signs, such as symbols with icons and

13
indices whose Objects are cognized differently from each other. In this regard, collateral observations

and experience help us in reaching the truth of Object. In particular, searching for symbol’s Object

requires experience with the other two signs in a triadic relation involving three dyadic relations:

Symbol to Icon, Symbol to Index, and Icon to Index. Peirce said, “Every triadic relationship involves

three dyadic relationships and three monadic characters; just every dyadic action involves two

monadic characters.” (Peirce, CP 6. para. 331)

A Symbol mediates between Object and Interpretant. There are two trichotomies of interpretant:

according to a purposive action of interpretation, the first trichotomy is termed immediate/dynamical/

final interpretant, while the second trichotomy in which psychological aspects are involved with the

application of phaneroscopic observations are called emotional/energetic/logical interpretants,

carrying value or moral judgments. Regarding Object-Interpretant relationships, immediate object

corresponds to immediate interpretant along with interpretants of the second trichotomy according to

a purposive interpretation, while dynamic Object corresponds to dynamical interpretant which takes

any type of interpretant along with interpretants of the second trichotomy. Final interpretant and

logical interpretant involve the pursuit of truth of Object in the processes of good reasoning.

Sometimes, energetic and logical interpretant seem to be intertwined toward a purposive action of

self-control when they, both Interpretants, manifest with action and conduct. One can understand the

action of mechanical response or intellectual response of action after thought like forming a habit.

I will not discuss the first trichotomy of interpretant; instead, I will focus on the second

trichotomy of interpretant which will be the key point for my application of the Peircean symbol, by

looking at how symbol is interpreted in the parable.

Unlike the first thrichotomy of interpretant, in the second trichotomy, emotional, energetic, and

logical interpretant are involved with interpreting mind, quasi-interpreter, who acts on moral and

14
perceptual judgment. Peirce did not show many examples on emotional, energetic, and logical

interpretant; however, his examples of emotional interpretant in musical performance, and energetic

interpretant in military command, ‘Ground arms’, will demonstrate the point.

Peirce explains that Emotional Interpretant is not subjective individual emotion. It is a type of

emotion such as joy, anger, resentment, etc. that the hearer of music felt, which is called emotional

Interpretant. For instance, when I say I am ‘happy’ after seeing a movie, ‘happy’ is emotional

Interpretant, regardless of who you are as an individual subject. The happiness is derived from the

perceptual judgment of interpreting mind.

In the same vein, Energetic Interpretant involves an action, whether mechanical or habitual or

intellectual. The action is not an individual action; it is a type of responsive reaction, responding to an

agent’s action. However, this action also involved moral judgment when a solider heard the shout by

the officer, ‘Ground arms!’. At this point, Logical Interpretant and Energetic Interpretant become

mixed, until the action transforms to perform conduct which is derived from self-control. When a

symbol is interpreted, the symbol-using mind will use the three types of Interpretants for collateral

observations of signs in collateral experience. Concerning this aspect of interrelationship between

Energetic and Logical Interpretant, I will address one point that there appear some other factors from

the external, influencing Interpretants, which I call nonsemeiotical interpretation. I will discuss this

point in the next section.

3. Application

3.1 Symbol in use and collateral experience: sentiment and emotion

As I have discussed in the previous section, Symbol as concept requires Indices which have the

function of indicating something in reality, the spatiotemporal world. This aspect brings significant

15
 points in terms of symbol’s use and experience. As an abstract or general concept, the Peircean

symbol, which appears as terms, propositions, and arguments in the early writing, becomes matured

and developed in this later theory, elaborating sign theory in the triadic relation. Moreover, the

concept of dynamic Object along with collateral observation and experience enables us to see the key

role of Indices in triadic relation of sign. This means that Symbol, a type, or law, is perceived through

experience of Indices, which leads to use and experience of Symbol; yet, Indices have to bring ideas

from embodiment of Icons. More importantly, observation of Indices expands Peirce’s thoughts on

emotions and sentiment in semeiosis. These changes allow me to look at Symbol in communication,

thus ultimately leading to self-control by means of social activity of symbolic communication.

Then, what is symbolic communication about? Roughly speaking, symbolic form 17 or

representation mediates between the speaker or the utterer and the hearer or the interpreter. The

utterer18 sends an intended message to the interpreter19, then the utterer takes the role of a source

interpreter who creates a message and the interpreter who receives it becomes a target interpreter. The

notion of two interpreters20 in the communication model, rather than one utterer and one interpreter,

leads us to think that symbolic form as cominterpretant (communicational interpretant) in Peirce’s

terms is stable in a socio-cultural sphere, and yet it is unstable in an individual domain through

interpretation and translation of the symbolic form. In other words, both interpreters have common

thoughts as one mind to communicate as a base ground in discourse community; however, their roles

as a source and a target interpreter should be highlighted by transmission of an intention in

communication, thus emphasizing both social-cultural aspects of symbolic form to be communicated

17
Peirce mentioned cominterpretant where the utterer and interpreter are fused in communication. I will call his concept of
cominterpretant symbolic form in my application. (see Liszka 1996, p.91)
18
Peirce calls the interpreting mind (quasi-utterer) intentional interpretant who is a sign and transmits the intended or designed message.
See discussion on this point in Liszka. (1996, pp. 88-90)
19
Peirce calls the interpreting mind (quasi-interpreter) effectual interpretant, being affected by the utterer. See also Liszka’s (1996)
discussion.
20
I cited the notion in Pearson’s working paper (2007), ‘Elementary Dialog Theory’.

16
and symbolic reference intended by the source interpreter to be understood by the target interpreter’s

contexts. (See Figure 2.)

Symbolic mode:
cominterpretant

Dynamic Object:
Inquiry of Truth

Source Target
interpreter: Iconic Indexical interpreter:
intentional mode mode effectual
interpretant interpretant

Discourse Community of Inquiry

Figure 2. Symbolic communication model

I will show in the next section how symbolic form is used in communication. The source

interpreter creates a symbolic form, a narrative, to send an intended message to the target interpreter.

The symbolic form, cominterpretant in Peirce’s terms, mediates between the source interpreter and

the target interpreter in discourse community. dynamic Object of a sign which is a symbolic narrative

is hidden; however, the target interpreter’s collateral observations and experience will facilitate

discovery of the meaning of the message sent by the source interpreter.

3.2 Illustration

3.2.1 What is a parable?

The word ‘parable’ is from the Greek, parabole, which means to compare, and ‘para’ means

17
beside. A parable is a short story used for moral and religious teaching. In the Bible, Jesus used

parables for teaching to crowds and for giving lessons to Bible scholars. The common feature of

parables used by Jesus is a communication tool in the middle of conversation in dialogic form. It

functions as if a play is in a play.

As the origin of the word indicates, listeners are impelled to put a story beside their life story to

compare. In that sense, a parable is not allegorical; it is rather metaphorical and analogical reading of

the story. The story mediates between the source interpreter and the target interpreter. After a story is

told, the target interpreter affected by the source interpreter by means of the story is led to action in

response.

The story as a type illustrates something and evokes some thoughts in the target interpreter.

Taking all these facts together, I define a parable as symbolic form to be transmitted in

communication. However, I will only deal with the process of how the target interpreter interprets an

intended message represented in symbolic form, focusing on collateral observations and experience

which would lead to self-regulated behavior. Therefore, symbolic form of a parable as quality will

consist in three elements in triadic relation, as shown in Figure 3. The narrative form represents a

concept as a Third which facilitates some thoughts in the target interpreter.

The symbolic narrative has quality as a First, representing a message or ideas by the source

interpreter, and the narrative is placed in parallel with an individual object as a Second, functioning as

symbol’s reference, affecting the target interpreter (see Figure 3).

18
 Concept: reason

Symbol:
A parable

Message (A) Reference (A=B)

Figure 3. Symbolic form

3.2.2 Nathan’s parable and David’s confession (2 Samuel 12:1-15)

(Background of the story)

David, King of Israel, took the wife of his soldier, Uriah the Hittite, and had him killed in battle to

conceal her pregnancy and his wrongdoing, and then made her his wife. What David did displeased

the Lord, and thus God sent Nathan, a prophet, to David.

[1. 1-4] (A parable)

Then the LORD sent Nathan to David. And he came to him, and said to him:

“There were two men in one city, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had exceedingly many

flocks and herds. But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb which he had bought and

nourished; and it grew up together with him and with his children. It ate of his own food and drank

form his own cup and lay in his bosom; and it was like a daughter to him. And a traveler came to the

rich man, who refused to take from his own flock and from his own herd to prepare one for the

wayfaring man who had come to him; but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man

who had come to him.”

19
 1. The rich man symbolizes David

2. The poor man symbolizes Uriah

3. The lamb symbolizes Bathsheba

[2. 5-6] (David’s response)

So David’s anger was greatly aroused against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the LORD lives,

the man who has done this shall surely die! And he shall restore fourfold for the lamb, because he

did this thing and because he had no pity.”

[3. 7] (Nathan’s indication)

Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!”

[4. 7-12] (Delivered LORD’s message to David)

David’s life story has been unfolded from past, present to future: David was anointed as King and

was delivered from the hand of Saul. David was blessed by God, but David despised the

commandment of the LORD and did evil in His sight. He had Uriah killed to take his wife to be his

wife. Therefore, the LORD would raise adversity against David and his house.

[5. 13-15] (David’s Confession and Nathan’s response)

So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.”

And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However,

because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the

child also who is born to you shall surely die.” Then Nathan departed to his house.

I have divided the text into five parts in two categories: a parable and dialogue between Nathan

and David. As I mentioned earlier, a parable is used in dialogic form, and thus the two men are

involved with sign-activity, communicating by means of symbolic form, a narrative, as we have seen

20
in Figure 3. Concerning the quality of a parable as symbolic form, the narrative represents a concept

as a Third, which generates thoughts in the target interpreter, David. The symbolic narrative has

quality of a First, representing a message from God, and the narrative is placed in parallel with

David’s individual story as a Second for reference in the symbolic form.

Focusing on David’s interpretation as the target interpreter, we will look at collateral observations

and experience of David in order to pursue the truth of Dynamic Object of the real concept. The

second trichotomy, Symbol-Index-Icon, is regarded as three modes of being, representing Dynamic

Object differently from each other, based on the idea of a Third, a Second, and a First, respectively.

Therefore, Dynamic Object will determine each type of sign to represent.

Symbol as a concept is represented as one of various meaning potentials such as “The King is

under the law, not above it; it is God’s law, not the King’s; God is offended.”, which is intentional

interpretant (a message) by the source interpreter. Then, the symbol requires a Replica of it in the

form of Indices to affect the target interpreter. The index is “You are the man.” That is, David is the

rich man. This proposition is not sufficient for understanding the meaning of the message. The target

interpreter also requires an embodied icon, “the rich man”, who is illustrated in the parable. Thus, to

understand the potential meaning of the message, collateral observation and experience are essential

factors (see Figure 4).

21
 Symbol:
Rational
“The king is under the law.” self-control
argument

Experience:
Intention
Dynamic an individual
Object

Icon: Index:
“The rich man” “You are the man”
Rhematic symbol
Dicent symbol

Figure 4. Collateral experience (Dicent symbol involves two kinds of sign: Rhematic symbol- ‘the

man’- and Rhematic indexical sinsigns –‘you’ and ‘the man’)

Following sequences of the text, David’s interpretation is embodied in three types of interpretant:

When David heard the story, he was enraged by the rich man’s deed ([2. 5-6]). This is called

“emotional interpretant” in Peirce’s terms. He used a moral judgment on the rich man’s deed. At this

point, Peirce’s theory of sign does not allow emotional interpretant as individual experience for a

First; rather, it is a type of emotion David expressed. Then, what is Dynamic Object of the feeling of

anger? It might be the rich man’s lawless behavior or injustice. When David heard from Nathan that

the rich man was himself, how would he react? There was no immediate reaction appearing in the

text; however, he would probably have felt something against him inside. ‘The rich man’ and ‘David’

were situated under comparison as an agent and a patient. The rich man’s quality as a First was

illustrated as a predicate with the subject of David. This is indicated by the sentence, “You are the

man” ([3.7]). So, without emotional interpretant, David would not have been led to energetic

interpretant or logical interpretant.

22
 After hearing Nathan’s story about him, he encountered a collateral experience as individual

being in the temporal-spatial world. Then, energetic or logical interpretant in David’s mind arises in

the expression. “I have sinned against the LORD.” ([5.13-15]). It is not certain whether David acted

after thought and thus showed the action of confession or mechanically followed as reaction to

Nathan’s words. In this sense, demarcation between energetic and logical interpretant is blurred,

particularly because logical interpretant leads to self-regulated action or conduct as an effect of

conception of the Dynamic Object in reality.

According to the text, David heard his individual life story from the past to the future. By means

of the parable, he happened to see how he was blessed by the LORD and disobeyed Him, and thus it

became an opportunity to control his life again. So, I speculate on the problem of his action, as to

whether it was caused by energetic interpretant or logical interpretant by two factors: ‘time’ or

continuity, and ‘emotion’, not emotional interpretant. Then, the idea will lead to a more

comprehensive model of collateral experience in index, admitting nonsemeiotic sphere. In this sense,

I propose the model of symbolosphere, which is summarized in what I have discussed so far. By

virtue of Symbol, three spheres of life are integrated in triadic relation (see Figure 5).

Argument (symbol)

KNOWLEDGE The world EXPERIENCE

Rhematic symbol Dicent symbol

COLLATERAL (index)
(icon)
OBSERVATION

Figure 5. Symbolosphere

23
 4. Concluding remarks

I have tried to show how symbol can be applied to communication for self-regulated conduct as

an effect of conception of Dynamic Object represented collaterally through Symbol, Index, and Icon.

Symbol, as cominterpretant in Peirce’s terms, unites or mediates between a source interpreter and a

target interpreter in communication with a purposive action of delivering an intended message. Yet,

we have clutched at some part of Dynamic Object which is represented to us. In this sense we

appreciate our knowledge of science, but at the same time we need to be open to use our other

elements of cognition, such as emotion, instinct, or sentiment. This aspect will expand Peirce’s ideas

in application to other field of science. That will constitute post-Peircean scholars’ great vision. In

this line of thought, my initial attempt was the application of his theory of symbol in communication

as a psychological tool for cognition and emotion for co-regulatory self control.

References

Deely, J. N. (2001). Four ages of understanding: The first postmodern survey of philosophy from

ancient times to the turn of the twenty-first century. Toronto studies in semiotics. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Hookway, C. (2002). Truth, rationality, and pragmatism: Themes from Peirce. Oxford; New York:

Oxford University Press.

Liszka, J. J. (1996). A general introduction to the semiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington

and Indianapolis: Indianapolis University Press.

Paavola, S. (2005). Peirce abduction: Instinct or Inference? in Semiotica 153 (1/4 ): 131-154.

Pearson, C. (2007). ‘Elementary Dialog Theory’, working paper.

Peirce, C. S. (1931-1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, edited by C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Vols. 1-6) and A.W.

24
 Burks (Vols. 7-8).
Peirce, C. S. (1867-1913). The Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, Vol. 1 (1867-1893/1992) edited by N. Houser & C. Kloesel, and Vol.
2 (1893-1913/1998) edited by the Peirce Edition Project.
Savan, D. (1977). Questions concerning certain classifications claimed for signs in Semiotica 19 (3/4):
179-195.
Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce's theory of signs. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, R. S. (1977). Peirce’s Notion of the Symbol in Semiotica 19 (3/4): 197-208.

25