IMG_1218.jpeg

# Filosofia del linguaggio, Aldo Frigerio: riassunto ## Capitolo 1: Introduzione ### 1.1 La natura del segno A sign is something that stands for something else, i.e., something that refers to something else; the meaning of the sign is what the sign refers to. This definition of a sign was partly...

# Filosofia del linguaggio, Aldo Frigerio: riassunto ## Capitolo 1: Introduzione ### 1.1 La natura del segno A sign is something that stands for something else, i.e., something that refers to something else; the meaning of the sign is what the sign refers to. This definition of a sign was partly taken from Charles Pierce, the founder of semiotics, the discipline that studies signs; however, he introduces a third dimension, that of the interpretant of signs: for Pierce, a sign is something that is related to something else by an interpretant. It would be wrong to define a sign as something that refers to something else for an interpreter, because this definition is too broad: not everything that refers to something else for a subject is a sign, just think of mental associations. Signs differ from mental associations because mental associations are subjective and idiosyncratic, while sign-meaning associations are determined by rules that can be learned by several subjects. Pierce classifies signs based on the type of rule that links the sign to its meaning; we have: * **Indices:** the relationship between sign and meaning is causal; the interpreter traces back from cause to effect or goes from effect to cause, so the sign causes its own meaning (clouds cause rain) or the meaning causes the sign (fever is caused by illness); * **Icons:** the relationship is one of similarity; the interpreter goes from the sign to its meaning because they resemble each other (see road signs); * **Symbols:** they are linked to their meaning conventionally, i.e., through an agreement between speakers to regulate a certain activity according to a common way of acting (the words of a language).