본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Is Frege’s Venus Translated? - A Peircean (Meta-) Translative Approach

임동휘
인문학연구원 (Institute of Humanities, Seoul National University)|2023.08|인문과학 (The Journal of the Humanities)|제128권 |pp. 235-279|DOI 10.23017/inmun.2023.128..235

5

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

referentsense프레게Frege뜻proper names지시체고유명Peirce’s translation퍼스의 번역
주제분류기타인문학

초록

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.

Abstract

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.

참고문헌 (72)

  1. Anellis, I., "How Peircean Was the “Fregean Revolution” in Logic?", arXiv 1201.0353, ~ (2012)
  2. Atkin, A., "Peirce’s Final Account of Signs and the Philosphy of Language. Transactions of the Charles S", Peirce Society, 44(1), pp.63~85 (2008)
  3. Barker, P., "Frege and Peirce : Indexicality and the Philosophy of Language", Semiotics, 3~14 (1985)
  4. Bellucci, F., "Exploring Peirce’s Speculative Grammar : The Immediate Object of a Sign", Sign Systems Studies, 43(4), pp.399~418 (2015)
  5. Bennett, T., "Concepts for Semiotics", pp.213~233 (2016), University of Tartu Press
  6. "Representamen. The Commens Dictionary: Peirce’s Terms in His Own Words"[URL]
  7. Chalmers, D., "Philosophical Perspectives 16: Language and Mind", pp.135~182 (2002), Blackwell
  8. Chevalier, J., "The Role of Emotional Interpretants in Peirce’s Theory of Belief and Doubt", Sign Systems Studies, 43(4), pp.483~500 (2015)
  9. Chumbley, R., "The Synonymous Nature and Communal Function of Peirce’s Ground, Immediate Object, and Meaning : Three Abductions. Transactions of the Charles S", Peirce Society, 36(3), pp.407~418 (2000)
  10. Cobley, P., "Introducing Semiotics: A Graphic Guide" (2012), Icon Books
  11. Deely, J., "Introducing Semiotics: Its History and Doctrine" (1982), Indiana University Press
  12. de Saussure, F., "Cours de Linguistique Générale" (1916), Payot
  13. DiCarlo, J., "How Does the Brain Solve Visual Object Recognition?", Neuron, 73(3), pp.415~434 (2012)
  14. Eco, U., "Peirce’s Notion of Interpretant", MLN, 91(6), pp.1457~1472 (1976)
  15. Fisch, M., "Writings of Charles S. Peirce" (1982), Indiana University Press
  16. Frege, G., "Über Sinn und Bedeutung", Zeitschrift für Philosophie Und Philosophische Kritik, 100(1), pp.25~50 (1892)
  17. Frege, G., "Sense and Reference", The Philosophical Review, 57(3), pp.209~230 (1948)
  18. Gill, C, "A Study on Phosphorus (Gyemyeongseong) in Chapter 14 of the Book of Isaiah", M, pp.2008
  19. Gorlée, D, "Semiotics and the Problem of Translation: With Special Reference to the Semiotics of Charles S. Peirce" (1994), Rodopi
  20. Grodzinski, E, "The Semiotic Web 1990: Recent Developments in Theory and History" (1990), De Gruyter Mouton
  21. Hartshorne, C, "Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce" (1991), Belknap
  22. Hilpinen, R, "Peirce and Contemporary Thought" (1995), Fordham University Press
  23. Jakobson, R., "On Translation", pp.232~239 (1959), Harvard University Press
  24. Jia, H., "Semiospheric Translation Types Reconsidered from the Translation Semiotics Perspective", Semiotica, 231, pp.121~145 (2019)
  25. Johnson, M, "The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason" (1987), The University of Chicago Press
  26. 강규호, "프레게의 반심리주의 연구 -논리적 심리주의 비판을 중심으로-", 인문과학, 126, pp.145~174 (2022), 인문학연구원[DOI]
  27. 강규호, "프레게의 사고행위 개념과 고전적 반심리주의", 인문과학, 127, pp.273~298 (2023), 인문학연구원[DOI]
  28. Klement, K, "Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference" (2017), Routledge
  29. "Gottlob Frege (1848-1925)"[URL]
  30. Kourdis, E., "Semiotics of Translation, Translation in Semiotics (Special Issue)", Punctum, 1(2) (2015)
  31. "Psychologism"[URL]
  32. Lakoff, G., "Metaphors We Live By" (1980), The University of Chicago Press
  33. Legg, C., "Habits of Mind : New Insights for Embodied Cognition from Classical Pragmatism and Phenomenology", European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, XIV(2), pp.1~21 (2022)
  34. Lim, E. K., "Semiotic Translations of Possession: Multidimensionality of Its Embodiment", Ph.D, pp.2013
  35. 임동휘, "번역에 대한 메타번역적 접근: 기호, 인지 중심의 번역 개념", 코기토, 76, pp.299~338 (2014), 인문학연구소
  36. 임동휘, "페트릴리의 번역 개념과 유형: 기호 기반의 초인문학적 가능성", 번역학연구, 16(2), pp.207~248 (2015), 한국번역학회[DOI]
  37. Makin, G, "The Metaphysicians of Meaning: Russell and Frege on Sense and Denotation" (2000), Routledge
  38. Marais, K., "Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-Cultural Reality" (2019), Routledge
  39. Marti, G., "The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy", pp.684~688 (1998), Routledge
  40. "76 Definitions of the Sign by C. S. Peirce"[URL]
  41. McGinn, C, "Philosophy of Language: The Classics Explained" (2015), The MIT Press
  42. Medina, J, "Language: Key Concepts in Philosophy" (2005), Continuum
  43. Morris, C., "International Encyclopedia of Unified Science Vol. 1 No. 2", pp.1~59 (1938), The University of Chicago Press
  44. 798, , 1897
  45. 465, , 1903
  46. "Letter to Lady Welby (Draft) Dated March 9, 1906. In Marty, R. ed. 76 Definitions of the Sign by C. S. Peirce" (1906)[URL]
  47. Peirce, C., "Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce" (1958), Harvard University Press
  48. Peirce, C., "Philosophical Writings of Peirce" (1955), Dover Publications
  49. Perry, J., "Frege’s Detour: An Essay on Meaning, Reference, and Truth" (2019), Oxford University Press
  50. Petrilli, S, "Translation Translation" (2003), Rodopi
  51. Petrilli, S., "Expression and Interpretation in Language" (2012), Transaction Publishers
  52. Petrilli, S., "Translation of Semiotics into Translation Theory, and Vice Versa", Punctum, 1(2), pp.96~117 (2015)
  53. Queiroz, J., "International Handbook of Semiotics", pp.201~215 (2015), Springer
  54. "On the Use and Abuse of the Immediate/ Dynamical Object Distinction"[URL]
  55. "Channel Four", 2004
  56. Ruthrof, H, "Semantics and the Body: Meaning from Frege to the Postmodern" (1997), University of Toronto Press
  57. "King of Clones: The Rise and Fall of Korea’s Most Controversial Scientist" (2023)[URL]
  58. Schlücker, B., "The Morphosyntax of Proper Names : An Overview", Folia Linguistica, 51(2), pp.308~339 (2017)
  59. Silverstein, M., "Translating Cultures: Perspectives on Translation and Anthropology", pp.75~109 (2003), Berg
  60. Sluga, H, "Gottlob Frege" (1980), Routledge & Kegan Paul
  61. Sluga, G, "The Philosophy of Frege" (1993), Garland Publishing
  62. Solominick, A., "On Frege’s ‘Modes of Presentation’ in Signs", Chinese Semiotic Studies, 10(1), pp.57~69 (2014)
  63. Sonesson, G., "Elements of Peircean Phenomenology : From Categories to Signs by Way of Grounds", Semiotica, 2019(228), pp.259~285 (2019)
  64. Thayi, A., "King of Clones" (2023), Peddling Pictures
  65. Torres-Martinez, S., "Semiosic Translation", Semiotica, 225(1, pp.4) (2018), 353~382
  66. Weber, E., "Proper Names and Persons: Peirce’s Semiotic Consideration of Proper Names", Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 44(2), pp.346~362 (2008)
  67. "Gottlob Frege"[URL]
  68. "Morning Star"[URL]
  69. "Quetzalcoatl"[URL]
  70. "Semiotic Theory of Charles Sanders Peirce"[URL]
  71. Wittgenstein, L., "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (1922), Routledge
  72. Zalta, E., "Fregean Senses, Modes of Presentation, and Concepts", Philosophical Perspectives, 15, pp.335~359 (2001)

관련 논문AI추천

페트릴리의 번역 개념과 유형: 기호 기반의 초인문학적 가능성임동휘한국번역학회 · 번역학연구2015 · 제16권 제2호Metatranslative Signs of Dumas and Hamong: Names as Texts and Metaphors Therein임동휘한국번역학회 · 번역학연구2018 · 제19권 제5호‘Chung’-based Slang Terms Revisited: A Peircean View and a Lakoffian Methodology권연진, 임동휘인문학연구원 · 인문과학2024 · 제132권 Jakobson’s Translation Typology Revisited: Situated Cognition and Its Translative Nature임동휘한국번역학회 · 번역학연구2014 · 제15권 제3호Orientational Metaphors as Indexical Metaphors조윤경한국영어영문학회 · 영어영문학2017 · 제22권 제3호번역에 대한 메타번역적 접근: 기호, 인지 중심의 번역 개념임동휘인문학연구소 · 코기토2014 · 제76권

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

통일 이후 삶의 변화와 희망 - 통일사회를 서술한 잉고 슐체의 『 심플 스토리 』와 이응준의 『 국가의 사생활』을 중심으로정영호pp. 7-39포스트휴먼 페미니즘과 정보이론 - N. 캐서린 헤일스의 사이버네틱스 연구를 중심으로송은주pp. 41-73한국어 문법 ‘-게 되다’의 의미 기능과 특징 연구신인환, 김문기pp. 75-108论“一定”的否定和主观性남양우, 李双剑pp. 109-131자유의 변증법? -바스카의 ‘다원적 변증법’의 가능성과 한계강경덕pp. 133-179
원문 보기