PREFACE

This book is an attempt to found a Peircean linguistics. By this I mean a reorientation of linguistic theory, and the ultimate goals of linguistic analysis, along lines suggested by Peirce’s semeiotic in the context of his entire philosophy. As with all efforts of the kind, mine is necessarily partial, and the reader will not find treated all the subjects ordinarily encompassed by the very broad discipline of linguistics.

The book’s focus is also defined to a considerable extent by the desire to present a synoptic view of my research over the past fifteen years (Part 2 is constituted largely by revised versions of previously published material). One subject directly affected thereby is syntax, though some syntactic data are included by way of illustrating general theoretical points. There is no doubt today (as Peirce himself foresaw) that the syntax of natural languages is particularly suited to semeiotic analysis, and the methodological compass implicit in a Peircean theory of grammar certainly invites applications by specialists in this popular field.

I have made a conscious decision to avoid polemics and concentrate instead on presenting a homogeneous point of view, to which not all other approaches are equally pertinent. Practically, this means that the definitiveness of a semeiotic analysis is intended to transpire from the discussion of concrete material without comparison and contrast to the currently more favored analytical mode. In lieu of a detailed critique of my own (but cf. my earlier book Asymmetry [1976]), I refer the reader to the admirably forceful and comprehensive opening chapter of Talmy Givon’s On Understanding Grammar (1979), which can now stand as representing the views of all linguists who recognize the fundamental failures of transformational-generative grammar.

Linguistic analysis carried out in an explicitly semeiotic frame cannot boast a voluminous literature, a situation perhaps belied by the growing interest in semiotics. Even less developed is the study of language structure in the light of Peirce’s theory of signs. For their part, Peirce studies have traditionally been preoccupied with textual exegesis—with good reason. We are still very much at the stage today of trying to clarify not only what Peirce meant to say, but what he in fact did say.

The difficulties of giving a comprehensive summary of Peirce’s semeiotic that would square with all the divergent authorial versions, as well as with numerous modern interpretations, are well-known to students of Peirce. Chapter 1, which can stand on its own as an account of semeiotic, has been drawn with an eye toward reconciling, to the extent possible, some of the main differences between the theory of signs as Peirce held it before and after 1906. In attempting this task, I have relied on my own understanding of Peirce, aided in significant measure by the work of two interpreters, David Savan and T.L. Short, whose construal of semeiotic I have found preeminently valuable (even though they do not agree in all respects). Neither scholar is responsible, of course, for any shortcomings of my summary.

Because Peirce chose continually to reformulate his thoughts, in numerous drafts spanning several decades, we possess on most points a whole series of versions which amounts to an auto-commentary. Considering this to be a particularly valuable source for the understanding of semeiotic, I have included more than the customary number of direct quotations, as a deliberate procedure calculated to bring out as many of the variegated ramifications of Peirce’s thought as possible.

It has not been my aim to illustrate all details of Peirce’s system with linguistic examples, or to clothe traditional terminology in semeiotic dress. This circumstance is particularly important in the case of Chapters 3 and 4, which are meant to be read primarily as illustrations of the way a reoriented linguistics comes to grips with real data. I have striven to imbue linguistic analysis with the attitude toward language that Peirce’s philosophical enterprise leads the analyst to adopt. To some extent, semeiotic and the structural analysis of language form a natural partnership which attenuates some of the terminological antagonism that tends to grow when disciplines are cross-pollinated.

Although Peirce himself spelled the name of his general theory of signs in a number of ways, he seems to have preferred semeiotic, and this is the spelling I have used consistently when referring to Peirce’s doctrine (except in direct quotations). The more familiar contemporary spelling semiotic is restricted to non-Peircean references; the same distinction applies to semeiosis and semiosis.

References of the form 1.187 are to the Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce by volume and paragraph number (2nd printing, 8 volumes in 4, vols. 1-6 edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, vols. 7-8 edited by Arthur Burks, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965-66). References of the form NE 4:241 are to The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce (4 volumes in 5, edited by Carolyn Eisele, The Hague: Mouton; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1976), by volume and page number. References of the form H 34 are to the pages of Semiotic and Signifies: The Correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby (edited by Charles S. Hardwick, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977). References of the form MS 915:1 and L25 are to the microfilm edition of the Charles S. Peirce Papers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Library Photographic Service, 1966) by manuscript and letter number and page. These numbered materials are described in Richard S. Robin’s Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1967).

I would like to express my special thanks to my friend and former colleague Raimo Anttila, with whom I have had many profitable discussions on the subjects of this book. His Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics (1972) was the first text of its kind to give emphasis to the Peircean perspective on grammar, and his subsequent research (in the light of Gestalt psychology) has continued to be a valuable stimulus.

It gives me genuine pleasure to acknowledge my considerable debt to David Savan, whose analysis of Peircean semeiotic has been determinative in helping meshape my own. His unflagging support of my work in general was invaluable in bringing this project to completion.

I have also benefited from the incisive comments of T. L. Short on parts of the ‘Theoretical Prolegomena.’ Members of the Peirce Edition Project, particularly Max H. Fisch and Christian J. W. Kloesel, were generous in their assistance to me during my brief research visit to Indianapolis as well as on other occasions. Institutional support was provided by UCLA in the form of Research Grants, and the completion of the manuscript was aided by an Individual Study and Research Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities.

New York, N.Y.

M. S.