NAME : MUHAMMAD IQBAL MALIANG

NIM : F022212002

ARTICLE OF SEMOTICS BY CHARLES WILLIAM MORRIS

A. Introduction of Charles William Morris

Charles William Morris was born on May 23, 1901 in Denver, Colorado. He was

American Phillosopher and he studied at Northwestern University and at the University of

Chicago. He taught philosophy at Rice University, the University of Chicago, and the

University of Florida. He died in Gainesville, Florida in 1979. His writings

included Foundations of the Theory of Signs (1938), Signs, Language and

Behavior (1946), The Open Self (1948), Signification and Significance (1963),

and Writings on the General Theory of Signs is a collection of some of Morris’s most

important writings on semiotics and the philosophy of language. Part One consists

of Foundations of the Theory of Signs (1938), Part Two consists of Signs, Language, and

Behavior (1946), and Part Three ("Five Semiotical Studies") consists of the first chapter

of Signification and Significance (1964), and four other studies, "Esthetics and the

Theory of Signs," "Signs about Signs about Signs," "Mysticism and its Language," and

"Man Cosmos Symbols” and Writings on the General Theory of Signs (1971)

B. The Scope of Semiotics

The scope of semiotics, according to Charles William Morris is both broader and

narrower than the interdisciplinary scope of semiotics and science and instrument of

science

1. The Interdisciplinary Scope of Semiotics

The science of signs, according to Morris, has the following scope: "Semiotic has

for its goal a general theory of signs in all their forms and manifestations, whether in

animals or men, whether normal or pathological, whether linguistic or nonlinguistic,

 whether personal or social. Semiotic is thus an interdisciplinary enterprise" (1964:1).

As investigators interested in this enterprise, Morris enumerated "linguists, logicians,

philosophers, psychologists, biologists, anthropologists, psychopathologists,

aestheticians, and sociologists" (1938: 1).

2. Science and Instrument of Science

As the theory of signs, semiotics, according to Morris, has a twofold relation to

all other sciences (1938: 2): "It is both a science among the sciences and an

instrument of the sciences." As individual science, semiotics studies "things or the

properties of things in their function of serving as signs." But "since every science

makes use of and expresses its results in terms of signs, metascience (the science of

science) must use semiotic as an organon". Morris was convinced that "since it

supplies the foundations for any special science of signs," semiotics is "a step in the

unification of science".

C. Semiosis and the Dimensions of Semiotics

Charles William Morris derived his theory of the three dimensions of semiotics from

his model of semiosis.

1. Semiosis

Semiosis was defined by Morris as a sign process, that is, a process in which

something is a sign to some organism (1946: 366). Semiosis, according to Morris,

involves three main factors that which acts as a sign, that which the sign refers to, and

that effect on some interpreter in virtue of which the thing in question is a sign to that

interpreter. These three components in semiosis may be called, respectively, the sign

vehicle, the designatum, and the interpretant" (1938: 3).

2. Dimensions of Semiosis
 From the three correlates of the triadic relation of semiosis, Morris derived three

dyadic relations, which he considered to be the basis of three dimensions of semiosis

and semiotics. Accordingly, syntactics studies the relation between a given sign

vehicle and other sign vehicles, semantics studies the relations between sign vehicles

and their designata, and pragmatics studies the relation between sign vehicles and

their interpreters (1938: 67). In addition, Morris distinguished two further

subdivisions of semiotic studies: pure semiotic, which elaborates the metalanguage in

terms of which all sign situations would be discussed and descriptive semiotic. For the

interrelation of these five branches of semiotics, see Lieb (1971). The model of the

three basic dimensions of semiosis according to Morris is shown in Figure Mo 2.

Fig. Mo 2.
Three correlates of semiosis and three dimensions of semiotics according to
Morris (1939: 417, redrawn).

D. Syntactics, Semantics, Pragmatics

Charles William Morris has three dimensions of semiotics give an analytically

exhaustive subdivision of semiotics. This is so only if the concepts of syntactics,

semantics, and pragmatics are defined more broadly than they often are in semiotics.

1. Syntactics
 In contrast to linguistic and logical syntax, Morris generalized his syntactics to

cover more than only language signs such as syntactical problems in the fields of

perceptual signs, aesthetic signs, the practical use of signs, and general linguistics. It

gives an interpretation of Morris's dimension of syntactics which closes the gaps that

have been criticized by the linguists. He points out that Morris actually used three

different definitions of syntactics: (a) syntactics as the consideration of signs and sign

combinations in so far as they are subject to syntactical rules" (Morris 1938: 14), (b)

syntactics as the study of "the way in which signs of various classes are combined to

form compound signs" (Morris 1946: 367), and (c) syntactics as the study of "the

formal relations of signs to one another" (Morris 1938: 6).

2. Semantics

In Morris's early definition, "semantics deals with the relation of signs to their

designata. In this definition, semantics covers only the aspect of reference, not that of

sense (Meaning). Later, however, Morris gave a broader definition of semantics. It is

"that branch of semiotic which studies the signification of signs" (1946: 366.

3. Pragmatics

Morris defined "the science of the relation of signs to their interpreters as that

branch of semiotic which studies the origin, the uses and the effects of signs (1938:

30). Morris proposed a scope of pragmatic studies which is much broader than that of

pragmatics in current language studies (1938: 30). While the linguist Leech, for

example, defines it as the study of how utterances have meanings in situations. Morris

envisioned a study which deals with the biotic aspects of semiosis, that is, with all the

psychological, biological, and sociological phenomena which occur in the functioning

of signs (1938: 30). In this handbook, the chapters on communication, function,

hermeneutics, rhetoric, and partly those on zoosemiotics and meaning focus on

 pragmatic aspects of semiosis. Pragmatics has only recently become a major branch of

linguistics (cf. Leech 1983) and of the philosophy of language. For pragmatics in the

framework of semiotics, see especially Parret (1983).

E. Morris’s Semiotics Typology of Sign

Morris developed an elaborate typology of signs, some based on pragmatic, others on

semantic criteria (1946:20.). Only a few characteristic examples of his

typology can be given below.

1. Some Pragmatically Determined Types of Sign

Since signs, according to Morris (1946: 9697) are formed by assigning similar

sign vehicles to signfamilies, signs usually belong to the class of plurisituational

signs. These signs signify in many situations, while unisituational signs have

signification in only one situation. In another pragmatic category, the criterion is the

sign user to the degree that a sign has the same signification to a number of

interpreters it is an interpersonal sign; to the degree that this is not so the

sign is a personal sign.

2. Some Semantically Determined Types of Sign

Several of Morris's typological categories are based on semantic criteria, for

example:

a. Vague sign: "its significatum does not permit the determination of whether

something is or is not a denotatum; otherwise it is precise."

b. Unambiguous sign: "it has only one significatum"; otherwise it is ambiguous.

c. Singular sign: "a sign whose signification permits only one denotatum; otherwise

it is general."

d. Synonymous signs "belong to different signfamilies and yet have the same

signification" (1946: 35968).

 3. Icon, Index, and Symbol

Morris gave an indexical sign designates what it directs attention to. The index is

opposed to a sign which characterizes that which it can denote. Such a sign may do

this by exhibiting in itself the properties an object must have to be denoted by it,

and in this case the characterizing sign is an icon; if this is not so, the characterizing

sign may be called a symbol. Instead of the category of index, Morris

later introduced the sign type of identifier.

4. Signals vs. Symbols

Morris also discussed the distinction between signals and symbols, which

sometimes under the designation of sign vs. symbol many semioticians have

considered the most basic one in the theory of signs. In his definition, "a symbol is a

sign produced by its interpreter which acts as a substitute for some other sign with

which it is synonymous; all signs not symbols are signals. A person may interpret his

pulse as a sign of his heart condition such signs are simply signals; his resulting words

when substitutes for such signals would however be symbols".

F. Morris's Semiotic Typology of Discourse

On the basis of a theory of modes of signifying and a theory of sign use, Morris

developed a typology of discourse which has had some influence within applied text

semiotics (1946: 140).

1. Modes of Signifying

According to the nature of the environment in which an organism operates,

Morris distinguished three major pragmasemantic modes of signifying (1946: 142).

The buzzer, for example, "designates food in a certain place, appraises this positively

in relation to hunger, and prescribes the response of acting in a certain way." This
 case of semiosis illustrates the designative, appraisive, and prescriptive modes of

signifying. All three modes may be involved to varying degrees in any act of

semiosis, but statements are predominantly designative, valuations predominantly

appraisive, and imperatives predominantly prescriptive. Two further less important

modes of signifying distinguished by Morris are the identificative mode it designates

locations in space and time and the formative mode designating formators. Formators

are language signs having only contextual functions, such as conjunctions, quantifiers,

other function words, and punctuation marks. All of these modes are defined in

behavioristic categories. Formators, for example, are signs that dispose their

interpreters to modify in determinate ways the dispositions to response occasioned by

other signs in the sign combinations in which the formator appears.

2. Dimensions of Sign Use

While the modes of signifying characterize the sign predominantly in its semantic

dimension, the dimensions of sign use focus on the pragmatic aspects of semiosis, the

"question of the purpose for which an organism produces the signs which it or other

organisms interpret" (Morris 1946: 172). Four primary sign usages are distinguished

which evince a certain parallelism to the main modes of signifying. Depending on the

organism's behavioral goals, there is (1) informative usage when the sign is used to

inform about something, (2) valuative usage when it is intended to aid in the

preferential selection of objects, (3) incitive usage when it incites response sequences,

and (4) systemic usage when it organizes sign produced behavior into a determinate

whole (cf. ibid.: 17475). When the goal of these modes of usage is attained, the

informative usage was convincing, the valuative usage was effective, the incitive

usage was persuasive, and the systemic usage was correct.

3. Discourse Typology

Morris was convinced that the major types of discourse in everyday life can be

distinguished by two dimensions of criteria, the characteristic mode of signifying and

the primary mode of sign use (1946: 203-205). In every discourse type there is one

dominant mode of signifying and a primary usage. Fictive discourse, for example, is

predominantly designative in the way it signifies the events of a story. It minimizes

appraisals and prescriptions. The communicative purpose of fiction, according to

Morris, is valuative since it aims to induce the reader to evaluate the events

represented in the story. It does not inform or tell us how to act. Altogether, Morris

gave sixteen examples of discourse types distinguished by the criteria of use and

signification (Fig. Mo 3).

Use
Informative Incitive Systemic
Mode Valuative
Designative Scientific Fictive Legal Cosmological
Appraisive Mythical Poetic Moral Critical
Prescriptive Technological Political Religious Propagandistic
Formative Logico-mathematical Rhetorical Grammatical Metaphysical
Fig. Mo 3.
Morri’s examples of the major types of discourse (1946:205)