Paper presented at the 9th world congress of IASS-AIS

Communication: Understanding / Misunderstanding

THE SIGN TREE: FROM SIGN STRUCTURE TO PEIRCE’S PHILOSOPHY THROUGH

READING A VISUAL MODEL OF THE 66 CLASSES OF SIGNS
Priscila Monteiro Borges
primborges@gmail.com

Currently, doctoral student in Communication and Semiotic at

Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, PUC/SP, BRAZIL,
advised by Prof. Lucia Santaella. Financed by FAPESP.

Abstract:

This paper intends to show how Peirce’s Semiotic structures itself and connects different
branches of his philosophy through the analysis of a visual model of representation of his 66
classes of signs.

Peirce’s theory of signs is very complex and abstract. It is not a specific semiotic and easy to
apply, but a fundamental part of his philosophy. The most known classification of signs is the
one in which he describes 10 classes of signs. Later he proposed 66 classes of signs and the
first classification compared to this seems very simple. Certainly, there are so many details in
this later classification that its own complexity makes it hard to work with. Besides that, Peirce
had only proposed the logic way to construct it, but had no time to develop it in details as he
did with the first classification. These reasons are enough to explain why until now there are not
many works written about the topic and so many disagreements between them.

To facilitate the work with so many different classes of signs, a diagram that follows the logic
of cenopythagorean categories applied to ten trichotomies was created. The construction of
the diagram is important as it can enlighten the many different classes of signs and their
relations to each other. The first analysis demonstrates that semiotics is connected in one way,
to metaphysic and in another, to pragmatism. And also, that semiotic studies are not simply
the description of signs, but a detailed structure that helps to explain a bigger and more
complex system: Peirce’s philosophy.

Introduction

Firstly, I would like to thank the opportunity of being here, it’s an immense
pleasure for me to present this paper in a Peirce’s session because this is a
work in progress and I hope sharing it with you may generate some important
discussion and new ideas for the development of the work.

The creation of diagrams to help on explaining Peirce’s Semiotic is a known

practice among semioticists and even Peirce had worked hard on it. He
believed that diagrams were a good way to represent the course of thought
with exactitude1. We can find on his writings many diagrams and different
visual models to explain triadic relations in phenomenology, semiotics and
among classes of signs. Therefore, he had developed together his logic,
called Semiotic, and the Existential Graphis, which are ways of representing
diagrammatically reasoning processes.

As a scientist and philosopher, Peirce has dedicated his studies in many

different subjects, but according to Santaella, the variety of subjects was a
way for studying the logic of science and understanding different types of
reasoning. Therefore, we must take a careful look on the complex structure of
his philosophy in order to see the relations among its branches and should
not treat them as disconnected disciplines. For instance, from his studies of
logic and mathematics he developed the concepts of relation, infinite and
continuum, which are also important concepts for understanding semiotic
process.

In this presentation I will show a 3D model created according to the logic

of cenopythagorean categories applied to ten trichotomies which makes the
66 classes of signs. To begin I will explain how the model was thought and
constructed, and what are the relations between visual elements and the sign
theory. Thus you will see that the model is a description of the 66 classes of
signs. Next, I will analyze the model showing that although it was constructed
to describe and enlighten the different classes of signs and their relations, it is
also possible to see on its form the connections among semiotics, metaphysic
and pragmatism.

Model Construction

Two different classifications were used by Peirce to explain how sign functions.
One according to sign ground called cenopythagorean categories and the
other according to the structure of signs called trichotomies. Together, both
classifications explain logically how signs work. Even though Peirce had passed
long years of his life developing the sign concept, he left the work unfinished.
In his papers we find a very detailed description, in which 10 classes of signs
are produced by the combination of three cenopythagorean categories with
three trichotomies. These 10 classes are the most famous ones. However, in
correspondences to Lady Welb he had developed in detail the structure of
signs and enlarged trichotomies to 10. These 10 trichotomies combined to the
three cenopythagorean categories make possible 66 unlike classes of signs. It
is precisely this combination of ten trichotomies with three cenopythagorean
categories that will be presented here in a visual model. Next, I will explain
the logic of the relations that guide sign theory since it was the ground to
constructing the diagrams.

First, I will introduce the categories of phenomenology- a classification that

is related to sign ground. Peirce in the beginning of his research worked
on observing all phenomenal types trying to find the most general and
fundamental categories of phaneron.

“Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and
without reference to anything else.

Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to
a second but regardless of any third.

Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a

second and third into relation to each other.

I call these three ideas the cenopythagorean categories. (CP 8.328)”

Figure 1

Firstness

Secondness

Thirdness

A relation of dependence is established between the three categories as

follows: firstness is independent of anything, secondness depends on firstness,
and thirdness depends on secondness and firstness.

The construction of the diagram was based on the growing of trees that are
in many aspects associated to sign process. The concept of triad is related to
bifurcation of branches and their growing subjected to the action of time. It
is necessary to pass from one trichotomy to the other. All relations between
them are determining relations, so the antecedent must act on the subsequent.
Antecedent is past, already determined, and subsequent is future, full of
possibility, still undetermined.
Figure 2

So, the diagram construction begins by the idea of tree rings. They are used in
dendrocronology to count the age of trees. As years go by rings grow in trees,
but they are also affected by climate factors. More than sign of time, tree rings
show interaction between systems. All these concepts are welcome in semiotic
process. Each ring corresponds to one trichotomy: the first trichotomy comes
in the centre, the second trichotomy in the second ring and so on.

Since there is a determining relation among the rings, in order to start

constructing the diagram of 66 classes of signs a better understanding of the
order of the trichotomies was necessary. It was not easy to decide in which
order the trichotomies should appear, since this is one of the hardest problems
of Peirce’s semiotic scholars. According to QUEIROZ (2002, 87), there are
several different opinions among scholars because of the lack of development
on this subject by Peirce. He did not describe the 66 classes of signs, and
in his papers more than one order to the trichotomies, and reports of doubt
about how to order them are found.

Since there must be a reason to its ordering, initially it seemed logical that the
central ring could represent the ground of Sign because the semiosis process
begins in it. The construction like this would bring some advantages: first, it
would go perfectly in the same way Peirce described semiosis processes and
ordered the ten trichotomies in a letter to Lady Welby (CP 8.344); second, it
emphasizes sign in relation to object, showing that the knowing process begins
in sign.

However, the diagram constructed in this way did not go well with the analyses
Peirce made on the possible relations between ground of sign and immediate
object in the same letter(CP 8.353-365). This happened because in the
diagram the rings are ordered from the center to the border in a determining
relation.

Consequently, since the object determines the sign, and not the sign
Figure 3

��
��

�
� ��
��

��

� ��

��
� ��
�
�� ��

determines the object, it was necessary to put the dynamical object in the
central ring, followed by the immediate object and the ground of sign. Given
the first three correlates, comes the first relation: between sign and dynamical
object. This relation determines the possible interpretants, called immediate
interpretants that when are existent become dynamical interpretants. So,
the elements that compose the second relation are given: between sign and
dynamical interpretant. Moreover, considering that semiosis is an infinite
process, comes the place to where tends dynamical interpretant: the final
interpretant and its relation to sign. Finally, given all correlates and all dyadic
relations it is possible to consider the triadic relation among sign, dynamical
object and final interpretant.

Once defined the order of trichotomies we can combine it with the

cenopythagorean categories. The cenopythagorean categories- represented by
spheres, cubes and pyramids- should take a place in every ring, starting from
the central one and following the others according to the logic of categories.
So, if in the first ring there is a sphere, the next one must also be a sphere.
If in the first ring there is a cube, a sphere or a cube could take place in the
second ring. And if in the first ring there is a pyramid, a sphere, a cube or a
pyramid could take place in the following ring.
Figure 4
Consequently, the adoption of this trichotomic order stresses the way things
are in reality, and can be a problem if a superficial reader understands that
semiosis begins with a dynamical object. However, knowing that everything
we can tell about the object is what sign shows, human knowledge appears
in the middle of semiotic process and not in its beginning. So, putting the
object in the starting point is a good way of taking man out of the center of
knowledge. More than that, it does make us understand that the knowledge
process is wider than human knowledge and that man cannot acquire the
origin or the end of this process. Putting the object in the starting point is
also in agreement with Peirce’s belief: that there is in fact a reality that does
not depend on what we think of it, allowing us to call him an objective idealist.
It is also in accordance to the concept of semiotic enlargement that takes
the concept of intelligence far beyond human mind. In addition, the center
of the rings represents the backward movement of the object and its border
represents the infinite semiosis. Both create a temporal line similar to the one
seen in trees.
Figure 5
The process of constructing the 66 classes of signs shows that signs
themselves are complex structures that can increase when more details are
considered. However, the classes of signs considered on its own and as an
isolated system make semiotics too formal and seems an aimless work. Peirce
was aware of it and did not describe all classes of signs to be considered as an
isolated system. Naming signs do not solve semiotic problems but describing
them in detail makes it possible to understand Peirce’s philosophy. According
to Nadin (Apud SANTAELLA, 2004, p.15), “sign can only be conceived
and interpreted in the range of uncertain logic and with announcement of
continuum doctrine.” This diagram shows both points: in the center, the
incomplete knowledge of dynamic object represents the uncertain beginning.
And in the border, the growing of rings as time passes represents the growing
of thoughts. Interpreting a sign is a process that produces another sign with
the same capacity of being interpreted and creating signs, which brings
semiotics to infinity.

The 2D diagram was used as a guide to constructing the plan and side views,
which generated the 3d model. Both diagrams illustrate in detail the logical
structure of the 66 classes of signs as being a complex system and do not
treat each sign as it were individual and isolated. But it is only in the 3D model
that the relation between semiotics and Peirce’s philosophy comes into sight.
Akin to a tree, the theory of signs must be related to an environment and it
must have some purpose on the growing of its branches and roots.
Figure 6

Figure 7
Figure 8

Figure 9
 Figure 10

First of all let’s see how the roots are formed. As it is known, in semiosis the
dynamic object always goes back, it is never shown in its fullness. The sign can
represent it in many different ways, but always in parts, never completely. Since
it is impossible to reach the dynamic object, we say it retreats. This movement
of going back appears in the axle z in the negative direction. As it is located in
the center ring we can imagine that the back movement of the dynamic object
forms the trunk and roots of the tree.

Next, it is necessary to look at the external rings to see how the branches grow.
In the last three rings we can find the final interpretant, the relation between
sign and final interpretant and the relation between dynamic object, sign, and
final interpretant. As the final interpretant is not an existent but a course of
representation that the sign must follow, the end of this path is a place that
will never be reached. It is always in the future, in the infinite, and the aim of
semiosis. The other ring that represents the relation between sign and final
interpretant points to the description of semiosis process in its complete way:
the triadic relation among object, sign and interpretant.

As a result, we can notice two processes going on simultaneously. If on the one

hand the dynamical object retracts in direction to the ground forming trunk
and roots in a way which makes the object itself more complex and impossible
of being fully represented by the sign, on the other hand the triadic relation
of signs shows a mediation process- which can also be understood as a way
of thought- pointing to sign growth- which in the model is represented by the
branches.
Due to this, it is possible to presume that the retraction of the movement of
the dynamic object connects semiotics to metaphysics, and that the growing
of semiosis- given by the characteristics of being in the future of the final
interpretant- connects semiotics to pragmatism. Considering this hypothesis,
we will next look for traces on the central and external rings that relates
semiotics to metaphysic and pragmatism.

There are in the dynamic object ring, 55 signs of collections, 10 of occurrences

and 1 of possible. If the dynamic object is what determines the sign and
always appears mediated by it, than the dynamic object might be the reality.
The going back of this object looks like the aim of metaphysics: to discover the
reality that is behind the appearances. In addition, the signs of possible can
be related with chance; the signs of occurrences with existence; and the signs
of collections with law. Signs of collections are the greatest number of signs in
this ring and that points to the realistic thought of Peirce that generals are real
and that reality is full of laws.

In the external ring we come across exactly the opposing relation among the
classes of signs as the majority of the signs are of firstness and just one of
thirdness. As this ring represents triadic relation, or the way of thought, it
is composed of 55 classes of signs that are instinctive thought, 10 that are
thought of experience and 1 that is formal thought. This exclusive class of
sign that represents formal thought can be related with the aim of Peirce’s
pragmatism, the concrete reasonableness. By this he means that the purpose
of thought doesn’t lie on an action, but on the development of an idea2 and
that it is through reason that we can reach this aim.

Finally, I hope you could see- in the explanation of this 3D model- in which
ways semiotics and the other disciplines of Peirce’s philosophy are connected
and how further analyzes will help on detailing this relation. Although the
model was constructed to make clear the sign theory, its analysis shows that
it is through semiotics that Peirce’s philosophy is structured. Comparing it to
a tree seems a good way to consider Peirce’s philosophy as a system and not
as an isolated discipline. At last, I could sum up saying that first: semiotics is
the structure of the SignTree; second: its relation to metaphysics is made by
the growing of roots that represent the increase of complexity on reality; and
third: its connection with pragmatism is made by the growing of branches that
represent the development of thought.
Notes
1
“Come on, my Reader, and let us construct a diagram to illustrate the general course of
thought; I mean a System of diagrammatization by means of which any course of thought can
be represented with exactitude.

“But why do that, when the thought itself is present to us?” Such, substantially, has been the
interrogative objection raised by more than one or two superior intelligences, among whom I
single out an eminent and glorious General.

Recluse that I am, I was not ready with the counter-question, which should have run, “General,
you make use of maps during a campaign, I believe. But why should you do so, when the
country they represent is right there?” Thereupon, had he replied that he found details in
the maps that were so far from being “right there,” that they were within the enemy’s lines,
I ought to have pressed the question, “Am I right, then, in understanding that, if you were
thoroughly and perfectly familiar with the country, as, for example, if it lay just about the
scenes of your childhood, no map of it would then be of the smallest use to you in laying out
your detailed plans?” To that he could only have rejoined, “No, I do not say that, since I might
probably desire the maps to stick pins into, so as to mark each anticipated day’s change in the
situations of the two armies.” To that again, my sur-rejoinder should have been, “Well, General,
that precisely corresponds to the advantages of a diagram of the course of a discussion.
Indeed, just there, where you have so clearly pointed it out, lies the advantage of diagrams in
general. Namely, if I may try to state the matter after you, one can make exact experiments
upon uniform diagrams; and when one does so, one must keep a bright lookout for unintended
and unexpected changes thereby brought about in the relations of different significant parts of
the diagram to one another. (CP 4.530)”
2
“Now man cannot believe that creation has not some ideal purpose. If so, it is not mere
action, but the development of an idea which is the purpose of thought; and so a doubt is cast
upon the ultra pragmatic notion that action is the sole end and purpose of thought. (CP 8.
212)”

References

ABBAGNANO, Nicola. (1998). Dicionário de Filosofia. Trad. Alfredo Bosi. 2aed.

São Paulo: Martins Fontes.

IBRI, Ivo Assad. (1992). Kósmos Noetos: a arquitetura metafísica de Charles S.

Peirce. São Paulo: Perspectiva.

HARDWICK Charles S. (ed.). (1977). Semiotic and significs. The correspondence

between Charles S. Peirce and Lady Victoria Welby. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.

HOUSER, Nathan. (1991). “A Peircean classification of models,” in ANDERSON,

Myrdene; MERRELL, Floyd (ed.). On semiotic modeling. Berlin; New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.

HILPINEN Risto. (2005). “On Peirce’s philosophical logic: propositions and

their objects,” in Transactions of the Charles S.Peirce Society 28: 467-488.
KETNER, Kenneth Laine (ed.). (1992). Reasoning and the logic of things. The
Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.

MÜLLER, Ralf. (Winter, 1994). “On the principles of construction and the order
of Peirce’s Trichotomies of signs,” in: Transactions of the Charles S.Peirce Society
XXX: nº. 1, p. 135-153.

NÖTH, Winfried. (1995). Panorama da semiótica: de Platão a Peirce. São Paulo:

Annablume.

_____, (1996). A semiótica no século XX. São Paulo: Annablume.

PEIRCE, C.S. (1931-58). Collected Papers, C. Hartshome, P. Weiss e A. Burks

(eds.). 8 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

_____, (1999). Semiótica. 3. ed. São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva.

QUEIROZ, Alvaro João M. de. (2002). Modelos das relações sígnicas na

semiose segundo C.S.Peirce: evidências empírico-teóricas. São Paulo. 199f.
Tese (Doutorado em Comunicação e Semiótica) – Curso de Comunicação e
Semiótica, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo.

SANDERS, Gary. (1970). “Peirce’s Sixty-six Signs?.” in Transations of the

S.C.Peirce Society nº I, vol VI, p. 3-16.

SANTAELLA, Lucia. (1983). O que é semiótica. São Paulo: Brasiliense, .

_____, (1992). A assinatura das coisas. Peirce e a literatura. Coleção Pierre

Menard. Rio de Janeiro: Imago.

_____, (2000a). Teoria Geral dos Signos. Como as linguagens significam as

coisas. 2 ed. São Paulo: Pioneira.

_____, (2000 b). “Chaves do pragmatismo peirceano nas ciências normativas,”

in Cognitio v. 1, n.1: 94-101 .

_____, (2001). Matrizes da linguagem e do pensamento: sonora, visual, verbal.

São Paulo: Editora Iluminuras.

_____, (2004). O Método anticartesiano de C.S. Peirce. São Paulo: ed. UNESP.

_____, (2004). “O papel da mudança de hábito no pragmatismo evolucionista

de Peirce,” in Cognitio v.5, n.1: 75-83, jan/jun.

_____, (2005). “O admirável estético e ético como ideal supremo da vida

humana,” in SILVA, Jorge Antonio e. (Org.) Encontros Estéticos. Coletânea de
textos. São Paulo: Conjunto Cultural da Caixa, janeiro a junho, p. 117-132.
Caixa Economica Federal.
SAVAN, David. (1952). “On the origins of Peirce’s phenomenology,” in:
WIENER, P. & YOUNG.F. (Eds.). Studies in the phiosophy of Peirce. Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard University Press.

SHORT, Thomas. (1981). “Peirce’s concept of final causation,” in Transations of

the S.C.Peirce Society nº 4, vol XVII, p. 369-382.

_____, (1996). “Interpreting Peirce’s Interpretant: A response to Lalor, Liszka,

and Meyers,” in Transations of the S.C.Peirce Society nº 4, vol XXXII, p. 488-541.

_____, (Oct 2004). “The Development of Peirce’s Theory of Signs,” in Texts of II

Advanced Seminar on Peirce’s Philosophy and Semiotics, COS/PUC, São Paulo.