Page 203 - Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language

semiotic generalization of the properties of the basic sign system is a methodological analogy.
1.3.2 The Pragmatic Tradition
In contrast to this tradition, the 'pragmatic' tradition is not concerned with the internal structure of the sign itself, and is therefore indifferent as to the specific medium of the sign. The sign is never seen in abstrac- tion from the sign-object relation which is assumed to constitute the sign. In the pragmatic perspective, the main focus of interest is the way this relation is incorporated into the semiosis. The theoretical back- ground of this tradition is, first and foremost, phil- osophy and logic with Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-
1914) in particular, but also Karl Biihler (1879-1963) among the leadingfigures.
For pragmatic semioticians, the formal properties of the sign will not suffice to define it. The definition of the sign must include elements necessary to explain the use of the sign with regard to the object: the status of the object will have to be taken into account (real, fictitious, etc.) as well as the purposiveness of the sign process; the assumed properties of the sign in relation to the object (similarity, copresence, difference, etc.) as well as the types of code involved (mental, material, strategical, etc.) must be dealt with.
From the pragmatic point of view, the semiosis is the 'integration' of an object into a sign process in such a way that new knowledge concerning the object can be manifested in a new sign, which may be a word, an act, an image, etc. In the formal tradition the goal is different. Here the construction of an autonomous sign or structure of signs conveys an 'arbitrary layout' to the object.
If the object is the history of Europe, a sign may be a book, an exhibition, or a movie giving a specific version of this history which, in turn, makes us pro- duce a new sign, e.g., the participation in a peace demonstration, the writing of a new book, the estab- lishing of a new political party or just a psychological reaction of joy or frustration. As an effect of the first sign, each of these new signs establishes a relation to the same object on a new basis.
From a formal point of view the most important question which arises from this example is how the structure of the original sign, as it occurs in a specific system or systems of expression, creates a specific object. If any new sign is produced, the next question will be how the structure of this sign, related to its system of expression, forms an object. The pragmatic approach, on the other hand, looks for how the new sign comes into being as an effect of the manifestation of the first one. Here the transformation or translation between signs and sign systems, irrespective of their material specificity, is the pivotal point of the analysis. Meaning in the pragmatic context is this effect as embedded in a continuous sign production creating new object relations.
The two traditions have different problems to face in an application outside linguistics and philosophy, but they both attempt to cooperate with other disci- plines. The formal tradition is anchored in the analysis of a specific sign system and thus it possesses strong methodological and applicative resources, which in fact have given this tradition a great deal of impact. But the strategy of seeing other sign systems as anal- ogous to verbal language may underestimate the par- ticular semiotic capacities of nonverbal sign systems.
Guided by the pragmatic tradition, the overall gen- eral logic of the semiosis forces us to concentrate on how different sign systemswork together. Thisinterest has broadened the scope of semiotics. But being neu- tral to the specific medium of the sign, this tradition sees no necessary link between the general structure of semiosis and the particular sign systems engaged in the semiosis. Hence, there are no precise analytical tools left for the understanding of specific sign processes.
A common focal point for the two traditions is the conception of the semiotic inference from sign to object or from expression to content as more com- prehensive than logical inference. The goal of any semiotic process is meaning and not logical truth value, which is only one specific type of meaning, integrated in more important and multidimensional effects of meaning produced by the semiotic activity of everyday life. This being the case, the inferential process can never be reduced to a formal structure alone, but contains necessarily nonformal elements which define it as a 'discourse.'
1.4 Discourse
Through the notion of discourse, the semiotic infer- ence is comprehended as an act, implying first of all a specific 'orientation' and a mark of'subjectivity.'
'Intentionality' in general is defined by phenom- enology as the capacity of any consciousness to be a consciousness about something. The mind is con- stituted by its alwaysbeing oriented towards an object, which is totally unspecified except for being positioned in relation to the mind. In the discourse, conscious- ness, abstractly comprehended as intentionality, is embedded in a concrete sign process which is the start- ing point for the semiotic analysis of intentionality.
In order to be realized as a unity creating meaning, any sign has to be a link in a chain of signs, organized in an irreversible order which is oriented toward an object. From a semiotic point of view, even an ana- phoric reference to a previous sign in a syntagmatic chain will contribute to the general irreversibility of the chain, because the anaphora takes place as a pro- duction of a new sign, thus basically a movement ahead. This irreversible intentional order is the discourse.
In this perspective, intentionality acquires a more differentiated definition than in philosophy or in
Semiotics
181