In effect, then, the interpretant is a second signifier of the object, only one that now has an overtly mental status. ❋ Unknown (2009)
The interpretant: these two facts are more a sign of the collapse of the dollar than of the rise in the price of oil due to supply and demand. ❋ Unknown (2008)
Roberts should put into his model two central facts, and one important interpretant. ❋ Unknown (2008)
That is to say, the interpretant stands in the representing relation to the same object represented by the original representamen, and thus represents it to yet another interpretant. ❋ Unknown (2009)
What exactly Peirce means by the interpretant is difficult to pin down. ❋ Unknown (2009)
Third, the interpretant of a sign, by virtue of the very definition Peirce gives of the sign-relation, must itself be a sign, and a sign moreover of the very same object that is (or: was) represented by the (original) sign. ❋ Unknown (2009)
The interpretant of a sign is said by Peirce to be that to which the sign represents the object. ❋ Unknown (2009)
It is something like a mind, a mental act, a mental state, or a feature or quality of mind; at all events the interpretant is something ineliminably mental. ❋ Unknown (2009)
But, merely in being a sign of the original object, this second sign must itself have (Peirce uses the word “determine”) an interpretant, which then in turn is a new, third sign of the object, and again is one with an overtly mental status. ❋ Unknown (2009)
The sign relation is the special species of the representing relation that obtains whenever the first interpretant (and consequently each member of the whole infinite sequence of interpretants) has a status that is mental, i.e. (roughly) is a cognition of a mind. ❋ Unknown (2009)
The other two terms in this relation are called the object and the interpretant. ❋ Unknown (2009)
In such cases, our action or the conclusion of our inference is the interpretant; interpretation is not primarily a matter of intellectual recognition of what a sign means. ❋ Hookway, Christopher (2008)
In dialogue with Vincent Colapietro (2000) on how to understand Peirce's logical interpretant, de Lauretis argues that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to deliberately direct the significate effects of semiosis. ❋ Sullivan, Shannon (2007)
As Hookway points out, we might best define the final interpretant as the understanding: which would be reached if a process of enriching the interpretant through scientific enquiry were to proceed indefinitely. ❋ Atkin, Albert (2006)
The dynamic interpretant then, is the actual interpretation or understanding we make at some point in the semiotic process, and also constitutes, along with previous dynamic interpretants, the immediate object, or partial understanding we have of the dynamic object at any particular point in the semiotic process. ❋ Atkin, Albert (2006)
Further, as with the classification of the sign in terms of the sign-vehicle and the object, Peirce identifies qualities, existential facts, or conventional features as the basis for classifying the sign in terms of its interpretant. ❋ Atkin, Albert (2006)
Further, this determination is not determination in any causal sense, rather, the sign determines an interpretant by using certain features of the way the sign signifies its object to generate and shape our understanding. ❋ Atkin, Albert (2006)
Second, just as with the sign/object relation, Peirce believes the sign/interpretant relation to be one of determination: the sign determines an interpretant. ❋ Atkin, Albert (2006)
Indeed, Peirce seems to take the immediate interpretant to be "all that is explicit in the sign apart from its context and circumstances of utterance" ❋ Atkin, Albert (2006)
For example, if the final sign fails to be a sign in virtue of generating no interpretant, then since that failed sign is supposed to act as the interpretant of the previous sign and function as a further sign in its own right, it has also failed to be an interpretant. ❋ Atkin, Albert (2006)
[Gunnar] K. [cant] interpretate [for shit]. ❋ TLPILLY (2009)
[The dress] code says "We want to [promote] [modesty]."
I interpret that as "We want to ruin your life." ❋ Eileen S (2007)
Person 1: me and my friend are in an argument can you [interpret] what “[fuck off]” means?
Person 2: this means to go away, or [just leave] me alone. ❋ KrabbsWantsHisMoneyBack (2018)
[Tressa] [interpretated] the situation to me. I had no idea what the f*&k she was talking about. [Interpretate]. ❋ Chasemanset (2010)
an [art] or philopsophy [student] might interpretize something if they are very [tired] ❋ Fail_lover (2010)
"I don't understand your language"
"[Blah Blah Blah]"
"Hang on, I'll call Connect and get some interpreting to [bridge] the communication [gap]" ❋ Mark Saba (2006)
We've got an interpretation [issue].. [Quick] call [Mick]!! ❋ Uncle Bozos (2010)
Me - "[Hey Jimmy], did you know that Jesus tells women to keep silent in the churches?"
Jimmy - "Well, that's just your [interpretation]."
Me - "Hey [Amar], did you know that the Qu'ran instructs its followers to conquer the earth, converting or subduing those in the process?"
Amar - "That's a flawed interpretation. MY Islam is a peaceful one." ❋ SocialistBJ (2009)
Hi, I'm [Misty]. I provide [BBBJ], and I [speak French] without the aid of an interpreter for $150. ❋ Mistress Liz (2005)
[Stop] interpretating my [art]!! ❋ StacyKae (2005)
