Faulty Equations of Signs

Of all the things I'm still shaky on, I know that Locke and I agree about one thing: "the greatest part about disputes [are] more about the signification of words than a real difference in the conception of things" (Locke 822). In other words, most arguments/disagreements boil down to the arguers not having the same meaning for a word (or words). I desperately want to get to [closer] to the bottom of this.

sign=signifier+signified

The Bedford Glossary breaks 'sign' into two commonly used categories. An icon "signifies what it represents" (475). For example, the letters printed on keyboard keys directly correlate to the letters on the screen that they represent. (Okay, this example is a bit removed since letters in and of themselves are signs. Ignore that for a second.) The other category of sign is 'index' which is "directly and regularly connected, physically or through a cause-effect relationship" (475). A laptop beeping would be an index for a battery about to die. Signs can also appear as symbols which "do not involve natural or inherent relationships to what they suggest, rather, arbitrary socially and culturally determined relationships" (476).  For instance, the concavity of the bottom of a bottle of wine indicates sweetness even though concavity and sweetness aren't directly correlated in any way.

The other side of the equation involves the signification. This involves the signifier conjuring signified. The signifier would be the triangle key on the keyboard and the signified would be the concept of playing/turning on music.

The signifier and the sign are extremely similar. Both can be words, objects, etc. The difference between the two lies in the signified. By this I mean, the signifier is the word is the word 'key' but the sign is the recognition and understanding of 'key'. 'Key' is meaningless without the human element of the signified, or mental image of 'key'. There is no sign 'key' without the comprehension--the performance of the mind.

Locke touches on the human element in proposition nine on page 819 but that's really the only analysis in our main readings of comprehension. The ambiguity left over after signifier+signified lies in neural paths and how an individual has stored and organized information in their brain. Seeing the signifier 'key' sets off the signified concepts of lock and key, key as integral piece, music key, button kind of key, etc. The signifier doesn't even tell me if I'm supposed to be thinking of a tangible object or abstract idea.

Sign has its own subcategories because signifier+signified can't wrap up all the loose ends. Rather than expand the sign-side of the equation, it seems like it would be more efficient to work on the signifier+signified side. I say this because the disputes Locke refers to usually ignite from a mental division at the location of the signified.