Semiotics (12): 15 Signs and Peirce’s 10 Signs

Comparing and bridging semiotic frameworks

In this post, I’d like to clarify the relationship between the classification of the 15 Signs and Peirce's classification of 10 Signs. Some of my readers are familiar with the 10 signs by Peirce, and this post is mostly directed to you. If you are not familiar with the 10 signs, I have a video-series on Youtube about them:

Right off the bat, all 10 signs by Peirce are included in the 15 signs, which means that the 15 Signs introduce an additional 5 signs to Peirce’s 10 signs.

This post is mostly about the logic of these classifications, but I believe a logical analysis provides the best foundation for further inquiry and discussion. By grounding our conversation in (semiotic) logic, we can prevent speculations from running too wildly. So, let us begin.

The Three Correlates

Peirce introduced his first classificatory system of signs based on the Three Correlates in 1903. As I can’t put it any better, I quote extensively from the magnificent PhD thesis titled Minute Semeiotic Speculations on the Grammar of Signs and Communication based on the work of C. S. Peirce by Vinicius Romanini:

Between 1902 and 1903, in the same period Peirce intensified his studies about perception, he understood that a complete description of the sign should take into account not only its representative and interpretative aspects, but also the material or presentative ones too. Something is a Sign only if it is interpreted as such by something or someone. This is the presentative dimension that, added to the other two, will form the three correlates of the 1903 3-trichotomic classification (based on three trichotomies).

1st Correlate

It corresponds to the presentative character of the sign, or the manner as it presents itself to an interpreter, regardless of the object that it professes to represent or the effect that it produces. It is the sign itself (S), whose signic capacity is due to its ground – the universe of possibilities of representation that, when an occasion occurs, will enable it to be taken as a sign of its object. Due to the rule of material implication among the correlates, the First Correlate is the one that determines the others, which can only be 3rdness if the First Correlate is too.

2nd Correlate

It corresponds to the representative character of the sign, or the manner the sign represents its object to an interpretant, regardless of the effect this representation is apt to produce. It is, therefore, the relation between sign and object (S-O). The Second Correlate is determined by the first and, in its turn, determines the third.

3rd Correlate

It corresponds to the interpretative character of the sign, or the effect that the sign produces on an interpretant mind thanks to its power of representing its object. It corresponds, therefore, to the effect of the triadic relation among sign, object and interpretant (S-O-I). The two previous correlates determine the third one. The relations among the three correlates can be represented by Peirce’s symbol of illation enchaining the three of them: FC -< SC -< TC.

Just as with the periods, the Three Correlates can be filled with 1stness, 2ndness, or 3rdness and, as the logical determination is identical to the Four Periods, the Three Correlates produce 10 signs. For more information you can watch the videos below:

10 Signs in the 15 Signs

As we know, the Four Periods can be thought as four different aspects of the sign. In other words we may approach the sign from its:

1. Grounding aspect: how the sign establishes and grounds itself.

2. Presentative aspect: how the sign presents itself.

3. Representative aspect: how the sign represents (its object).

4. Communicative aspect: how the sign communicates or mediates information (from its object to the interpretant).

The Four Periods relate to the Three Correlates in the following way:

• 1st correlate is the Grounding and Presentative periods taken together.

• 2nd correlate is the Representation period.

• 3rd correlate is the Communication period

The logic of determination¹ is identical between these two classifications. Next, let us locate the 10 signs from the list of 15 signs.

As the 1st correlate corresponds to the Grounding and Presentative Periods taken together, in the 10 Signs both of these periods are filled with the same category.

However, connecting the 15 signs to the 10 signs solely through the Four Periods isn’t sufficient. We also need to establish a connection from the 10 signs to the 15 signs through the Three Correlates. To achieve this, we have to introduce the concept of degeneration.

Degeneration of the Categories

Once again I’ll quote extensively from Romanini’s PhD thesis:

The result of [Peirce’s] continuing research on the essence of the categories debouched, in 1903, on the third conference he gave in Harvard in April 1903, The Categories Continued, when Peirce introduced the concept of degeneration of the relations. He was then convinced that the more complex categories (Secondness and Thirdness) could suffer what he called degeneration: a reduction of their ontological state. Thus, while Firstness cannot suffer degeneration, Secondness can degenerate towards Firstness; Thirdness, in its turn, can suffer two degrees of degeneration, becoming initially Secondness and, in a subsequent degeneration, Firstness. When not degenerated, the categories are called genuine (CP 5.66).

I’ve made a video about this concept, so you can watch it if you’re interested.

We can represent this diagrammatically quite simply: let one apostrophe (‘) demarcate first-degree degeneration, and let a double apostrophe (‘‘) demarcate second-degree degeneration:

From the diagram we can observe how 2ndness (with two legs) necessarily includes 1stness (one leg), and how 3rdness (three legs) necessarily includes both 2ndness (two legs) and 1stness (one leg). But 1stness does not include 2ndness or 3rdness, and 2ndness does not include 3rdness.

Degeneration is a broad concept that would require post(s) of its own, so I’ll be returning to this concept in future posts.

15 Signs in the 10 Signs

With the help of the degenerations we can express the 15 Signs with the Three Correlates. The logic is this: When both Grounding and Presentation periods share the same category — i.e. they are both either 1stness, 2ndness or 3rdness — then the 1st Correlate can also be expressed by that shared category. But if Grounding period has a “higher” category than the Presentation period, then we have a case of degeneration. There are then three possible cases of degeneration:

• G=2 | P=1 → 1st Correlate=1’

• G=3 | P=1 → 1st Correlate=1’’

• G=3 | P=2 → 1st Correlate=2’

Now we are able to express the 15 Signs with the Three Correlates:

Naming the Signs

Next, we need to utilize the extensive semiotic language invented by Peirce. This will hopefully provide further clarity regarding the connection between the 15 Signs and 10 Signs (at least to those who are already familiar with the 10 signs).

Peirce gave the 10 Signs a three-part name, wherein signs are named based on categories that “fill up” the Three Correlates.

The first part of the name comes from the 1st Correlate, which is either:

1. Qualisign,

2. Sinsign, or

3. Legisign

The middle part comes from the 2nd Correlate, which is either:

1. Icon,

2. Index, or

3. Symbol

And the last part comes from the 3rd Correlate, which is either:

1. Rhema,

2. Dicisign, or

3. Argument

We can make a table of this:

Here is then the complete list of names for the 10 Signs. I’ll express the two classification in the following manner: (Three Correlates) [Four Periods]:

1. Qualisign Icon Rhema (111) [1111]

2. Sinsign Icon Rhema (211) [2211]

3. Sinsign Index Rhema (221) [2221]

4. Sinsign Index Dicisign (222) [2222]

5. Legisign Icon Rhema (311) [3311]

6. Legisign Index Rhema (321) [3321]

7. Legisign Index Dicisign (322) [3322]

8. Legisign Symbol Rhema (331) [3331]

9. Legisign Symbol Dicisign (332) [3332]

10. Legisign Symbol Argument (333) [3333]

But what about the five new signs? The 2nd Correlate (Representation Period) and 3rd Correlate (Communication Period) don’t need any new names, but the three degenerations do. Therefore we’ll use the names proposed by Vinicius Romanini:

• 1’ in the 1st Correlate is Altersign

• 1’’ in the 1st Correlate is Holosign

• 2’ in the 1st Correlate is Replica

The complete names for the 15 Signs are then:

1. Qualisign Icon Rhema (111) [1111]

2. Altersign Icon Rhema (1’11) [2111]

3. Sinsign Icon Rhema (211) [2211]

4. Sinsign Index Rhema (221) [2221]

5. Sinsign Index Dicisign (222) [2222]

6. Holosign Icon Rhema (1’’11) [3111]

7. Replica Icon Rhema (2’11) [3211]

8. Replica Index Rhema (2’21) [3221]

9. Replica Index Dicisign (2’22) [3222]

10. Legisign Icon Rhema (311) [3311]

11. Legisign Index Rhema (321) [3321]

12. Legisign Index Dicisign (322) [3322]

13. Legisign Symbol Rhema (331) [3331]

14. Legisign Symbol Dicisign (332) [3332]

15. Legisign Symbol Argument (333) [3333]

Further points

Firstly, in addition to the 5 new signs, the 15 Signs represents the simplest classification encompassing all Periods and Phases of Semiosis. The 10 Signs lacks the entire Phase of Experiencing/Executing. Therefore, the 15 Signs offers much more than just 5 new signs. In my view, this is a significant advantage over the classification of 10 Signs.

Secondly, It's worth noting how the 10 Signs maintain their relative positions within the triangular diagram of the 15 Signs. This further supports the idea that the classification of 15 Signs builds upon Peirce’s original 10 Signs. There exists no inherent contradiction between these two classifications. Therefore, we can consider the 10 Signs as a vaguer representation of semiosis compared to the 15 Signs, which offers additional precision.

---

Thank you for reading! In our next post, we will continue exploring the 15 Signs. I'll gladly address any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Markus

1. The verb “determine”, used in both definitions, also needs to be well understood. It does not mean a dyadic action, of the “cause and effect” kind, in which the object acts first over the sign and, in the sequence, another dyadic action causes the sign to act producing an interpretant – as it happens with billiards balls that, being hit, bounce transferring momentum and energy from one another on a linear way. Peirce conceives the verb “determine” as being genuinely triadic. It has the same nature of the verb “give”. The act of giving demands that (1) someone gives, (2) something is given and (3) someone receives what is being given. They all happen simultaneously. Similarly, “determine” means the indecomposable synthesis among the object that determines sign and interpretant through its form, (2) the sign that is the carrier of this form, (3) and the interpretant that is the effect of the transmission of this form. (Vinicius Romanini)