Chapter published in:
Operationalizing IconicityEdited by Pamela Perniss, Olga Fischer and Christina Ljungberg
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 17] 2020
► pp. 294–306
The cognitive function of iconicity
Lucia Santaella | Catholic University of São
Paulo
Unfortunately, Peirce’s concept of the icon has been
reduced to the notion of a sign that represents its object by
similarity. It is true that Peirce considered a subdivision of the
icons into the image, the diagram, and the metaphor, which reveal
other facets of this sign type. However, even this subdivision does
not exhaust the whole picture of iconicity. Although no explicit
systematization can be found in Peirce’s work, the distinction
between pure icon on the one hand and actual icons on the other are
clearly drawn in some passages of his writings. The aim of this
paper is to discuss these passages in order to stress that the
notions of pure icon, actual icons, and hypoicons fit perfectly well
in the logical framework of the categories of Firstness, Secondness,
and Thirdness. Then, the distinct perceptual and cognitive functions
of these facets of iconicity will be explored.
Published online: 13 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.17.17san
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.17.17san
References
References
Bernstein, R. J.
Borges, J. L.
(1960)
2008 “A yellow
rose”. In J. L. Borges, Dreamtigers, transl. M. Boyer and H. Morland. Austin, TX: Univ. of Texas Press. – Quoted
from http://thefloatinglibrary.com/2008/09/13/a-yellow-rose/ accessed
20–09–2009.
Peirce, C. S.
Ransdell, J.