ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-103-022 · ATLAS 260

Sign-forming process

A dynamic process in which something functions for someone, in a certain respect, as a sign of something else.

Part of the subject path Semantics and Signs

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

G · Foundational concept R2 · Necessary foundation

Sign process is intended as an accessible general label for producing, transmitting or interpreting signs. This foundational role should be distinguished from a more explicitly theorised account of semiosis. The existing entry already uses interpretant-based terminology, so its definition, explanation and English label need joint review before neutrality is claimed.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

A sign process is the dynamic event in which something functions for someone, in a particular respect, as a sign of something else. A mark, sound, or word is not a sign by itself; within an interpretive relation it is connected to an object and produces further signs or actions. Meaning therefore lies neither exclusively in the material carrier nor freely in consciousness but emerges through extendable mediation. Convention, experience, and situation constrain which interpretations are viable. The conceptual movement follows the perceived sign vehicle through its relation to an interpretant and onward to new consequences. It reveals meaning as a temporal process that can be stabilised but never exists without possible further interpretation.

Movement of thought

1. Something first emerges as a perceptible form without fully explaining its sign function from itself. 2. An interpreting instance relates that form in a particular respect to an object, state, or possible meaning. 3. The resulting interpretant appears as understanding, response, or further sign and continues the process. 4. A counter-test examines convention, context, and consequence so private association is not confused with semiosis. 5. The sign process returns as an open but regulated chain in which every meaning enables further connection.

Scientific use case

Semiotics, communication research, and philosophy of science reconstruct sign object, interpretant, and action context. Comparative observation can show which interpretations are conventionally stable and which remain contested.

Example

A technician reads a red light on an instrument as a sign of excessive temperature and stops the trial; the action also confirms the institutionally learned interpretation.

Counterexample

A merely causal reaction or private association is not automatically a sign process. An interpretable relation of standing-for in a particular respect must be present.

Distinction

Distinguish sign process from semiosis as the established technical name for the overall process and from interpretant as a mediating effect or sign stage. It is not a mere sequence of visible symbols.

Effect on thought and perception

The process concept prevents signs from being treated as static containers of finished meaning. It explains change and contextuality without making every interpretation equally valid.

Resonance

A sign does not touch its object directly but calls forth a response that points onwards. Meaning moves as an extendable relation through participants.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Sign-forming process“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-103-022. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-103-022

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-103-022

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.

Historical background

Morris’s 1938 account calls the process in which something functions as a sign semiosis. The inspected original pages relate sign vehicle, designatum, and interpretant, with the interpreter as a further factor. These are relational roles within the process rather than permanent classes of objects. This supports a historical conceptual reference for Sign process, not its first English occurrence or a verified German naming history. Krech’s 2024 article pairs German Zeichenprozess with sign process in its parallel abstract on religious metaphor; its Peircean framework remains distinct from Morris’s account.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

Describe the sign vehicle, what is taken into account, and the interpretive response; state the model rather than letting the label imply it.

References for the historical section

  • HC-C-MORRIS · II§2 The Nature of a Sign, printed3–5, PDF7–9 (1-based)
  • HC-C-KRECH · Parallel DE/EN abstracts printed193; §3 printed198–200, publisherHTML lines51–56,267–362
Historical source evidence and Atlas applications remain separate; this import does not assert new first attestations or a fresh exhaustive source verification.