In effect, then, the interpretant is a second signifier of the object, only one that now has an overtly mental status.    From Wordnik.com.  [Nobody Knows Nothing] Reference

These things are part of the immediate interpretant of the sign.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

What exactly Peirce means by the interpretant is difficult to pin down.    From Wordnik.com.  [Nobody Knows Nothing] Reference

Similarly, a first sign could not be the interpretant of a preceding sign.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

The other two terms in this relation are called the object and the interpretant.    From Wordnik.com.  [Nobody Knows Nothing] Reference

Roberts should put into his model two central facts, and one important interpretant.    From Wordnik.com.  [Not only are they better capitalists, but better peacemakers too? « Antiwar.com Blog] Reference

The interpretant of a sign is said by Peirce to be that to which the sign represents the object.    From Wordnik.com.  [Nobody Knows Nothing] Reference

There is also an interesting connection between the dynamic interpretant and the immediate object.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

Although there are many features of the interpretant that bear further comment, here we shall mention just two.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

We can see this from Peirce's early idea that every interpretant is itself a further sign of the signified object.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

And finally, since that sign will also determine an interpretant it can be classified as either a rheme, a dicent, or a delome.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

For instance, Peirce describes the dynamic interpretant as deriving its character from action (CP8 .315 (1904)), but later says.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

Just as the dynamic interpretant has clear connections with other elements of Peirce's semiotic, so too does the final interpretant.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

It incorporates a complete and true conception of the objects of the sign; it is the interpretant we should all agree on in the long run.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

Again, he identifies three categories according to which feature of the relationship with its object a sign uses in generating an interpretant.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

As should be clear, from the connections that emerge from the notion of inquiry, the final interpretant interacts strongly with the dynamic object.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

Second, the final interpretant functions as an exemplar or normative standard by which we can judge our actual interpretative responses to the sign.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

Whenever we understand a sign in terms of qualities it suggests its object may have, we generate an interpretant that qualifies its sign as a rheme.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

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".    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

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.    From Wordnik.com.  [Nobody Knows Nothing] Reference

And finally, if we generate an interpretant in virtue of some observed general or conventional connection between sign and object, then the sign is a symbol.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

And of course, as a further sign, it will also signify that object through some features, which again, we must interpret, and generate a further interpretant.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

Second, just as with the sign/object relation, Peirce believes the sign/interpretant relation to be one of determination: the sign determines an interpretant.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

This makes the interpretant central to the content of the sign, in that, the meaning of a sign is manifest in the interpretation that it generates in sign users.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

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.    From Wordnik.com.  [Pragmatism] Reference

Fitzgerald (1966, 78) claims that since emotional, energetic and logical interpretants are actual effects, they must be seen as three sub-types of the dynamic interpretant.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

Since any sign must determine an interpretant in order to count as a sign, and interpretants are themselves signs, infinite chains of signs seem to become conceptually necessary.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

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.    From Wordnik.com.  [Nobody Knows Nothing] Reference

If, on the other hand, a sign determines an interpretant by focusing our understanding of the sign upon the existential features it employs in signifying an object, then the sign is a dicent.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

First, although we have characterized the interpretant as the understanding we reach of some sign/object relation, it is perhaps more properly thought of as the translation or development of the original sign.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

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.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

In terms of an example where ordinary sentences are the signs, the immediate interpretant will involve something like our recognition of grammatical categories, syntactic structures and conventional rules of use.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

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.    From Wordnik.com.  [Intersections Between Pragmatist and Continental Feminism] Reference

S means an object o to an interpretant i can be analyzed into a conjunction of facts of the form.    From Wordnik.com.  [Nobody Knows Nothing] Reference

We could perhaps relate the note to Saussure’s signifier, Pierce’s sign, relate the interwoven icon and idea to Saussure’s signified, Pierce’s interpretant and object.    From Wordnik.com.  [Notes on Notes] Reference

In such a case as your uttering, "I saw her duck under the table", the final interpretant would be the understanding where there is "no latitude of interpretation at all" (CP5 .447.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

Peirce describes the dynamic interpretant as the "effect actually produced on the mind" (CP8 .343 (1908)), or as the "actual effect which the sign, as a sign, really determines (CP4 .536.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference

“the received view in Peirce scholarship suggests that the divisions of interpretant into immediate, dynamic, and final are archetypal, all other divisions being relatively synonymous with these categories.”.    From Wordnik.com.  [Peirce's Theory of Signs] Reference