This research aims to make a Peircean approach to translation per se and apply it to Frege’s metasemiotic examples about Venus for a better understanding of Frege’s star-based theorization about the sign, the sense, and the referent, which are claimed to be essential in interpreting proper names (e.g., ‘the morning star’; ‘the evening star’; ‘Phosphorus’; ‘Hesperus’) and analyzing the relation of identity (or difference) therein. With Peirce’s broad, complex, and insightful perspective on translation as a sign process (namely, meaning-making slash semiosis) (Peirce, 1931-1958), Frege’s famous star examples and relevant terms are analyzed metasemiotically and metatranslatively in terms of the mechanisms of the sign’s three components and/or three types (Petrilli, 2003) and, also, with regard to the dynamics of translation types (Jakobson, 1959). Such an analysis shows that (1) Frege’s sign is a verbal sign form (i.e., a linguistic representamen); (2) Frege is aware of the three major sign types (e.g., the symbol; the icon; the index) used in the interpretive/ translative processes of a proper name; (3) Some verbal representamens are the results of intralingual or interlingual translation; (4) Frege’s sense as the abstract visual form is similar to a hypothetically abstracted quality called ‘a ground’ (a preconceptual state of iconicity) unlike the claims about the immediate object or any presentation mode; (5) The power of the Fregean sense in reality is theoretically overrated and empirically unproven in spite of its overgeneralized uses; (6) Frege’s referent is relatively close to Peirce’s dynamical object (as the ultimate referent); (7) Frege’s trichotomy is akin to Peirce’s triadic relation in spite of the phonocentrically static formation and the ocularcentrically random generalization; (8) Sign-internal translative processes are evident in Frege’s sign model; (9) Frege’s Venus-based metalanguage on proper names faces counterexamples; (10) Frege’s metalanguage denies metaphor and metonymy while he utilizes them in the exemplification to his advantage. In conclusion, Frege’s examples and terms can be better explained with a Peircean metatranslative approach.
This research aims to make a Peircean approach to translation per se and apply it to Frege’s metasemiotic examples about Venus for a better understanding of Frege’s star-based theorization about the sign, the sense, and the referent, which are claimed to be essential in interpreting proper names (e.g., ‘the morning star’; ‘the evening star’; ‘Phosphorus’; ‘Hesperus’) and analyzing the relation of identity (or difference) therein. With Peirce’s broad, complex, and insightful perspective on translation as a sign process (namely, meaning-making slash semiosis) (Peirce, 1931-1958), Frege’s famous star examples and relevant terms are analyzed metasemiotically and metatranslatively in terms of the mechanisms of the sign’s three components and/or three types (Petrilli, 2003) and, also, with regard to the dynamics of translation types (Jakobson, 1959). Such an analysis shows that (1) Frege’s sign is a verbal sign form (i.e., a linguistic representamen); (2) Frege is aware of the three major sign types (e.g., the symbol; the icon; the index) used in the interpretive/ translative processes of a proper name; (3) Some verbal representamens are the results of intralingual or interlingual translation; (4) Frege’s sense as the abstract visual form is similar to a hypothetically abstracted quality called ‘a ground’ (a preconceptual state of iconicity) unlike the claims about the immediate object or any presentation mode; (5) The power of the Fregean sense in reality is theoretically overrated and empirically unproven in spite of its overgeneralized uses; (6) Frege’s referent is relatively close to Peirce’s dynamical object (as the ultimate referent); (7) Frege’s trichotomy is akin to Peirce’s triadic relation in spite of the phonocentrically static formation and the ocularcentrically random generalization; (8) Sign-internal translative processes are evident in Frege’s sign model; (9) Frege’s Venus-based metalanguage on proper names faces counterexamples; (10) Frege’s metalanguage denies metaphor and metonymy while he utilizes them in the exemplification to his advantage. In conclusion, Frege’s examples and terms can be better explained with a Peircean metatranslative approach.
(0)
(0)