To understand the functioning of signs, semiosis, Morris proposes four elements: Vehicle of the sign (S), Designatum (D) and Interpretant and interpreter (I). «Mediators are vehicles of signs; the take into account are interpretants; process agents are interpreters; what is taken into account is designated" (Morris, 1972: 19). These 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 the sign in its relation to the designatum, pragmatics the study of the sign in relation to the interpreter and syntactics the study of the sign in relation to other signs. Based on these semiotic elements, Morris proposes a definition of language: “a language is. . . any intersubjective set of sign vehicles whose use is determined by syntactic, semantic and pragmatic rules” (Morris:48). An objection to this definition of language might be that by extending the four semiotic elements to linguistics and language, Morris's definition of a sign will be problematic since all objects that are symbolically and linguistically associated with other objects are defined as signs. Therefore one could observe the discrepancy between his definition of a sign and his examples (see CJ Ducasse, 1942). Since this article is intended to demonstrate my understanding of Morris's theory of signs, I will describe problematic aspects of Morris's arguments if they become obstacles for me in understanding his arguments. Morris argues that the object of semiotics does not deal with a particular object, but association of four of them, so the sign is characterized as: “S is a sign of D for I to the extent that I takes into account D by virtue of the presence of S” (Morris: 19). Designatu...... middle of paper...... age, and pseudo-sentence-thing meta-language (see Hanks: 63-64). For Hanks, metalanguage could also operate at a quasi-semantic level like specific technical terms (signs) used in the sciences. As we know, those terms (signs) refer syntactically to other signs, or (if we read Morris backwards) those terms or signs contain designates that also function as signs. I find Morris's semiotics extraordinarily rich and valid for explaining how signs operate and constitute meaning in our interactions. Bibliography: Ducasse, C.J. "Some comments on C.W. Morris's "Foundations of the Theory of Signs." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 3, n. 1 (1942): 43-52.Hanks, William F. Language and Communicative Practices. Westview Press, 1996.Morris, Charles William. "Foundations of the theory of signs". In Writings on the General Theory of Signs, 17-54. Mouton, 1972.