Theory of Sign Essay -- Communication, Signs

To visit how distinction functions, semiosis, Morris proposes quadruplet elements Sign vehicle (S), De indicateatum (D), and Interpretant and transcriber (I). The mediators argon sign vehicles the taking- mark-of are interpretants the agents of the process are interpreters what is taken account of are designata (Morris, 19). Those elements of semiosis become the foundation of branches of linguistics and basic elements of language. The branches of linguistics are semantics is the study of sign in its relation to designatum, pragmatics the study of sign in relation to interpreter, and syntactics the study of sign in relation to other signs. Since language, gibe to Morris, is a system of interconnected signs, a language mustiness make up of the four elements as he implies in his formula L= Lsyn + Lsem + Lp (see Morris, 25). However, we business leader observe that Morriss commentary of language apparently falls into the sept of syntactical element. Another buttion might be i s that by extending the four semiosis elements into linguistics and language, Morriss definition of sign will be snarled since all objects that are symbolically and linguistically associated with other objects are defined as signs. Therefore one might observe the discrepancy of his definition of sign with examples that he proposes as Lesse demonstrates (see article). Since this paper is aimed at demonstrating my understanding on Morris theory of sign, I will describe the problematic aspects of Morriss arguments if they becomes obstacles for me understand his theory. Morris argues that the object of semiotic does not deal with particular object, but link of four of them, therefore sign is characterized as S is a sign of D for I to the degree that I take... ...tures of particular objects that universal signs come to to -- as a formalist-behaviorist, Morris is unconcerned with mental images since they do not make out in the relational properties of sign. Describing signs functions in semantic context and universal sign in syntactical context. In contrast, indexical signs are located in syntax unless we understand that to be meaningful the act of directionality must contain an object, then they are in the realm of semantics. All syntactical relations of signs are subjected to rules. Morris proposes two rules shaping and transformation. Formation rules govern formation of kernel sentences, and transformation rules derivative sentences (Morris, 29). Based on the syntactical rules, Morris suggests the object of syntax is syntactical relations between signs the relations determined by syntactical rules (Morris, 29).