SEMIOTIK = ??? 03: Ch.W. Morris

SEMIOTIK = ???� 03: Ch.W. Morris

semiotics sémiotique

semasiologie

sémiologie

semiotica

sematologie

„Zeichen_Lesen. Der semiotische Blick auf Kultur und Alltag“. Vorlesung WS 2019/20 — Copyright © Gloria Withalm 2019]

Charles W. Morris!(1901–1979) !


Charles W. Morris — Publikationen!(1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs [= International Encyclopedia of

Unified Sciences 1(2)]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [Dt.: Grundlagen der Zeichentheorie. Ästhetik und Zeichentheorie. München: Hanser 1972]

(1946). Signs, Language, and Behavior. New York: Braziller [Dt.: Zeichen, Sprache und Verhalten. Düsseldorf: Schwann 1973]

(1964). Signification and Significance: A Study of the Relations of Signs and Values. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

(1971). Writings on the General Theory of Signs. The Hague & Paris: Mouton (1975). Zeichen Wert Ästhetik. Mit einer Einl. hg. u. übers. Achim Eschbach.

Frankfurt (1993). Symbolism and Reality. A Study in the Nature of Mind. With a preface by

Achim Eschbach (= Foundations of Semiotics. 15). Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1993 [re-edited Ph.D. thesis (University of Chicago 1925)]


Charles W. Morris über Semiotik!

“It is doubtful if signs have ever before been so vigorously studied by so many persons and from so many points of view. The army of investigators includes linguists, logicians, philosophers, psychologists, biologists, anthropologists, psychopathologists, aestheticians, and sociologists.”

(Morris 1938: 1) „Zeichen_Lesen. Der semiotische Blick auf Kultur und Alltag“. Vorlesung WS 2019/20 — Copyright © Gloria Withalm 2019]

Charles W. Morris über Semiotik!

“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 non-linguistic, whether personal or social. Semiotic is thus an interdisciplinary enterprise. Part of the widespread interest in this area is motivated by

the belief that higher-level sign processes (often called symbols) are of central importance in understanding man and his works.”

[Morris, Charles W. (1964). “Signs and the Act”. In: ders.: Signification and Significance. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press; reprinted in: Innis, Robert E. (ed). (1985). Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, hier: p. 178]

* Morris hat den Begriff semiotic für die Disziplin verwendet und nicht die heute gebräuchliche Plural-for-Singular Konstruktion semiotics (etwa analog zu linguistics).


Charles W. Morris: Semiotik !

„Die Zeichentheorie als die Wissenschaft von den Zeichen-prozessen (Semiosen) ist von den Zeichenprozessen ebenso verschieden wie jede andere Wissenschaft von ihrem Gegen-standsbereich verschieden ist. […] Die Semiotik als Wissenschaft benutzt spezielle Zeichen, um Aus-sagen über Zeichen zu machen; sie ist eine Sprache, in der man über Zeichen spricht. Die Semiotik zerfällt in die Teildisziplinen Syntaktik, Semantik und Pragmatik, die jeweils die syntaktische, die semantische und die pragmatische Dimension der Semiose behandeln.“

(nach Morris 1938/1972: 25–26)


Charles W. Morris: Semiotic ~ a metascience !“Semiotic has a double relation to the sciences: it is both a science among the sciences and an instrument of the sciences. The significance of semiotic as a science lies in the fact that it is a step in the unification of science, since it supplies the foundations for any special science of signs, such as linguistics, logic, mathematics, rhetoric, and (to some extent at least) aesthetics. […] But if semiotic is a science co-ordinate with the other

sciences. studying things or the properties of things in their function of serving as signs, it is also the instrument of all sciences, 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 1938: 2) „Zeichen_Lesen. Der semiotische Blick auf Kultur und Alltag“. Vorlesung WS 2019/20 — Copyright © Gloria Withalm 2019]

Charles W. Morris!“From the cradle to the grave, from awakening until sleep, the contemporary individual is subjected to an unending barrage of signs through which other persons seek to ad-vance their goals. He is told what to believe, what to approve and disapprove, what to do and not to do. If he is not alert, he becomes a veritable robot manipulated by signs, passive in his beliefs, his valuations, his activities. […] Against this exploitation of individual life, semiotic can serve

as a counter force. When an individual meets the signs with which he is confronted with a knowledge of how signs work, he is better able to co-operate with others when co-operation is justified.”

(Morris 1946: 240)


mehrere Kongresse; erster in Paris 1935 (Morris hielt einen Vortrag zum Thema: “Semiotic and Scientific Empiricism”) letzter = 5. Kongress 1939 Journal of Unified Science International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (Hg.: Carnap, Morris, Neurath) Band 1.2: Morris, Charles W. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. [zeitgenössische Buchbesprechung des ersten Bandes: Time Magazine, August 1, 1938; Web: <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,771153,00.html>]

Charles W. Morris, Otto Neurath !& Rudolf Carnap: Unified Science!


Chicago Philosophy Club, 1896 !

“Standing: Cora Allen, Mr. Henderson, Miss Clark, Louis G. Whitehead, George Herbert Mead, John Dewey, Amy Tanner, unknown, Addison W. Moore, J. D. Forrest Seated: unknown, Edward Scribner Ames, Mrs. Forrest, Simon F. MacLennan, unknown, unknown, unknown”

(Web online: <http://www.pragmatism.org/genealogy/chicago_philosophy_1896.htm>, <upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Chicago_Club_1896.jpg>; retrieved: 2019-10-18)


Charles Morris & Ferruccio Rossi-Landi

Charles Morris & Ferruccio Rossi-Landi

(Web online: <http://www.augustoponzio.com/album.htm>, <http://www.augustoponzio.com/gallery/album-1--9-.jpg>; retrieved: 2019-10-18)


Charles W. Morris: 3 Strömungen !

die nordamerikanische Tradition des (kritischen) Pragmatismus (Ch.S. Peirce, William James, George Herbert Mead, John Dewey, C.I. Lewis) die anglo-amerikanische Tradition des Empirismus (Empiristen 17./18. Jh., Behaviorismus), die mitteleuropäische Tradition des Logischen Positivismus (Ernst Mach, Moritz Schlick, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach, F Waismann),

(cf. Posner, Roland (1981). „Charles Morris und die verhaltenstheoretischen Grundlagen der Semiotik“. In: Krampen, Martin, Klaus Oehler, Roland Posner & Thure von Uexküll (Hg.) (1981). Die Welt als Zeichen. Klassiker der modernen Semiotik. Berlin: Severin und Siedler, 54)


Charles W. Morris: Drei Dimensionen 1!“It is important, Morris insisted, to embrace

an empiricism which is radical, a rationalism which is a study of method, and a pragmatism which is critical.

These are the three components that correspond to the three dimensions of semiotics. Radical empiricism is semantic investigation, methodological rationalism is syntactic investigation, critical pragmatism is pragmatic investigation. The unity of science thus results from the unity of its linguistic structure, from the semantic relationships which it succeeds in establishing, and from the practical effects it produces. Notice that in this way even the three traditional fields of philosophy – logic, metaphysics, and the theory of values – were indirectly represented in semiotic terms.” (Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1978). “On some Post-Morrisian problems”. In: Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio. Between Signs and Non-signs. Ed. by Susan Petrilli. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1992, 63 [orig.publ. in: Ars semeiotica 3/1978: 3–31])


Charles W. Morris: Drei Dimensionen 2!“The term ‘pragmatics’ has obviously been coined with reference to the term ‘pragmatism.’ It is a plausible view that the permanent significance of pragmatism lies in the fact that it has directed attention more closely to the relation of signs to their users than had preciously been done and has assessed more profoundly than ever before the relevance of this relation in understanding intellectual activities. The term ‘pragmatics’ helps to signalize the significance of the achievements of Peirce, James, Dewey, and Mead within the field of semiotic. At the same time, ‘pragmatics’ as a specifically semiotic term must receive its own formulation. By ‘pragmatics’ is designated the science of the relation of signs to their interpreters. ‘Pragmatics’ must then be distinguished from ‘pragmatism,’ and ‘pragmatical’ from ‘pragmatic.’”

[Morris 1938, zit.n.1971: 43]


Charles W. Morris: Drei Dimensionen 3!“Pragmatics is that portion of semiotic which deals with the origin, uses and effects of signs within the behavior in which they occur; semantics deals with the signification of signs in all modes of signifying; syntactics deals with combinations of signs without regard for their specific significations or their relation to the behavior in which they occur.”

[Morris 1946: 219]


Zeichen: der Zeichenträger

– steht nie allein, sondern in Beziehung zu anderen Zeichen-trägern [= syntaktische Dimension];

– steht für etwas anderes [= semantische Dimension];

– werden produziert, rezipiert,

interpretiert [= pragmatische Dimension]





– werden produziert, rezipiert,






– wird produziert, rezipiert,


StVO


Charles W. Morris: Semiose/semiosis!

(nach Morris 1972: 94)


Charles W. Morris: semiosis !“A dog responds by the type of behavior (I) involved in the hunting of chipmunks (D) to a certain sound (S); a traveler prepares himself to deal appropriately (I) with the geographical region (D) in virtue of the letter (S) received from a friend. In such cases S is the sign vehicle (and a sign in virtue of its functioning), D the designatum, and I the interpretant of the interpreter. The most effective characterization of a sign is the following: S is a sign of D for I to the degree that I takes account of D in virtue of the presence of S. Thus in semiosis something takes account of something else mediately, i.e., by means of a third something. Semiosis is accordingly a mediated-taking-account-of. The mediators are sign vehicles; the takings-account-of are interpretants; the agents of the process are interpreters; what is taken account of are designata.”

(nach Morris 1938: 20-21; 1972: 20-21)


Charles W. Morris: Semiosis 1!“For present purposes the basic terms of semiotic can be intro-duced as follows: Semiosis (or sign process) is regarded as a five-term relation — v, w, x, y, z — in which v sets up in w the disposition to react in a certain kind of way, x, to a certain kind of object, y (not then acting as a stimulus), under certain conditions, z. The v’s, in the cases where this relation obtains, are signs, the w’s are interpreters, the x’s are interpretants, the y’s are significations, and the z’s are the contexts in which the signs occur.”

[Morris, Charles W. (1964). “Signs and the Act”. In: ders.: Signification and Significance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; reprinted in: Innis, Robert E. (ed). (1985). Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, hier: p. 178]


Charles W. Morris: Semiosis 2a!“As to his sign theory, in Signification and Significance Morris introduced terminological innovations relative to the identification of the components of semiosis. He listed five: — Sign (or better, sign vehicle). This term refers to the object acting as a stimulus to sign behavior. — Interpreter. This term indicates any organism acted upon by the sign vehicle. Such an extension of the concept of interpreter to include any organism whatever, and therefore, any kind of sign behavior beyond the human, gave semiotics the possibility of not limiting itself exclusively to the social behavior of man, and therefore of reaching beyond the limits established by the semiologie of the Saussurean matrix. This kind of orientation in semiotic studies was to find original development in the research of one of Morris’s direct successors, Thomas A. Sebeok.[23] — Interpretant. This term covers the disposition to respond to a certain type of object as the result of a sign stimulus. — Signification. The object to which the interpreter responds through an interpretant — that is, the signified object which as such, specifies Morris, cannot function simultaneously as a stimulus. Signification here replaces what

./.


Charles W. Morris: Semiosis 2b!Morris had variously called denotatum (1938) and significatum (1946), while the concepts of interpreter and interpretant remain constant. That the object of signification cannot function as a stimulus does not mean, explains Morris, that what gives itself over to direct experience cannot be signified. The point is, rather, that only a part of such objects can be perceived directly; and it is this part that functions as the stimulus or sign vehicle. The part that is not fully perceived functions instead as the signified object, as the object of significa-tion. When we say ‘this is a desk’, we do so on the basis of our limited experience of the object in question, of that part that is perceived directly and interpreted as a sign of the fact that we are dealing with a desk on the basis of the hypothesis (with all the risks of possible error) that there exist parts we do not actually see; the back of the desk, its underside, the drawers, etc. — Finally, Context. This term refers to the set of circumstances in which semiosis takes place.”

Petrilli, Susan (1992). “Introduction”. Semiotica 88(1-2): 25 [= Special Issue. Social Practice, Semiotics and the Sciences of Man: The Correspondence between Charles Morris and Ferruccio Rossi-Landi]


Charles W. Morris: designatum vs. denotatum !“This distinction was originally proposed by Morris in Foundations (1938). He addressed the same question again, with terminological variants, in Sign, Language and Behavior (1946), and yet again in later writings. Even so, his position as established in 1938 remains the most convincing.

As he states in Foundations: ‘Where what is referred to actually exists as referred to the object of reference is a denotatum’ (1938, in 1971: 20). For example, if the sign ‘unicorn’ refers to the object and if we consider unicorns as existent in the world of mythology, that sign has a denotatum because it exists in that world. In contrast, if the sign ‘unicorn’ refers to its object of reference and if we consider unicorns as existent in the world of zoology, that sign does not have a denotatum, because it does not exist in that world. Here, the sign has a designatum (Morris 1938) – or a significatum, as Morris (1946) was later to call it […] – but it does not have a denotatum: ‘It thus becomes clear that, while every sign has a designatum, not every sign has a denotatum’ (ibid.). […]

As we might expect, this distinction is maintained in Sign, Language and Behavior with the introduction of a terminological variation: the term designatum is replaced with the term significatum. Morris states: ‘Those conditions which are such that whatever fulfills them is a denotatum will be called a significatum of the sign’ (1971 [1946]: 94).”

“In other words, the designatum or significatum is that which the sign or sign-vehicle refers to; it is a set of qualities forming a class or type of objects or events, to which the interpreter reacts independently of whether what is referred to actually exists (denotatum) according to the existence value attributed to it by the sign. In Signification and Significance, Morris replaces the term ‘significatum’ with ‘signification’ and drops altogether the term ‘denotatum’.” (Petrilli. Susan & Augusto Ponzio (2005). Semiotics Unbounded. Interpretive Routes through the Open Network of Signs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 193–194, 195)


Charles W. Morris: Diskurstypen!

(Morris 1946: 125)


Charles W. Morris: Handlungsphasen & Diskursdimensionen !

Handlungs- Bezeichnungs- Gebrauchs- Wert- phasen dimensionen dimensionen dimensionen Orientierung designativ informativ distanziert orientation Bearbeitung präskriptiv inzitiv dominant modification Erfüllung appreziativ valuativ rezeptiv consumtion

(Posner 1981: 83)


Documents

SEMIOTIK = ??? 03: Ch.W. Morris