Cover not available
Article published In:
Semiotics: A way of thinking & approaching information design
Edited by Priscila Lena Farias and João Queiroz
[Information Design Journal 23:2] 2017
► pp. 127–147

Visualizing triadic relations: Diagrams for Charles S. Peirce’s classifications of signs

 | University of São Paulo
 | Federal University of Juiz de Fora
Published online: 3 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.23.2.03far
References (43)
References
Amadori, C. E. (2001). Semiótica, signos e interfaces. Master degree thesis, Communication and Semiotics, Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo.Google Scholar
Anderson, M., & Armen, C. (1998). Diagrammatic reasoning and color. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Formalization of Reasoning with Visual and Diagrammatic Representations, Orlando, Florida, US.
Anderson, M., & McCartney, R. (1995). Inter-diagrammatic Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Canada.
Balat, M. (1990). Type, Trace, Ton, le ‘ton’ peircien. Semiosis 57–58.Google Scholar
Borges, P. (2010). Mensagens cifradas: a construção de linguagens diagramáticas. Ph.D. dissertation, Communication and Semiotics, Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo.Google Scholar
Bounford, T., & Campbell, A. (2000). Digital diagrams: how to design and present statistical information effectively. New York: Watson-Guptill.Google Scholar
De Waal, C. (2013). Peirce—A guide for the perplexed. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Farias, P. L. (2002). Sign design, ou o design dos signos: A construção de diagramas dinâmicos das classes de signos de C.S. Peirce. Ph.D. dissertation, Communication and Semiotics, Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo.Google Scholar
(2003). Images, diagrams and metaphors: a contribution from semiotics to information design. In: C. G. Spinillo; & S. G. Coutinho (Org.). Selected Readings of the Information Design International Conference (pp. 71–78). Recife: SBDI.Google Scholar
(2008). O conceito de diagrama na semiótica de Charles S. Peirce. Tríades em Revista, 11, 1–13.Google Scholar
Farias, P. L., & Queiroz, J. (2000). Notes for a dynamic diagram of Charles Peirce’s classifications of signs. Semiotica 131(1/2), 19–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Sign Design: nuevas estrategias para modelar procesos y estructuras signicas. SIGNA—Revista de la Asociación Española de Semiótica 101, 127–147.Google Scholar
(2003). On diagrams for Peirce’s 10, 28, and 66 classes of signs. Semiotica 147(1/4): 165–184.Google Scholar
(2004). 10cubes and 3N3: using interactive diagrams to investigate Charles Peirce’s classifications of signs. Semiotica 151(1/4): 41–63.Google Scholar
(2006). Images, diagrams, and metaphors: Hypoicons in the context of Peirce’s sixty-six-fold classification of signs. Semiotica, 1621: 287–307.Google Scholar
(2014a). On Peirce’s diagrammatic models for ten classes of signs. Semiotica, 2021: 657–671.Google Scholar
(2014b). On Peirce’s visualization of the classifications of signs: finding a common pattern in diagrams. In T. Thellefsen, & B. Sørensen (Org.). Charles Sanders Peirce in his own words: 100 years of semiotics, communication and cognition (pp. 527–536). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freadman, A. (2001). The Classifications of Signs (II): 1903. In M. Bergman & J. Queiroz (Eds.), The Commens Encyclopedia: The Digital Encyclopedia of Peirce Studies. New Edition. Pub. 130116–1710a. Available at <[URL]>, January 28 2017.Google Scholar
Harel, D. (1995). On visual formalisms. In J. Glasgow, N. H. Narayanan & B. Chandrasenkaran (Eds.), Diagrammatic reasoning (pp. 235–271). Cambridge: AAAI.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. H. (2001). The 1903 classification of triadic sign-relations. In J. Queiroz & R. Gudwin (Eds.), Digital Encyclopedia of Charles S. Peirce. Available at <[URL]>, January 28 2017.Google Scholar
Houser, N. (1991). A Peircean classification of models, In M. Anderson & F. Merrell (Eds.). On Semiotic Modeling (pp. 431–439). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johansen, D. (1993). Dialogic Semiosis. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Knuuttila, T. (2005). Models, representation, and mediation. Philosophy of Science 721. 1260–1271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieb, I. C. (1977). Appendix B. In C. S. Hardwick (ed.), Semiotics and significs: the correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby (pp. 161–166). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lizska, J. (1996). A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Maróstica, A. H. (1992). Ars Combinatoria and time: LLull, Leibniz and Peirce. Studia Llulliana 321, 105–134.Google Scholar
Marty, R. (1982a). C. S. Peirce’s phaneroscopy and semiotics. Semiotica 41(1/4), 169–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1982b). Le treillis des 28 classes de signes hexadiques. Semiosis 25–261, 1–12.Google Scholar
(1990). L’algèbre des signes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merrell, F. (1991). Thought-signs, sign-events. Semiotica 87(1/2), 1–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). Peirce, signs and meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, L. (1999). On Peirce’s systematic division of signs. Manuscript.
(2000). On Peirce’s systematic division of signs. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 36(4), 563–578.Google Scholar
Parker, K. (1998). The Continuity of Peirce’s Thought. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. ([1866–1913] 1994). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vols. I–VI1 [C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (ed.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931–1935], Vols. VII–VIII1 [A. W. Burks (ed.), same publisher, 1958]. Charlottesville: Intelex Corporation.Google Scholar
([1893–1913] 1998). The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings. Vol. II1. Peirce Edition Project. (Ed.) Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(1967). Annotated Catalogue of the papers of Charles S. Peirce. R. Robin (Ed.) Amherst-MS: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Queiroz, J. (2012). Dicent symbols in non-human semiotic processes. Biosemiotics 51, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Queiroz, J., & Stjernfelt, F. (eds.) (2011). Diagrammatical reasoning and Peircean logic representations. Semiotica 1861, 1–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robin, R. S. (1967). Annotated Catalogue of the papers of Charles S. Peirce. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Savan, D. (1987–1988). An introduction to C.S.Peirce’s full system of semeiotic. Monograph Series of the Toronto Semiotic Circle 11.Google Scholar
Sivasankaran, V. K., & Owen, Charles L. (1992). Data exploration: transposition operations in dynamic diagrams. Visible Language 28(3/4), 451–473.
Weiss, P., & Burks, A. (1945). Peirce’s sixty-six signs. Journal of Philosophy XLII1: 383–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Faltýnek, Dan & Ľudmila Lacková
2021. In the Case of Protosemiosis: Indexicality vs. Iconicity of Proteins. Biosemiotics 14:1 ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Mittelberg, Irene
2019. Peirce’s universal categories: On their potential for gesture theory and multimodal analysis. Semiotica 2019:228 ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.