A FIELD THEORY OF COMMUNICATION 209
use designators); to evaluate the facts (and here he will use appraisors); and to make recommendations for change (and here he will use implicit or explicit prescriptors, usually the latter).
The more difficult task is to find the supportive formators. What are the facts? Do the designators follow a sequence of time formators; do the designators follow a sequence of cause to effect formators; are the designators conjunctive, disjunctive, or analogical sections? The supportive formators for the evaluation of facts may (and usually do) follow the pattern of the exposition of facts. And the recommendations for change are usually in the form of a means to end pattern. The writer may indicate only what should be done and by whom (the means) or, he may indicate only the goal (the end sought), or he may indicate both means and end.
Analysis of the editorial by the students is followed by evaluation, and here the formula of Morris is used. Do the designators denote? Are the designators relevant to the frame of reference? Are the designators exhaustive, or has something been left out? Do the appraisors rest upon true and sufficient designators? Do the prescriptors stem from such appraisors? Do we have, as Morris cautions, first designators, then appraisors, and only then prescriptors? Or, is the editorial weak in designators, strong in appraisors, and dogmatic in prescriptors?
You will recall that in Part Four we drew on Norman Cousins' editorial, "Clean Bombs and Dirty Wars," for examples of designators, appraisors, and prescriptors as defined by Morris. The discovery of modes of signifying is requisite to the analysis of the editorial. But now we must move ahead to set up formators which will make it possible for us to make a working-title that is inclusive of the