13
5c7 baelt-*:v- c&a+ayv Iteration and the Peircean Habit* Introduction Lnplicit in Peirce'sundersanding of the semiotics of habit is a general model or typology of iteration. Since semiosis encornpasses cognition and language (Nesher 194), Peirce'saccount of habit models not only verbaliterationbut also iterationasa cognitiveor conceptual phenomenon. The fact thata frameworkfor understanding cognitive and linguistic iteration is inherentin the peircean habit should hardly besurprising since Peirce intended his semiotic to bea .real science of sign phenomena' (Short l9gr, r97) and,his phenomenologicar categories of Firstness,secondness, and rhirdness to be ubiquiuous and olctly observable elements (or modes of being) in the sign_perfused universe(Cp 1:p"1r" e l93l_ 35; 19581 1.23, 5.41,5.IZI). In this paper,I intendto sketch themodel of iterationimpricit in peirce,s dis_ cussion of habit or Thirdness, or more specifically in the relationsbetween the Ievelsof secondness and rhirdness witnrn a habit. In brief, peirce implies the necessary existence oftwo poles ofiteration: iterationat the level ofsecondness, or what I will calr simpre iteratton, anditerationwith respect to Thirdness, or what I will call hobitmr iteration. Simpleandhabituar iteration do not represent dis_ crelecategories mutually exclusive ofeach other; a Peircean account ofiteration presumes a continuum Tdg between the poles and therefore the potential of growth fromonepole (simpre iterarion)to fhe other (habituat iteratioo). rnrougn this t5,polory,I will be arguingthatthetwo kinds of iterationarereflections of the moregeneral distinctionwhich peirce makes between secondness and rhirdness. Passing from theoryto practice, I will then attempt !o showtheusefurness of the Peircean typology for mebng sense of iteratioo io nu*an conceptualization, generally speaking,and in language, in particular. In treating iteration in lan_ guage' I will limit myself !o a consideration of some aspects of the behaviorof a verb form in czech which I have previously argued (Danaher 1995,1996) mustbe understood, first andforemost, as ahabitual verb in the peircean sense of habit. ThePeircean Habit:from Simple to Habitual Iteration (:; -*.' !:; { ;l n i{ Habit, as a semiotic typewith different system-specific realizations, is obviously

Iteration and the Peircean Habit* - Co kdybysme · 5 c 7 b a e lt-*:v - c & a + a y v Iteration and the Peircean Habit* Introduction Lnplicit in Peirce's undersanding of the semiotics

  • Upload
    vonhan

  • View
    221

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

5c7 baelt-*:v- c&a+ayv

Iteration andthe Peircean Habit*

IntroductionLnplicit in Peirce's undersanding of the semiotics of habit is a general model ortypology of iteration. Since semiosis encornpasses cognition and language(Nesher 194), Peirce's account of habit models not only verbal iteration but alsoiteration as a cognitive or conceptual phenomenon. The fact that a framework forunderstanding cognitive and linguistic iteration is inherent in the peircean habitshould hardly be surprising since Peirce intended his semiotic to be a .real scienceof sign phenomena' (Short l9gr, r97) and,his phenomenologicar categories ofFirstness, secondness, and rhirdness to be ubiquiuous and olctly observableelements (or modes of being) in the sign_perfused universe (Cp 1:p"1r" e l93l_35; 19581 1.23, 5.41, 5.IZI).

In this paper, I intend to sketch the model of iteration impricit in peirce,s dis_cussion of habit or Thirdness, or more specifically in the relations between theIevels of secondness and rhirdness witnrn a habit. In brief, peirce implies thenecessary existence oftwo poles ofiteration: iteration at the level ofsecondness,or what I will calr simpre iteratton, and iteration with respect to Thirdness, or whatI will call hobitmr iteration. Simple and habituar iteration do not represent dis_crele categories mutually exclusive ofeach other; a Peircean account ofiterationpresumes a continuum Tdg between the poles and therefore the potential ofgrowth fromonepole (simpre iterarion) to fhe other (habituat iteratioo). rnrougnthis t5,polory, I will be arguing that the two kinds of iteration are reflections of themore general distinction which peirce makes between secondness and rhirdness.

Passing from theory to practice, I will then attempt !o show the usefurness ofthe Peircean typology for mebng sense of iteratioo io nu*an conceptualization,generally speaking, and in language, in particular. In treating iteration in lan_guage' I will limit myself !o a consideration of some aspects of the behavior of averb form in czech which I have previously argued (Danaher 1995, 1996) must beunderstood, first and foremost, as a habitual verb in the peircean sense of habit.

The Peircean Habit: from Simple to Habitual Iteration

(:;-*.'!:;{; ln

i{

Habit, as a semiotic type with different system-specific realizations, is obviously

E-

gsagggg-oct

H{)(JF.Q)

Aic,ilii'gtr!octtkc)

it)\ou')

E€ ?ElEt ggg$E; E6*gEEt; F€iEe EErp;t ;alsneE;ggA fiflEg fig Agg:e aElll B;eaa1 [g!$!g$g6EI [llg gg ggg€g .I 8E::

{E,E{;il, €EFeaI lfl;flffigggEs saEe e! atlkC}

€HAu,€(\to

rif\o\n

gg€EgFFsE g€igFigFi$€gig iEigaggg g ggFgEEgFFBEEggEEFEF€iE$sE?E €€ HgEqEE EEEE€g g Ei g ggl gggg ggi ggigg ig gE ;$gFgagg*E gff g€ g $ggggigg gggE rgi igggggggFgiaggggs €gg $sEIE:g€i

.oGI

Fc)C)t{c)A.c)a.oHaoG!l-.c)

: ir EEF$sF EE*aiExeEEg F;g€g€giEg$g€ i5 EbEE€$ E;eEf;EE$g*E E€at€ €t H;EEg; t=*rn;cgiilB iEEg*=E€i€sigag-agaiagggagg;ggiiIaEggggggiggi€ EEeiE=EEE UEFE:E;*€ig e€gEE€EfEI€EE* F$g HEAggg Ett:iEnsiEE.ggf FEEa:E€iEEE FaE eE gEEE EfitiiEEEFE$Fa$€iiBgEEigB:: ; E * F"HcEE g EI HEi$ffifl8*3gEgEg;g::E?:aHE :H.€.9

iE E€g giE€'a{. st$gf,i€te{EHEsErEf €€;Ens.E€ EEE E€eEEE B *€B:e!EiaHss-EEsEgEc€s E B

k0)ctclAt/,€(lta

\c|\otn

S,*'E€gtsa l Al ) Er oi i i leeo r td q )) H.E c)q g

sg' E ' o

5E56x E lF8r i 9sEa U to oR€

C) F:.EgEE66(! g.

€.H9gE8.gE€EEH

rt)-oL.c.)

GI3

.octt r {F{

o(l)NU

<|.aokosO(,)E(l)

cr.out()(t)o(t)c)Eou,

o\@t.)

€3lt

trlCIt(D()l-.(DA()EctFtro(tkc)

F'S g ,.e HS tr Es $gE H-8fi.EHd b O d @ s t ' E | - rs s8r*FE;egT H P€{AT g:3 Hi g: t E E e E f,e €F E E 8.5 F.T FgE EJ l o o o . c 6 ' o E S c or \ r O O o O o O O O o o

g6*8 ' *'RPE. '

SsE g-€ *tE{ f€[- gt € s c" BE Et e I Hx s€€; s€;E€?s3F$535FFF5

kc)€Fa

V'€alA

@\ota,

€al

EIt)Ohq)

prQ)

€'ogaI

ctkg

-6--tEiEg=igi$g$EF;EFgqigEeEgigS,*$ o )

t $i-, Ffi$g $$fg*ga6r r. EggBFii{FEg $$g3 F$FgFfg$$ gs gFEEiEgFg$ $FgFfg gggg agggegg;ggggg$ ig ggggggiilg g$ggin : eE H f js vHHo -{EEEu.H€E

LQ)

€gAa.c,

6tA

ol*-rn

$$iiiggggggiggggg

IT

cflF\

-oc\t

Hc)okE0)

E!,Htractl-E

E* Fsg ;gEgFi;gggE g$$i$$gaigg$Fgggggcg iI;€

F F "E * lEg

igl€gFBigFigg{hll)€alt

EAu,'c'

cto

C\a-rr!

i$ggg$gggg€ggggggggg;gggggEi'gEgs.E€cttEHQ)c)kc)

AQ)'s€Fao(tkg

ggBggEg-'-geaEggrggHagBEEagiEF

gigggig, ffisgggg giggggiggggggggg sggko?Fo

(t,'c'

GIa

r*c-in

t-.r-tn

-oGI

alq)(JkIt)

A(D€.oFoatk{)

U * E ; H c o fB F a * 9 a E '

Eg riE€€g; i E $i aes s F*gE* E i s€ s #B g € * HE tiBeEEE€,ts 8 b i > € Ri?:tEeaiiE 9 P X ' t ' 8 f l ; !Bg.grsiFiga a € ' - 6 E i

L.a)€FaqgGIo

\or\lr)

$l$afEe;s*se;sr{gg$ggggggggggg$ggFgggerEgg$sF$F$;F €:i eE

gg g$igffFg gF I Ff;g$$$s$ggfFfFfH$g$$i

o\t--ial

ts

q)c)Frq)

Ac)

1J

octLao

EHE.E.qg.F2 - g q 5 O . > . =O H A - . 4 - g

€ $ E -F$8,

arEtEfi$ikc)€Hov,gC'a

oor

,oct

alq)ok(uo.c)tlgFo(tLc)

:S:E$--EggigEiEgaBgggF EglggiEggg *sse :a* f,;aFFiu*-€ HEii €fiE $FE€saEEaEEs stgag;tgglgi giigg gggrg;*gggggHggiEr aiereE*iFE €a$Ea u*iEEigiEE€gugF1tgs ggE€ggg*€g BflEBg, EigFE FF$€iEE€g{FgBg SfiEgfl$g$g$* slrf Ea $$g$agig5$gig$g3;E

kc)oHou,'('GIA

o@r/)

€Fgflg E$ $p €;ggagg ?6q $;E EsT€*g$fgEEEEfgEEEEEgEF$fEF€F$FEt:niEESE:E EF* Eb Fq€;E€igggeg Ega gg ggi;gFg. ggg ggs gggfg

cr)@i

Iqt

F()C)lict

A{c)€'oEEio(\tktD

gg€iggggEgiggggg+sg;giggggggggs

Fgga'agg;$igI$FE fl s-E€s€E'EE

HIt)

€Ea

qE

GIA

a.l@|rl

r

$$f$,f$fg$F;$i$€ggg$€̂ ggf$ gH E g g ; $i EEB $-ggagggggggggggg€$$gs

lr|@\n

o(l

Fq)okc)Aq)

€EFtrto3\tLc)

E EFE{ $AF€ R E E f,FEE€Ef;EEEgAEraggggt€gFiEEgg€g€ggggg$E,a"' F tig---ea€ag,gg*g$g$gg$$$gg$ggEfi HAggEI FIEE €EeEFggiFFgEa$*EgFiggEE€igiFgEigFeg gEs* aeBs Et F= g* auBEE'--H*=eE;E E S'i d.d rs# ,;e $E =EnE s: iB ig ;i$g3fig$F$gg$$

1-c)6

aa(t>€ato

v@tr|

$ a b. r .s 3R F €}g $T # EHE SF * gFg $,s f'+:Ee€e f ;$*sEs s *ug$ gE$ s c5*u E$; s Fg;; ts; E ne#e :

e$Ef;gffi*g* F= E'* F

doq)

q)

la

\)OO\lOO\J

riIsssso

h , Bd 9F AE.F$ s ?

t t 6n >( a AOO FJo\ jg

. El€II

s g b4 'g s do-a € eE € I .ss s E4 ; s 5S * EEr"d 8.5; g F s'd -Er €e' .s B fi,fr g5 E-5 5 3 lg i;s$ F $ $: p$sS i e vE ?S sb' e { :s 3'$E$eS .1 $e g$$$E€ $*$,E ESFSAT SqRrE $sF.;SE Si€xE J^. ...8: SE S-g';' :.d*.8€R qsl.$r iH E$' i' gF i€s; dH q$: e€ ;f $€:T:! *HT }E.RE 5'EE s H€ EES €E ?.e gEE H P F"d g

-o

(l)c)kQ)

Aq)

T'ct

oqlkq)

f Fg ;€ if 1*F $,H 5 $E rE*$$$ag;glg'gggiggssgggg$sg*$g ;s $F Fi s€ ; $E $I $ $[ sg$ $3ge;E* €F gr sEE s:fg$ 5E i€iSfgecEE Ff $; ;is€F.gg€S,FH €F€E€gjg gg, i ;* {g* gs i j i$ F$ ig iI f i€ $fFfg fru i $e f$s ?s g i gs ?s gs €s, g is F;s

ka)€Ha

(t,I

o

\oooto