The Dyadic Triangle vs. the Triadic Triangle

In response to Melanie’s blog, the message in the dyadic triangle depicts the idea the the writer has written language as a representation of codes, rather than something that must be interpreted according to the writer’s meaning of the discourse. Ann Berthoff speaks extensively about the empiricist’s idea that language is a code. On page 331, she quotes I.A. Richards as saying of the empiricist: “He thinks of it as a code and has not yet learned that it is an organ-the supreme organ of the mind’s self-ordering growth.” She also states the following:
“Empiricists do not generally recognize that all method, including scientific method, entails interpretation; they do not generally recognize that there are no raw data; there are no self-sufficient facts; there is no context-free evaluation.”
Berthoff concludes that the dyadic triangle leaves out meaning (interpretation), purpose and intention, those elements which comprise of the writer’s use of thought and “imagination” which she equates with abstraction. I understood this to mean that writing is much more complex than the “signifier” and the “signified” such as in semiotics. (Ask Ray about this. It’s his specialty)