On the semiotic concept of ground
On the semiotic concept of ground

Summary/Abstract: In Peircean terminology the ground of the sign has something to do with the way that sign’s representamen relates to its object. So called arbitrary signs lack ground in that there is no motivated relation between the sign vehicle and what it represents or refers to, but then are all symbols groundless? Are signs that totally lack ground actually signs? Should the ground of the sign be described in terms of the features of the representamen or those of the object, or both? How do we preserve the necessary pre-conceptuality of ground while still being able to classifyits core features? Answering these questions requires a comparison of semiotic definitions of ground with definitions of ground from other fi elds, such as Aristotelian metaphysics. The central dilemma of arguing for the explanatory value of ground is that its definition remains heterogeneous, its application ambiguous. Semioticians have failed to see that this heterogeneity is an inevitable aspect of ground. The singularity that would give ground a static defi nition and concrete application would involve types of sign which themselves have no ground. This paradoxicality of the use and application of ground is ironically best explained not by the semiotician, but by the logician, whose traditional interest has little to do with ground.

• Details
• Contents