## Sign Relations • Comment 5

Note. The following links afford a review of the discussion up to this point.
Re: Semiotic TriangleJCJAJAJCJAJAJCJAFBJAJA

Peirce gives his clearest and most complete definition of signs and sign relations in the context of defining logic.  Here’s a link to a couple of variants:

There is more discussion in the following article and section:

The proper unit of analysis is the whole sign relation $L \subseteq O \times S \times I,$ where $O,$ $S,$ and $I$ are the object, sign, and interpretant sign domains, respectively.  In that sense, one could say that the individual sign is always incomplete until one specifies the sign relational setting in which it is conceived to have significance.

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Inquiry, Logic of Relatives, Peirce, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

### 3 Responses to Sign Relations • Comment 5

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.