Abstract

There has recently been considerable controversy in the literature over the concept “disposition to respond” as used by Charles Morris in his criterion by which it is to be determined whether or not something functions as a sign. It is often assumed that this concept serves as a means for broadening a strictly behavioral criterion through the introduction of something which is a characteristic of sign situations when behavior is not. But dispositions have no practical value in this respect, for Morris's criterion can not be used to obtain sign knowledge about situations not giving rise to overt behavior. However, dispositions do have a practical function in Morris's criterion, a function which has been overlooked in these discussions.