Expanding the “list of footnotes” in my bitesize (Feb 1st update: finally got the term–tweet-size) doctoral thesis.

The comment from WP on this one:

If the writing is honest it cannot be separated from the [hu]man who wrote it. — Tennessee Williams

In view of Peirce’s logico-semiotic “principle of pragmatism,” I would not worry about what “words” are used for any notion in the formulated Thesis, as long as some operational equivalence obtains between their respective “effects/uses.” Ergo, there can be ECOSONIC

                        1. philosophizing

                        2. being

                        3. acting

in ANY Language, moreover in the broad sense of the term “language”.

The question is, in what medium/manner should the FN be “uttered”/“interpreted.” So that it can be heard/acted on, not only theorized/uttered. My interest, communication, hinges on the degree of meaning overlap of semiosis from the perspective of 1) utterer, and 2) interpreter. The necessity of both of these terms motivates my tetradic (and counting) version of Peirce’s triadic sign.

A. Classic Peircean triadic sign:

sign                 |

B. Proposed COMMUNICATIVE sign:

I. At a minimum, a tetrad, as the interval between Sense and Interpretant is the locus of communication.

                        sense [meaning intended]

sign                                                interpretant [meaning interpreted]


II. Or else, depending on the zoom level of analysis, a pentad and counting. Starting with the creation/coining of a term, i.e. the “depth” term of pentad:


                        Depth [wordsmith]

                                                Sense [utterer]

Sign                                                Interpretant [interpreter]



Meaning “Splicing” = Meaning division into pairs or triples of Depth, Sense, and Interpretant

Meaning Derivation = rarely straight-lined or regularly sequenced Meaning Splicing, in varied order, in organic coordination with Object of the sign and Sign.

Connecting “lines” are not represented, but each and every term is seen as connected to all the others, in varying manner, which gives none of them a determining position. E.g. as in the Springer version below, which however has the disadvantage of positing a nameless crossing point, and resorting to straight lines: