MusicalSemiotics

in Growth
Edired by
EeroTarasti
AssistantEditors
Paul Forsell
RichardLittlefield

IndianaUniversityPress
InternationalSemioticsInstitute
lmatra o Bloomington 1996

ACTA SEMIOTICAFENNICA
IV
Editor
Eero Tarasti
AssistantEditor.s
P aul Forsell
RichardLittlefield

Editorial Board
HonoraryMembers:
Juri Lotrnan t
ThomasA. Sebeok
Pertti Ahonen
HenryBroms
Ja c q u e sF on tan ille
An d r 6 Helb o
Ma r j a - LiisaHo n ka salo
Altti Kuusarno
I l k k a N i i nilu o to

OscarParland
P ekkaP eso n e n
V eikko Ran t a la
HattnuRiikon e n
K ari S alosaa ri
SinikkaTuohimaa
V ilmos V oie t

IndianaUniversityPress
InternationalSemioticsInstitute
Imatra . Bloominflton

Contents

rOCopyright 1996 by 'l'he InternationalSemioticsInstitute& Contributors

Forewordsby Eero Tarasti

xi

All rights reserved

No pad oIthis book may be reproducedor utilized in any {irrm or by any means,
clectronicor mechanical,including photocopyingand recording,or hy any
inlbrnrationstorageand retrievalsystem.without permissionin writing from the
puhlishcr.'fhc Associationo1'AmericanlJniversity Presscs'Resolutionon
Permissionscorrstitutesthe or,ly exceplionto this prohibition.

Printedby Gummerus Printing. .lyviiskylii,Finland. 1996

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

tusicalscmioticsin growth / edited by liero -larasti ; assistanteditors.Paul f;t'rrsell
chard I-ittlefield.
p. cnr. - (Acta semioticaFennica,ISSN 1235-497X: 4)
Includesbibl iographicalreferences.
ISBN 0-253-32949-3(alk. paper).- ISIIN 0-253-21009-7(pbk. ; alk. paper)
l. Music-Semiotics. 2. Music-Philosophy anclaesthetics.3. Musical analysis.
'l'arasti.
I..ero.IL Forsell,Paul. IIL Littlcfield. Richard.IV. Series.

L384_5.M9755
1996
|'. I dc20
1345 01 00 99 e8 97 96

96-21230
MN

Philosophical approaches
Eero Tarasti
Music historyrevisited(by a semiotician)
RaymondMonelle
The postmodernproject in musictheory

3t

CynthiaM. Grund
JeremyBentham'stheoryof fictions:somereflections
on its implicationsfor musicalsemiosisand ontology

5l

Danuta Mirka
Somesemioticproblemsof KrzysztofPenderecki's
sonoristicstyle .

13

Maciei Jabtoiski
Valuesand their cognitlonin the semiotictheoryof
CharlesS. Peirce

83

JosdLuiz Martinez,
Musical semiosisand the rasa theory

99

vi

Content,\

Corttenls

Principlesand conceptsof musicanalysis

Affitnso Padilla
Ve rs u n e c onc c pt ionplu ra l i s ted e l ' a n a l y s emu s i c a l e

129

Michele lgnelz,i and Paolo Ro.sato

Se n ri o ticpr oc es s esin m u s i c : S y s te m i c sa n d n ro d e l i z ati on
in p a ra digm at icanaly si s

......

Mdrta Grubdcz.
Senriotical
terminologyin musicalanalysis

I5r

Ru.t'mond
Monella
Whatisamusicaltext'/.

163

195

Rtlthni;lBrtrnner
Mod6lisation
ostensive-inf6rentielle
de I'cuvre musicale
modernc:la r6sistance
au langageet au texte

...

Marta Grabocz.
dans
Imaginationstructurelle
Survieori renouveau?
r6cente
6lectroacoustique
la cr6aticln

. . . 295

FrancescoGiomi and Marco Ligabue

A semioticapproachto computerassistedcomposition. . . . . . 321

Interrelationships of arts
. . 2lg

..245

Semiotics as '(social psychology"

Jean-Marie.lacono
sociologiques
pour une s6miotique
Qucllesperspectives
delamusique'l...
.....263
O. Danilovaand Ye. Pokorskaya
A nrodelof developnrent
of the socio-cultural
sphere

.lurmiIaDoubravova
Analysisand fantasyfronr the viewpointof the interpersonal
An attemptat analysis. . . . . 28-5
of tnusicalsemantics:
hypothesis

and computers
Electro-acoustics

Thomas NolL

Musicasasubjectofsernioticanalysis

vii

. . 27j

Michael Spitz.er
in ProustandBeethoven' . . . 329
Narrativesof self-consciousness
Ennio Simeon
conceptsas appliedto theanalysisof
SomeGreimasian
filmrnusic
"""
SarahMenin
Spatialsoundings:Aalto andSibelius

34'7

- - 357

viii

lx

Conlents

Contents

Vocalmusic
Instrumentalmusic
WillemMarie Speelman
'[he analysis
of a holy song
DinduL. Gorlee
Operatranslation:CharlesPeircctranslatingRichard
Wagner

389

...407

IsabelleServant
du tempsmusical' '
Un essaid'6tuileanthropologique

431

na i ssa n c ede I ' op6r a en Ita l i e

Patrick Farfantoli
La lecturedu sensdansles cuvres polys6miotiques . . . . .

ChristineEsclaPez
temporelle 53'7
un casde l'expression
Les ouatuorsde Beethoven.

567

St,ellanaBauer
Moclalitiesandintonationinmusicana|ysis:Someclbservatttlns
585
on the FourthSymphonyof Alfred Schnittke

451

AnneliRemme
Musicalsignsin DeathinVenicehy BenjaminBritten . . . - . - 4'73

AnneSivnoia-Gunaratnam
nrultiserialsymphony'
AnalyzingArabescata.Rautavaara's
A semioticinterplaybetweenthe title andthemusical
structure

(lrve [.i1tpus

Inga .lankauskiene
l'he role of text in meaning formation

5Zl

"

Ester SheinberR
elementsin the String
Signs.symbols,anclexpressive
Quartetsof Dmitri Shostakovitch

FubienneDesquilbe
de la narrationaux originesde I'opera:
Lestechniques
narrativesdans/'Orfeo de Claudio
isotopieset strat6gies
de la
interdisciplinaire
Proietd'uneapproche
Monteverdi.

and syrnholsin Tormis'smusic:

Structures
An introductionto the EstonianBallads .

"

483

' . 499

'

633

Valuesand their cognitionin the

semiotictheoryof CharlesS. Peirce

M,qctntJtn ro Nsxt

Pre l i m inar y r em ar ks
Cornplying with the useful postulateof cohesionbetweenthe title of the
paper ancl its content, I wish to make some snrall supplenrentations
in
ref'erenceto this text. My objective is to show the possibilities of
carrying out such an interpretationot'some threadsin Peirce's theory of
si g n s t hat will r ev e a l th e a e s th e ti c i n v o l v e m e nt o{ ' sorne semi oti c
ca te g or iesc ons t it ut i n gth e s te n t o f th i s th e o ry . T h e i nqui ry ori entedi n
this way. hasedon the hypothesisol'the aesthetico-semiotic
function o{'
the interpretant category, will refer to the comparative material
co n si s t ingof s olut io n s a rri v e d a t b y J o h n D e w e y (1934, 1935) i n hi s
work dealingwith axiological matters. At the sametinre, thesesolutions
p re se n t at s ev er al p o i l l ts a n i n te re s ti n g e x a n r pl e of the " general
philosophic convergence" that can be shown in reference to two
philosophic systemsthat fundamentallydiffer in their assumptions.
Peirce's avoidance of direct refbrence to the category of "values"
makes it difficult to recognize the areasof his semiotic reflections that
"suggest" the problenr of values. However, when we analyz,e
p e n e tr at inglyt he gr o u p o f q u e s ti o n sa s s o c i a te dw i th the phi l osophi c
prcmise flndamental for the pragmatists and articulated as the thesis
a b o u t t he unit y of co g n i ti o n (" th o u g h t" ) a n d a c ti on, parti cul arl y the
practically-involved action, we fincl in consequencesome threads
re ve a l ingt he ax iolog i c a ld i me n s i o no f th e P e i rc e 'sphi l osophi csystem.
The statement about the axiological involvement of the philosophic
thought of pragmatistsdoes not seem to be very revealing, if we take
into considerationthat alnrostall protagonistsof this onentation refer to

Maciej .lalt*tri,ski

t hc co n n c c t ions ol' t heir v i e w s w i th th e p ro b l c m s tl f " val ues" or

t lrcmscl vc sc r c at eds ot ne i n te re s l i n gc rl n c e p ti o n so l ' th i s fi el d

Pra g n ra ti st s ' t t ov um
'fhe esscnceof the phtlosclphictrtlvunl of the pragmatistslies certainly in
of lhc as s u n rp ti o na b ttu t th e h a s i c ro l e of the sphereof
t hc 1 'o rrn ulat ion
act i o u i r.rh u nt an lif c . lt ou ts tri p s a l l o th e r a c ti v i ti e s ,a nclfurthermorei t
c onsti tu tcs t he f oundat i ttn o f th i s a c ti v i ty . l ' h e d i scardi ng of the
t lacl i ti o n al c lic lt ot ont y " a c ti o n /c o g n i ti o n " re s o l v e s i t scl f i nt< l several
c onscq l cl rc es on lhe ep i s te n ro l o g i c a l ,o ttto l o g i c a l , and fi nal l y the
ax iol o g i ca l planes . ' f he re d u c ti o n i s m c h a ra c te ri s ti c of tl ti s type of
r ef le cti o n is lev ealc c lbas i c a l l y i n th e a b s o l u ti z a ti o nof the i dea of the
nolrtra ti vcc lt ar ac t ert lf c o g tti ti o n , i .e ., s u c l t th a t i t i s e ssenti alto turn to
t lrc "p ra cti c allyper c ept ib l cc o n s c q u e n c e s "a s b e i n g th e basi sof al l rul es
' l ' h i s th e s i s . a s w c k n o w . w as outl i ncd tor the
arrdcl i re ctiv esof ac t ion.
f ir st ti n re by t he c r c at or 0 f p ra g ma ti s n t, C h a rl e s Pe i rcc. It has al so a
r lircct ctl n nec t ignwit h |i s " p ra g ma ti c rn a x i n r" . A c cordi ng to P ei rce,
f rorn tl tc c onc c pt ol' lhe u n i ty o l ' c o g n i ti tl l l a ttc la c ti o n i t fbl l cl w sthat the
clescriptionof a plrenotnlenonis important only when it is the basis for
dc t e rrn i n ingt he c lir ec t ivc so f a c ti o n . F ' u rth e rmo re ,th e functi tl n of the
pr a g n ra ti c r nax im is c om h i n e d , o n th e b a s i s o f Pe i rce' s phi l osophi c
s yste n t.w it h t he leac lingp re m i s e o f th i s s y s te m a h o u t the medi ati onof
sign s i n a ll c ognit iv e ac ts . In tl ri s w a y , th i s p ri n c i p l e beconl esat the
sarn cti rn c a ult iv er s alr ule c l e fi n i rrgth c me a n i n g o f s i g n s (: " thoughts" ,
sincecach thotrghtis a sigrr)and this deternrinationis done in thc process
ol co g n i ti vc s ent as iologi c ailn te rp re ta ti o n(t{ i l l I9 3 0 ).
Sp ca k ingabout " pr ac ti c a l c o n s e q u e n c e su" n d e rs t tl odas a parti cul ar
t yp e o f me anil. lg.P eir c elra s i n n ti n c la g e n e ra l ,u n i v e rsaldi recti vetl rat i s
f l'cc o f a n y r c f ' er c nc c st o p a rti c u l a r s i tu a ti o n s .T h e s e l ri oti co-ctl gni ti ve
lir trcti o n o l' t lr e pr agm a ti c l rra x i l n i s d c l -i n e d a l s o b y i ts rol e i n tl rc
solu ti o n rtf ot t c ol' t lt c r na i ttp rtl l l l e n rso f P e i rc e ' s s e n l i oti cs,namel y, the
by anothel si gn,
rcg re ssa d inf ir t it untof t h c rc l a ti tl ntl f s i g n i ttte rp re ta tion
"
e
arl
i estbegi nni ngs"
wh i ch p re c luc lesnnc quivo c l l d e te rmi n a ti o no f th e
ol- t he rc l a ti o n a l s c q u e n c c .In th i s understandi ng,the
or fi rst a n c ht t r e. gc

Vahre,s
and tlreir t'ognitionin tlrc ,semiotictheorvof C.S.Peirce

8-5

defi ni tely int cr pr et edsign r equir cst he exist enceof an int er pr e{ingsr gn
that can be "t r anslat ecl"int o a r ule of act ion. and t his in t ur n woulcl
consti tu t e in t hc f inal r esult t he pr opcr m eaning of t he sign. 'I 'hc
i ndi cati o n of an object ively inr por t antm eaning,which ir . rconscquence
san he tr anslat edint o a r ule or a sct of r ules o{'a pr act ical char act er ,
causcs t he int r oduct ion of a clef inr t eclem ent int o lhe int er pr et at lvc
sequenc c.'l'hepr agm at icpr inciple is t her ef ilr eable t o scr vc lhe f unct ion
o1' a nret apr inciplead. just ingt lr e int cr pr et at iveact ivit y and t o dcf ine t hc
w ay of uncler st anding
t hc m eaningsof t he sr gnsincludeclin t he r angeof
al l ki ncl sof senr iot icpr ocesses.

" Interpr et at ion" and cognit ion

Irronr the gnoseologicalpoint of view, t he m ost signif icant f or t he
phi l osop hicsyst enrof Pcir ceis t he cat egor yof "int er pr et at ior . r ". 'f hcact
of i ntcrp r et at ionis an act of cognit ion. always scient if r callym ediat ed.
and i n it s ef f ect , t he m eaning of t he sign, i. c. . t he int er pr et ant ,is
consti tu t ecl.I n or der t o avoid t he object ionof solipsisnr ,wit h r egar dt o
the i cl eal spher e wher c t he act s o1' t he sem asiologicalint cr pr ct at ion
creati ng signs "ar e r ealized". Peir ce int r oducesa spher c t 'r f r calit y
accessibleto subjectivecxperieuce. The diff'erencebetwecn both spheres
is bascclprimarily on the fact that the nreaningsof signs sr.rbjected
to
interpretation and created in the second sphere have the status of
m eanings( signs) .This has a signif icantim por t ancet or our
degenerat ed
further considerations,since the degeneratedinterpretants,anrongotllers
clueto their referenceto the sphereof experiencesanclcmotions. can be
defi ncd as axiological ( aest het ical)cat egor ics.i. e. . as values wit h a
psyclrologicalsense. The role of experienceas the sourcc of cognition is
strongly accentuatedmore than usual by the creator of pragmatism,
whcreas. as mentioned before, it can be an experiencervhoseresult is
evoked in the sub.iecthy an crnotional state (e.g., thc perccption of a
rnusi calwor k) . O f cour se, it is one of m any possibleint er pr et at ionsof
the corn plex pr ohlem of t he nat ur e of t he inler pr ct ant . llowever , a
nLmber o f r enr ar ksm aclcin t his r egar dby Pcir cchinr sclf ,pr inr ar ily t he

86

Maciei .labhtri.ski

rcferencet<lthe "experience" of a ntusicalwork..iustifies the proposal of

t he a b o vc lhes is .
-l 'h e s enr as iologic a lfi rn c ti o n o f th e i n te rp re tati ve act gai ns i n
c xp rcssi v c nes spar t ic ula rl y w h e n w c re a l i z c i ts p l a c e and rol e i n the
"s yn cch i s t ic ally "undc r sto o dp ro c e s so f c o g tti ti o n (M urphy 1967: 76)
Acco rd i ng t o P eir c e, t he p a rti c u l a r a c ts o f c o g n i ti o n ( i nterpretati on)are
rro t sp ccil' ic " at om s " , i s o l a te d a n c l p a rti a l m o n l e n ts of the cogni ti ve
pr o ccss, hut being intc rc l c p e n d e n tth e y c re a te o ne conti nuous attd
ins e p a rables equenc e.T l tc re fo rc , e a c h o f th c s e a c ts shoul clbe anal yzcd
no t o n l y o n wit h r c s pec ttt' l i { s o w n fe a tu re s .b ttt i tl so i n a conl parati vc
wa y i n relc r enc et o t he ty p e o 1 ' re l a ti o nc o n n e c ti n gi t w i th thc precedi ng
or th e tir llowing ac t . In th i s c c l n n e c ti o n , th e act of cogni ti ve
inte rp re ta t iongains a pa rti c u l a r v a l u e c o n s ti tu te db y t he force of havi ng
lirlfilled thc function <tf a relevant parttal rnolnent tlf this process.due trl
lhe p re ser v at ion o1' t he " s y n e c h i s ti c i ty " o f th e c ogni ti ve process. I
propose to define this situation as an axio-functionol one.
'l 'h e ac t of int er p re ta ti o n . h o w e v e r, b e i n g i tsel f axi ol ogi cal l y
c h a ra cter iz ed,is in t he fi rs t p l a c e a s e n ri o ti ca c t, i .e., such an act that
ainrs to deternrinc the meaning of the sign that is the obiect of
inte rp re tat ion. ' [ ' her ef orc , th e fu l fi l l m e n t o f th e a ct of i nterpretati on
de p e n d spr ir lar ily on t he re a l i z a ti o tto f th e s ta te da i rn . A t thc sameti nre.
as i n cl i caledear lier . t he a c t c a tr b c re fc rre d b o th to the sphereof i deal
s igr ts . a n d c a rr a l s o b e e n g a g ecli n thc sphere of
r. n e a n i n gsgenuinc
,
l e l a tiv i z a ti o n).
cleg cn e rat c rdr eanir t gs( s u b .j e c ti v e
'l -h e inler pr et ant p l a y s a p a rti c u l a r" l y i mp o rtant rol e i n the
of par t ial m o me n tso f th e tri a d i c re l a ti o n, i .e.. taki ng pl ace
c leg cn e r at ion
on th re e p lanes- of t he s i g n u ttd e rs to o di d e a l l y a s a tri adi c uni ty of the
transf'erring rnedium. the object of ref'erence, and the meanitrg.
Acco rcl i n g t o m any ir r v e s ti g a to rs(G re e n l e e 1 9 7 3 ; B uczyri ska 1981;
Z e ma n l 9 8S ) . a pr c c is e d e fi n i tl o n o f tl ri s c a te g o ry ( i nterpretant)l s the
mo st d l l ' f ioult one be c a u s e c l f th e u n u s u a l l y u n cl ear and obscure
st a tcn te n tm
s ac leby t he cre a to r o { ' p ra g m a ti s mh i n l s el f. C haracteri sti cof
i
e
n
cl
enc
yt o ex t end th c me a n i n g - ra n g e s9 f n o ti o n s i s one of P ei rce' s
the
c l e fi n i ti onsof t he int er p re ta n tc i l te g o ry : " T a k i n g th e si gn i n i ts w i dest
s e n se .i ts int c r pr et at r lis n o t n e c c s s a ri l ya s i g n . . . B ut w e can take a
si g n i n su c h a widc s en s etl ra t i ts i n te rp rc ta n tw i l l b e not a' thottght' bttt

Val.ue
,sond their cognitionin the serniotictheoruo/'C.,\.peirce

an ' action' or 'exper ience',or we can ext endt he not ion of a sign t o suc
an extent t hat it s int er pr et ant will be only a qualit y of f eeling
(B uczy r iskal98l : 132) .
It follows f}om the ahove quotation that peirce adnrits in principl
three possihletypes of sign-interpretants;they are: consciousexperienc
understood as a type of passive perception (emotional interprerant)
acti ve a ct ion ( ener get icint er pr et ant ) ,anclf inally anot her sign ( logica
interpretant,called also the intellectualinterpretant).
The interpretationthat discoversthe logical interpretantof the sig
refers only t o t he spher e of signs. The em ot ional and ener fet ir
lnterpretants are etl'ects evoked by the sign "in sonrebocly" whr
percei vesand int er pr et st hese signs; at t he sam e t im e, it is a t ype <t
interpretation completely different from that which decides about th
fbrm of t he t r anslat ionwit hin t he r elat ioninsidet he univer sumof sr gns
These interpretantsare thereby the external results nf the existencecr
sign, while the interpretative act is done by referenceto the external
extra-signr ealit y of t he wor ld of signs.
The theory <lf interpretant,or rather of many interprctants,shows
mul ti -aspect ualm eaning, and at t he sam e t im e t he possibr lit y of ir
many-sidedanalysis.I n each pr ocessof t hinking ( act ing) ,includingt h,
processof the cognition of value (value fact), there coexist and overlal
al l i nterpr et ant sof a sign. This coexist enceis connect eclwit h t he {ac
that each sign, being t he object of a def init e em pir ical "per cept ion
(meani n gis an ent pir icalnr eaningsince. as just ly not iceclby
euine. t h
i cl i om " to have a pr act icalr neaning"shouldbe int er pr et eclaccor clingt r
the prag m at ic pr inciple as "t o be obser vable") ,and const it ut ingt h,
i mnedi a t e scnseof f he obser vedsign in t hc f br m ol one of t wo possibl
degeneratedinterpretants,contains at the same time the substituteof ;
" genera l" ideal sign ( Q uinc 1986: 153) . Accor ding t o t his concepr ion
our unde r st andingof t he par t icularand em pir ical sit uat ionappear sas ;
prel i mi n ar y st age, f ollowed as a r ule by an unr ealized act o1' t h,
generalizationof the content of a definite sign and abstractionfrom rt cl
the qual it y or qualit iest hat f unct ion hy f br ce of t he object ive"lar v" anr
that hav e clccidcdon t he cr eat ion of t his and not anot her t ype of sigr
si tua{ i on .FI ence.t he essent ialr nle of t he cat egor yof int er pr et ant whicl
,

88

Mocit'i .lttlslrtri,skr

Valuesond tlteir cognition itt lhe sentiotictheoryof C.S.peirt:e

g9

l i nki ttg thc

pern ti tsu n oov er ing< ll t hc c h a ra c tc ro f th e ty p e tl f c o l " l l locti on
e lem c lt t sol' t lt e o b i e c ti v es i g n .
fcf -e re n cc
S i n ce . as nr ent ione d b c fb re , th e n ro s t c s s e n ti al ai nl of the
i nt c rp rcta tiv e ac t in t lr e s e m i o ti c s e n s e i s th e c o n sti tttl i on of an
i nt c rp t'e ta n t( ir r t hc ic lea l tri a d , i t i s th e fi n a l i n te rpretant; i n the
clegencratcdlirrtus. thc clirect or indirect one), I proposc, accortling to
the cl i scu ss c dr c lat ion b e tw c e n th e a c t o f i n te rp r etati on and the

to have a specif ic,par t icularchar act er( 1970. 320) .I n t his f act , sim ilar ly
as i n many ot her places, lhe r ccl- r ct ionist ic"leit r not il"' of ir r agr nat ic
phi l .sophy is equally st r . ngly r evcaled,det er m iningt he valuc only ir r
categori es of occasional ut ilit y. The cancellat ionof dist inguishr ng
between value and fact reduccsin consequencethe former to the role oI
arr elentent of the world <tf expericnce; and by force of the rnain thesis
ahout the pr ir nacy ( also f r onr t he "axiological" point of view) of t hc

s y nech i sti clt alur c o1' c og n i ti o n , to i n trtl d u c e th c n tl ti on rl f a senl i tl ti c

ttxio-teleolttgrcal situatiott for the deterrnination of the connection
h ct we cn th c int c r pr et at iv ea c t a n c l th e i n te rp re ta n t.At thi s poi nt i t i s
o bv i o u s th a t . t h< t ught he " o c c u rre n c e " o f th e i n te rp re tati veact and the
" c : rca l i o n "o l' lhc int c lpr et a n ta rc i n a fe e d b a c kre l a ti tl n w i th each other
in t l re scn s e t hat t hc . int crp re ta ti o na c t c a n n o t b e fu l fi l l ecl w i thout the
consti tu l i o po1' t hei' inalc f l-c c to 1 ' tl ri sa c t. i .e ., tl te tn e a n ing(i nterpretant).
a nd th e n te aningc allt ol he " d i s c o v e re d " w i th tl u t th c p a rl i ci pati onof the

purposefulaction of man over all his other activities. it clecidesabour rrs

si tuati ona l r elat ivit y. This sit uat ior r f inds it s par t icular ly st r iking
substantiat ion
in John Dewey's concept sof inst r unr ent alvalue ( valueas

iut erp rcta tion.t lr er c is no d o u b t th a t th e p ri n l a ry fu n c tiotti n thi s system

r s pla ye d b y t he ac t ol' int e rp re ta ti o l l .
or the final
interpretant can assumethe clegenerated
Thc constitr.rtecl
as
a l ogi cal
d
e
fi
ned
i
t
i
s
s
e
c
o
n
d
c
a
s
e
th
e
l brrl . At tlr e s ant c { int e, i n
i nt e rp rcl a nt( t lr c int er pr et a n to f a s i g n i s a n o th e r s i g n ) i n di l ferenti ati on
front thc ()ther two rcmainilg interpretants discusscdabove (emotional
and cncrgetic irrterprctants)createdin the first case. FlOwcver,as tbllows
fr onr a n u nr bero1' r c m ar k sma d e b y th e a u th o r o f th e p ragmati crnaxi m,
therc cxi sts a c er t ain t y p c o f l i n k c o n n e c ti n g a l l three types of
i nt erp rcta nt ; s it t c c eac h o f th e n t " h a s " i n s o m e w a y i ts " i mmedi ate
clen te n t". ir lt hough in th i s rc s p e c t th e e mo ti 0 n a l i nterpretant 1s
p alti cu l a rl yc lis t r ngt r is hchcel i n g th e mo s t " d i re c tl y " g i ven i n conl pari sorr
l r r t h c l crrrair t it t got t c s .

the resul t of exper ience- act ior rin

) , c. I . Lewis's not ion of cognit ionas
val uati on ( cognit ior ris always r elat ivizeddue t o valueswhich ar e t o be
real i zed by act ion) , or t he axiologicallyand sem iot icallychar act er izccl
conceptof Char lesM or r is's "plef er encebehaviour s"( Buczyr lska197- 5) .
In thi s placc, one shor . r ldcer t ainly considerpeir ce's conceplion( ) f '
" truth" , whose axi<t logicalclint ensionwas r evealeclby inclicat ingt hc
tel col ogi co- r at ional
select ionsdict at ingor inspir ingt he behaviorof m an
i n l i fe. Th is under st andingr ef 'er sobviously t o t he pr agm at icpr inciple
which should be interpretedin terms of "confirming experience" (euine
I 986: I 5-5.)
The hypothcsisof the aesthetico-semiotic
function of the catcgory of
i nterpreta ntis bascd or r t he analysisof t he t hesis accor ciingt o which
aesthetics, in thc understanclingproposed by Peirce as one of thrcc
norrnati vesciences,has on t he O nehand t he st at usof a basic sciencein
ref' erencet o t he t wo r em ainingdom ains( logic and et hics) ;on t he ot hcr
hand. it is tbunded on the theory of "category" constitutingthe nucleus
of P ei rce's ont ology. Accur ding t o t he views of t lr e cr eat or ol
pragmati sm aest
,
het icsis defined as a scienceaboutphenom ena,olt ject s
i n thei r "dir ect pr esence", exist ence, ancl expr essed in senr iot ic
tcrmi nol o gy as signs "as such". as signs "in t hem selves".Fr or n lhe

A xiol o g i cal c lues t o P eirc e a n p ra g m a ti s m

poi nt of view of ont ological classif icat ion,Peir ce assigns t o t hesc

"objects" the category of frirstncss.And it is essentialthat the author of

'[ hc ch a ra c t er iz at ionof t l te a x i o l o g i c a l th re a d s o f Pe i rce' s pragntati sm

shou l clh e c ar r ied out olt t h c b a s i s o f th c i r c tl trn e c ti o nw i th the evrdentl y
r ait s of ' t h rs p h i l o s o p h y .Si n c c i n c s s c n ce,as strcssedby
ant h rrtp o cet r t rtic
I luczyri ska .on t hc gr ound o f p ra g n ta ti s ttt.tl tc c a te g o r y< l f val ue proves

the pragrnaticmaxim connectswith this categorythe notion of "feeling"

defi ned as a pr e- r ef lexive, t im eless qualit y "given dir ect ly" in t hc
cogni ti ve act . A separ at e and cer t ainly dif f icult pr oblcm is t he
j usti fi cati on of any "speaking" about Fir st ness ( int er f 'er enccof

90

Mtu'iei ,lrrl'tfttri,skr

reflection). since at the moment when we realiz.e the fact that

" s om e l h i n g " is " f ir s t " , t h a t " s o m e th i n g " c e a s e s b e i ng " fi rst" and
l ' rec o rn e"se
s c ond" . i. e. . " s o u re th i n g "th a t h a s c tl tttei n ttl exi stencei n the
p11rstrudimentary lirrnt itt ()Llr cttt.tsciousness.While Secondness
'l'hirdness
introchrccslhe elcntento1'"cliscretencss"to our cclnsciousncss.
r et - e rs to relat ions c har a c tc ri s ti c o f e v e trts , p h e n tt mena, tl h.j ccts.
There fi rre , T hir c lnc s s is a c a te g o ry o f " l a w " , " re l a t i vi ty" , " rul e" .
Ref'erringhere to tltc earlicr mentioned exatnplc (adducedby Peirce) of
a mus i ca lwor k , we c an s t a teth a t i n a d i re c t, p re -re fl e c ti onalpercepti on
it appe a rsa s a c at egor yof [;i rs tn e s s .T h e n , a fte r a d e fi ni te exi stenceof
w hi l e
l " t inr e a trd s p a c e " . i t i s s e e na s S e condness;
the pa rti cu l a rs out t cin
it is a
el
ements
in t he fro rn o f an ident if iab l cs tru c trl reo f m o rp h tl l o g i c a l
c at ego ryo f the T hir dnes s .
Th i s rcl 'er enc et o t he t hc o rv o f " c a te g o ry " , a l th o u g hcarri ed out i n a
r a t hcr su p e rf ic ialand abbr c v i a te dfi l rm, fa c i l i ta te sa n d i n some degree
" sof te n s" o u r pas s ing int o th c s p h e re o f c o n n e c ti o trsb e tw eetrP ei rce' s
conceptionof aesthcticsand his theory of signs. Defining the interpretant
as t h c: "p ro per c f l' c c t of t h c n te a n i n g " ttf tl tc s i g n . Pci rce madc tw o
s igni fi ca rrttr iac lic c liv is iottso f th c c a te g o ry o f n te a ni ng. devcl opi ng
p ar t i cu l a rl ythe analy s isof o n c o f th e m , n a m e l y . th c l o g i cal i nterpretant.
Acco rcl i n gto t he c las s if ic a ti o nb a s c d o n th e o n to l o g i c alcategori es.the
i n t er p re ta n tis dc f ined as t h e c a te g o ry o f T h i rd n e s s . At the same ti me,
w e ob ta i n th r ee t y pes of in te rp re ta n ts :th e d i re c t, th e d ynami c, and the
. m ean so f th e s c c o n d o f th e p ro p oseddi vi si ons l -inali n te rp r - et antRy
c rnoti o u a l ,cner get ic . and l o g i c a l i n te rp re ta ttl s r- a l rd i ts usabi l i ty for
lur t h e r co n s ider at ions ,I sh a l l fi rc u s my a tte n ti o n o n the di rect and
dyuau ri ei n tc lpr c t ur lt s .
The first of the above-tnentiotredtypes of interpretant refers to the
s ign "i tscl f" ( r nediur nof tra n s fe r i n th e tc rm i n o l o g y of B ense)and i s
clelined as the ". . effect evoked by the sigtt without carrying out any
r ef le cti o n on il" ( B ens e 1 9 8 0 : 4 3 ). T h e s c c o n d ty p e, the dynamrc
int erp re ta n t ,is " t hc r eal c l ' f' e c tth a t th e g i v e n s i g tl c x erts" (B ttczynska
t c tu a l l ye x c rtedby thc si gtt
197-5 :1 3 3 ). I t c ons is t sir r t h c " d i re c t c f' f' e c fa
orl its i n te r pr c t c r " ( ihid .). U ti l i z i rrg a g a i n th e cl assi fi cati on of
int erp rcl a n ts on t he bas i s o f tl n to l o g i c a l " c a te g o ri cs" , w e fi l rd rn
rct'erencet<lthe sccol'rdof the above-tnentionecltriadic divisions that the

Vttlrtc,s
and their cognitionin the semiotictheoryctf C.S.pcirce

gl

emotional interpretantunderstood as "the prinrary semanticcffect of a

si gn" , i .e., "f eeling", is t he cr t r r esponclent
of Fir st ness.So, on t he one
hand. Firstnessis the direct interpretantsemioticallyclefiningthe modus
ol -the exi st enceof t hese "qualit ies" given pr e- r ef lexively;on t he ot her
hand. i t i s t he em ot ional int er pr et ant r ef er r ing t o t he cat egor y of
" feel i ng" . ln t ur n. t he ener get ic int cr pr et ant is connect edwit h t he
category of Secondness;it is a kt nd of "super st r uct ur e"over t he
emoti onali nt er pr et ant and
,
const it ut esit s supplenr ent at ion,
wlr ich is t he
re:rl eff'ectof a sign - the observable"action" of the sign on the suhject
who perceivesthat sign. According to Peirce,the reactionsof the subject
can have the characterof definitepsychical statesevoked by the sign (by
the emol i on alint er pr et antof t he sign) or physiologicalr eact ions.
A nal yzing closely and penet r at ingly t he cat egor y of logical
i nterpretan t . Peir cc m akes a num ber of signif icant r em ar ks, which
w i thout aff'ect ingt he ar chit ect onicso1't he his sem iot ic syst em can be
extrapolated into the area of reflection on the remaining types of
i nterpretan t s.Alt hough f r onr t he point of view of t he hier ar chy of
nornrativesciences,logic is "subordinated"to aesthetics,it had absrlrbed
the author of the pragmatic principle much more than aesthctics.
A ccordi ng to Peir ce.t he "f ir st " logical int er pr et antshouldbe it lent il'ied
w i th the " pr clim inar y", "r udim ent ar y". "inst inct ive',exper ience,or it
shoul d be def ined as a t ype r f an usually unconscious"clr ubt " ( peir ce
1931-193-5,
vol. 5: 480) . At t he sam et im e, bot h f or r nulat ionsconst it ut e
a clistinctparallel to the way of understandinga direct interpretant.
In the next phase, the suhject undertakesa number of actions that.
due to the convictions and motives steeringthem, constituteattemprsar
" neutral i zi n g" t he "doubt ing" at t it ude in r elat ion t o t he inner wor lcl
(i bi d.: 48 | ). This cor r st it ut es
t he phaseof logical clynanr icint er pr et ant s
(accordingto Zenran,the appearanceof a logical dynarnicinterpretantis
cor.rnectedwith the "corlscious restructurization of elcments which
cnrerged irr the phase of direct logical interpretants"; 1988: 249). The
subj ect realizing t hese act ions, on t he basis of t he cr it er ion of having
achi evedthc desir edr esult s,cr eat esin him self som ekind of a "habit ",
a " di sposi tion" t o act ions t hat have t he st at us of conscior : s"habit s".
bci ng thc cf f 'cct ol"'sclf - analysis" of t he subiect . l- hcr cf or c, t hcsc
cl i sposi ti on ar
s e t he f inal logical int er pr ct ant s

92

Maciej .lubktilski

Norv. conting back to thc problent of thc relation betwecn both

t riad i c cl i v is ions ol' int c l p re ta n ts . w e n o ti c e th a t the cmoti onal
ir t t crp re ta nlhas t hc nr os t " c l i re c t" c h a ra c te ro l a l l th e i n terpretants.The
c xperi e n ccc ons t it ut ingt he c n e rg e ti ci n te rp rc ta n t" c re a t es" al so. besi des
t he di rcct o n c , it s dy nant i c c l i rn e n s i o n w
, h i l e i n th e c a se of the l ogi cal
ir rlc rp re ta nlwe hav c addit i o n l l l y to d o w i th th e th i rd , fi nal di mensi on.
'fh e ccnt r al c at egor y o t' c x p e ri c n c e o b ta i n s i n th i s ntoment a new
nrca n i n g .On lhe onc hand , i t i s th e p ri rl a ry , i rrc d u c i b l c ntodusof our
pcrccp ti o rro f I he wor ld: an c lo n th e o th c r h a n c l ,fro n r thc senti oti cpoi nt
o l v i e w. i t ' ' or ganiz c s " th c c o n tp l e x n c tw o rk o f th e i nterdependent
int c rp re ta n tsdis c ov c r edin th e p ro c e s so f' c o g rri ti v ei rrte rpretati on.-l hi s
r l rclcri n gp rcs c nt edir r t hc fo rn r o 1 ' a s e c l u e n c eo f s i g n - mecl i ated
acts of
experi e n ce leads t her ef ore to th e c re a ti o tr o l ' a s p e c i frc hi erarchy of
" r nc a n i n g s" , s t ar t ing wit lr th c e mo ti o n a l , th ro u g h th e energeti c, and
c oncl u d i n g w it h t he logic a l i n te rp re ta n t.Al s o th e a e s theti cexpel i encc
pr()ve sto h av e it s loc aliz ati o ni n th i s s e mi o ti c o -c o g rri tive
conti nuum.A t
the stunetinre. it is .iustthe emotional interpretant that decidcsabout this
plac cme n t.S uc h undc r s t an d i n go f th e i n te rp re ta n tp ro posedby P errce,
w hcre i t i s ident ific c l r r , it h th e a e s th c ti c c a te g o ry o f " feel i ng" hei ng
c onsti tu l i ve f br em ot iv ely u n d c rs to o d a e s th e ti ce x p e ri encc,bri ngs the
c once 'p ti ool'
n t lr e aut hor of tl rc p ra g ma ti cp ri n c i p l e c l o s cr, at l easti n thi s
point. to a num bc r of t he s e s a d v a n c c c lb y a n o th e r re presentati veof
Anr cri ca np ragm at is r n.. loh n D c w e y .
'T'h ere rlar k s of P c ir c e n ta c l eh o th i n rc l a ti o n to a e sthcti csas w el l as
t o cth i cs a r e linr it c c l t o t l ro s e o c c a s i o n s i n w h i c h h e di scussesthei r
cor rn e cti o rrswit h logic . I l e n c c , a n d i t h a s to b e o p e nl y admi tted, a
c onsi d e ra h le par t ol' his v i c w s re l e rri n g to a e s th e t i c probl ems are
r c v ca l cd o n ly t hr ough t h e c o mp a ri s o n o f th e s e vi ew s w i th the
r u nd o u h te dly" par allel" s t y l e o f th i n k i n g re p re s e n te db y the pragmati c
c onccp ti o nof ins t r ur nent a vl a l u e s . I a n r p a rti c u l a rl y i n t erestedi n those
c onsi d e ra ti onsof Dc wey th a t d e a l w i th th c n o ti o n ol - experi ence.
irrclLrcl i n ga c s t het ic ex peri e n c e , a s w c l l a s th o s e th at poi rrl to the
i n rporta n trole of t he " em ot i o n a ld i me n s i o n " o f c x p e ri e l rce.A ccordi ng to
I ) cw e1 '. th c enr ot ional par t. th e c o n s ti tu ti v e " q u a l i ty " of experi cnce,
decicl csa h o u t it s " . . f ulln e s s ,u n i ty , i l ma k e s i t s p e c i f i cal l yconrpl ete"
( I 934 : zl l ).

Vrtluesand tlreir co.qttitionin the semiotictheorvof C.,S.Peirca

93

Thi s tbr m ulat ion cor r cspont lscom plet ely t o t he m ain pr em isc of
Peirce's understandingof the function of the prereflcxive "entcltional
cluality" (ernotionalinterpretant)that r"rnifies
and fornts thc nucleusof the
cxperi ence.Peir cewr it cs: ". . . t hat qualit y is t he unm ediat edpr escnce
i n thc cxper ience'( 1931 1935. vol. 2: 199) . This "qualit y". as we
rerrembcr, has a cor r esponding ont ological cat egor y of Fir st ness.
C onti nui ng his consider at ions,Peir ce st r essest hat f r ir st nesshas a
uni versal and hasic char act erand t hat it def incs "t he way of exist ing in
i tsel f" (1931- 193. 5.vol. I : . 531) .
A fragnrent ol' the views ref'erring to the relation of the universal
category of Fir st nessand t lr e cr not ivedim ensionof exper ienceis m ost
quot eclby I ) ewey in his analysis of Peir cc's ont ological
l ' r' ecl uently
categori es.Dewey. in his r cf 'er encest o t he solut ionsof Peir cc t n t his
field, accentuatesparticularly strongly the convergencesthat can bc
shown betweenhis (Dewey's) conceptionof experienceand the theory of
" category" f or m ulat edby Peir ce( Dewey 1935: 210) .
The car dinal clem ent of Dewey's aest het icsis t he cat egor y ol'
" experi cnc e" under st ood in solne spccif ic way. This t hinker
di sti ngui shest he exper ienceconst it ut edt hankst o t he "pr esencc"of t he
"directly given emotionalqLrality"from the experiencethat he definesas
" i ncompl ete". "incoher ent ", t hat is, as we nr ight guess,an exper ience
depri vcd of t his unif ying "c1ualr t y".The not ion of "pr esentunm ediat ed
qual i ty" i n t he sense of "given dir ect ly" connect st he cat cgor y ol'
cxperi encewit h anot hercent r alnot ion in t he philosophicalr et lect ionof
D ew ey. nan r ely.t he not ionof "cont ext " or "sit uat ion" ( 1934: 199) . O ur
experi ences. as not ed by Dewey. never r clt r t o object s ( ) r event s
anal yzed i n isolat ion, but ar e always wit lr in t hc f l'am es of som e
" contextualent ir et y". The cont extgives pr ecisclyt he "sit uat ion" wlr er e.
as D ew cy wr it es, it is essent ial t hat it is "t ot ally inf ilt r at ccl" by
" qual i ty" , which in t ur n decides about it s coher enceor "cont ext ual
enti rety" . The "pr esence" of t hr s "qualit y" is t her ef or e a r elevant
cl i sti ngui shingf act or def ining t he r elat ion of exper ience( in t he f r r st of
the ahove - m ent ionedm eanings) t o t he sit uat ion. Ther ef or e, t he
cxperi ence is undcr st oodas an "exper ienceof sit uat ion". I t happens
thanksto tltc "qLrality"cornmonto hoth categuries,which pernritsone to
cl i sti ngui sh t he par t icular individual "exper ience". def ined by t he

94

Macie.j.ltrltfttri.ski

Vttluesand lheir cognitionin the semiotir:theoryof C.S.Peirce

9-5

speci l 'i co r ganiz alionof e l e me n tsa n d re l a ti o rrsc re a ti ng a " contextual

enti rcty". I ' r om " ex per ien c ei n g e n c ra l " (i n th e s e c o n dsensementi oned
ahove ). This is t he c onse q u e n c eo f c o n s ti tu ti v ep ro perti es that i n the
c ogn i ti ve a c t appear t o u s a s " d i re c tl y g i v e n " a n d i ndependentof the

D ew ey' s exper ience can he int er pr et ed as Peir ce's em ot ional

i nl crprctan t . t he pr act ical m onr ent of cxpcr ience as cr r cr gct ic
i nterprcta nt ;and f inally t he int ellect ualr nom entis connect cdwit h t he
l ogi cal i nter pr et ant . This "st r uct ur al" cor r espondenceof Dewey's

dis co u rse . I n t his way , a e s th e ti c e x p e ri c n c e re s o l ves i tsel f, i n the

unde rsta n dingpr opos ed h y D e w e y , i n to th e v a ri a nt of the dtrect
c ogn i ti ve a c t . ' [ ' his m onr e n t d e te rm i n e sth e fi rs t c o n tact poi nt betw een
Peirce 'sa nc lDc wey ' s c on c c p ti o n so f a e s th e ti ce x p e ri ence.

aestheticsand Peirce's theory of interpretantsdetenninestlre first stage

of the conrparisonof both conceptions.
The second stage, discussedearlier, is dcfrned by the thesis of a
homogeneoustreatrnentby both philosophersof the categoryof emotive,
unmedi atedexper ience,which f r om t he aest het icpoint of view is t he
rnost desired monrent, generatingfurther phasesof experiencethat rnay
but do not have lo occur . Accor ding t o Dewey, what is "dir ect in
cxperience" is revealedhy the fact that it is not vcrbalizable,it cannot be
determined or defined, it can only he "shown". In Peirce's systernof
interpretants, this situation corresponds to the function of a direct
i nterpretant .
So. the aesthcticthread of Peirce's theory of interprctantsrelcrs in
{ ' actto tw o pr ohlcr ns.Fir st ly, t he aest het iccxpcr ienceir t it s r nost pur e
l brnr takes place in t he act of cognit ion t hat const it ut est he em ot ional
clirect interpretant. This conclusion is backed up by: (a) the primary
function of the direct interpretant connectedwith (b) the category of
"feeling" (emotivemoment). On the other hand, what is "aesthetic", the

Concl u si o ns
F ol l o w i n g f r onr t he abov e re n ra rk s . w e c a n s ta te th at the " contextual
ent ire ty" or " s it uat ion" i s e x p e ri e n c c d . a c c o rd i n g to D ew ey. as an
unde n i a b l er v hole. W e perc e i v eh e re a d i s ti n c tp a ra l l e lt o the fbrmul ati on
o1'P e i rcc.w lr er e c x per ien c eu n d e rs to o da s a c o g n i ti v e act i s " part" of a
senriosisand as such through interpretation it constitutesthe interpretant
( w hi ch i s th e r es ult of ex p e ri e n c ere g a rd l e s so f w h a t k ind of experi ence
it is ). Si n ce t hr s t y pe of th e d i s c u s s e de x p e ri e n c ei s i d enti fi ed w i th the
c at eg o ry o f lr ir s t nes s .w e s ti l l rc n ta i n i n th e s p h e r e of i nterpretants
c lassi fi e das " t hc f lr s t one s " . In th i s c o n n e c ti o n .o n th e one hand w e deal
wit h th e e m ot ional int erp re ta n tc o n tra s te dw i th e n e r geti c and l ogrcal
ones: on the other hand, rve havc the direct interpretant (next to the
dynamic and the final one) appearingin turn as a constitutive co-rnember
of thc cmotional interpretant, as a consecutiveco-menrber,next to the
dynanricco-mernberof thc energetic interprctant, and as the constitutive
c o- rn e mb c r . nc x t t o t hc d y n a rl i c a n d fi n a l o n e s, of thc l ogi cal
lnt erp rcta n t .
Th c p h as c s of c x pe ri c n c e d i s ti n g u i s h e d h y D ew ey, defi ned as
aes th cti c,p r ac t ic : al.and in te l l e c tu a l ,b ri n g to n ri n d th e cl assi fi cati onancl

fi rst phase of exper ience.r r r ganizesin som e way t he f ur t her st agesof

experi enc e,const it ut ingt her eby t he ener get icand logical int er pr et ant s.
It is obvious, as follows from the remarks above, tlrateach of'thesetypes
of experience have seniotic status, although they refcr to diff'erent
organi zationallevelswit hin t he univer sumof signs.
The a-xio-teleological
situationof the semasiologicalinterpretationis
always determined by reference to the realized aim, that is, the
"discovery" of the interpretant; yet each time it is determined by the

art i cu l a ti o nof t he int er dcp e n d e n c eo f c a te g o ri c sa n d i nterpretants.The

aesthctic phasc of experiencc corresponds to Peirce's category of

type o1' cx per ience. Due 1o subiect ive r elat ivizat ion,t he exper ir 'ncc
i mparts to t he int er pr et at iona degener at edchar act ersince in it s r csult
" there app ear " sign- def iningr neaningsancht 'r r ecl
in ext r a- signr ealit y.

F irstn css;the pr ac t ic al ph a s ei n d i c a tc sa d e fi n i te a c ti o n , and behavi ori s

equi va l cn t t o t he c at ego ry o f S e c o n d n e s s ;a n d th e intel l ectualphase
c or rcsp o n dst o - f hir dnes s (h e re . th e a n a l o g y i s n ro r e than obvi ous).

C oncl uding, onc m ust st r esst hat as a r esult of t he par a aest het icoscmiotic view clf the creatorof pragnratismthere appearsa clear, though
problents.We obtain
maybe not very attractive. picture of the discussecl

C on ti n u i n gour c onr par is o u ,w e p e rc e i v eth a t th e a e s theti cdi mensi onof

a concept ion wit lr a dist inct ly enr ot ive inclinat ion, accent uat ing

96

Maciej Jabloiski

aestheticallythe fundarnentalrole of direct experience. yet according to

Peirce 's e pis t em ologic alp a n s e mi o ti s m ,i n o rd e r to b e come " fi nal and
v ali d " th e ex per ienc em u s t b e m e d i a te c b
l y a s i g rr (c a ncel l ati onof the
n x )me n to f dir c c t nes s ) .T h i s g i v e s i n e ft' e c ta c ()n c e p ti onof cogni ti on
as
a continuumwhose stages,inseparablyco'nected with each other. create
.n th e o n e hand t he " ho ri z o n ta l " tl i m e n s i o n i n c o mpl i ance w i th
the
sync rg i sti cnat ur eof any c o g n i ti o n :a n d o n th e o th e r h a nd, they.form
the
" v erti ca l " dim ens ion " c re a te c l "
b y th e o v e rl a p p i n g but " hol i sti c,'
cognitiveacts and their semantic"effects" (interpretants),having at their
tirundation the aestheticcognition (emotional interpretant respectively)
understood lrere as the nrost ruclimentary and prereflexive form
of
cogni ti o rr-ex per ienc e.

Note
L

Buczynska re{ers to the logical interprerant as the "intellectual

rnterpretant"( 1975. | 32\.

Refe rences
Bense. M. (1980). World as the prism of Silns
lin polishl, rrans. .f.
Ga rcw i c z .W ar s aw
Bucz-yriska,H. (1970). Vttlue.sand Fac't; Considerationsabout pragma.ttsm
li n Po l i s hl.W ar s aw.
- (1975). Sign,Meaning, Vcrluelin polish]. Warsaw.
- (198l). "The notion of a degenerated
sign" [in polish], studia semioryczn.e
t 1. t2 t-140.
Dewey, John (1934).Art as Ex.pericrce.New york.
( 193 -5 )."Pe ir c e' st heor yof q u a l i ty ", J o u rn a l o f p h i l o s o phy.
Green l e eD.
. ( 1973) .P eir c e ' sC o n c e p to .f S i g n .T h e H a g r.,' Mnuton.
L lill. W.t{. (1 930) .P eir c e' sp ra g m a ti cMe rh o tl(: p h i l o s o phyof S ci ence).
M urp h 1 ,.M. ( 1967) . " P eir c e " , T l rc En c t,r' l o p e d ioaf p h i to i ophy,vol .6. p.
I ld w a rd s( ed. ) . 76- 77.
Peirce,CharlesS. (1931-1935).Collectedpapers of CltctrlesS. pejrce. Vols
I 6 . C. Har r s hor eanc l p . W e i s s (e d s .). C i n rb ri d g e . MA : H arvard
t lni ve rsi t yP r es s .

Valuesand tlteir cognition in the serniotictheory of C.S.peirce

97

Qui ne, W . V. ( 1986) . _"The place of pr agm at icisr in

s em pir icism , '[ in
Polishl, Limits of science and other philosophic Essayi r, rrans. B.
S tanosz.War saw:n. o.
zeman, J. (1988). "Peirce'stheoryof sign". ,4 perfusiottof signs,Thomas
A. Sebeok(ed.). Bloomington,IN: IndianaL/niversityijr.rr.

The international
researchprojecton MusicalSignification, since its foundingover ten years ago, has
soughtto win new scholarsto musicalsemiotics.To
that end, the Departmentof Musicologyat Helsinki
Universityhas already organizedfive international
doctoraland postdoctoralseminars.They have become somethingof a tradition.
The anthologyconsistsof paperspresentedin the
three first seminars covering areas from music
philosophy
and aesthetics
to the analysisof vocaland
instrumental as well as electro-acousticmusic,
interrelationshipsof arts, music history, postm o d e r n i s me, t c .
The editorof the volume,EeroTarasti,is Professor
and C h a i r o f N 4u si co l o gayt th e H e l si nkiUniver sity
since1984and Directorof the International
Semiotics
Instituteat lmatrasince1988.This book,fourthin the
seriesActa SemioticaFennica,is the firstto appearin
cooperationwith the IndianaUniversityPress.
Contributorsare. Svetlana Bauer, Raphael Brunner,Olga
Danilova,FabienneDesquilbe,JarmilaDoubravova,
Christine
Esclapez,
Francesco
PatrickFarfantoli,
Giomi,DindaL. Gorl6e,
frl1artaGrabocz, Cynthia M. Grund, Michele lgnelzi, Maciej
Jabloriski,Jean-JVlarie
Jacono, Inga Jankauskien6,Marco
Ligabue,UrveLippus,Jos6 LuizMartinez,
SarahMenin,Danuta
Mirka, RaymondMonelle,Thomas Noll,AlfonsoPadilla,Ye.
Pokorskaya,Anneli Remme, Paolo Rosato,lsabelleServant,
Ester Sheinberg,Ennio Simeon,Anne Sivuoja-Gunaratnam,
WillemMarieSpeelman,MichaelSpitzer,EeroTarasti

(s
E
L

c)
(d

qi

:
;
'a
C)

c)
ISSN 1235-497XACTA SEMIOTICAFENNICAIV