Theories of meaning – Semantics

My father has a coat

This coat is his favourite

He wears it when goes for hunting

Hunting is his profession….

If we can read and understand the above expression, it means we can make meaning out of it. It means also that we can relate these abstract forms to objects [events, places, persons or things] in the real world with a connection from a single word to a phrase and then a sentence. We also understood how these sentences have communicated in a whole as a text. The branch of linguistics that is preoccupied with the study of meaning is semantics. The concern of semantics has lllexplore the various ways that meanings are expressed in sentences, written r spoken words. How ordinary abstract forms can be organised systematically to make meaning and how these meanings relate to objects in the real world.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY OF MEANING

Semantics is the branch of linguistics that focuses on the study of meaning (Lobner, 2002). According to Chambers Biographical Dictionary (1990:202) the word semantics was first used by Michael Bréal in the nineteenth century to mean a range of ideas often used in natural languages to explain the problem of understanding that is associated with word selection and connotation. The field of semantics has its origin from philosophy. When scholars began to make scientific enquiry into the study of language, it becomes imperative that semantics had a good share of their interests.

Contemporary philosophical semantics can he traced to the works of Carnap, Rudolf (1965), Alfred, Taski (1902) and Pierce, Charles (1914). The first person to start studying semantics as a distinct discipline, separate from philosophy was Alfred Korzbski, a programme he referred to as general semantics.

He introduced a naming label for the items he describes. Korzybski started by describing all entities and realities by assigning labels to them. He went further to group the names into three. He had names for common objects such as chair, stone, cow and so on. He also had labels for groups and collections like nations, animals, people and so on. Korzybski’s third group of labels do not have identifiable referents in the outside world.

WHAT IS MEANING

It is almost vague to study what seems intrinsic to a language. When we make a sentence, we combine it both to have structural meaning and t have communicative sense. So everyday, we make linguistic choices, with little effort to know the mechanism that has organized it into a properly fitted meaningful structure.

• I want to eat apple.
• *I want to eat soap

Both propositions suggest that the speaker wants to eat something. However, with very little mental awareness; it is very easy to act on the first sentence than on the second. Although the second sentence qualifies to be structurally perfect, it does not meet the semantic obligation for the act. There is no connection between eat and soap, except if this exists in any other culture where similar sentence applies. From the above also, we can see how just a single word changed the meaning of an entire expression.

There are more and more ways to explain meanings in expression and so, even though we naturally communicate without being told of the meanings that we make, as we can naturally differentiate them, the study of meaning, just like the study of syntactic structures, is a very important of language studies.

Ogden & Richards (1923) in their Publication, Meaning of Meaning outlined about twenty one definitions of meaning. We shall examine some of these definitions:

(a)        Meaning is magic: i.e. it appears as something intrinsic (connected, integrated) to language itself.

(b)        Meaning consists of the words comprising the entry in the dictionary The interesting thing about this is that the words used to describe the other words are in turn described by words.

(c)        Meaning is what one wants to express, what he means in the carrying out of a linguistic act. It goes further to mean what a speaker intends a listener to understand.

(d)       Meaning is the place of something within a system. The meaning of a word is grasped in relation to its surroundings

(1)        THEORIES OF MEANING

The notion of meaning is central to theories of language. However, there appears to be considerable disagreement regarding what a theory of meaning should do, and how it pertains to other linguistic issues (Wilensky, 1978). We shall make attempts to explain some of the theories in the succeeding paragraphs.

(2)        IDEATIONAL THEORY OF MEANING

This was advanced by John Locke. The ideational theory of meaning holds that the meaning of a word is the idea with which it is regularly associated or for which it stands (Axtell, 1968). According to the theory, ideas are indications of private and independent language. Language is a tool for publicly observable indications of N private ideas and the ability to convey these ideas to others. According to Locke, the use of words serves to represent ideas, Language therefore was not treated independent of thought rather it depends on thought for its expression i.e. it sees language as an instrument for the communication of thoughts

(3)        MENTALIST THEORY OF MEANING

The mentalist postulates that meaning in natural language is an information structure that is mentally encoded by human beings. This theory was the basis for conceptual semantics. It was developed by Ray Jackendoff and was aimed at explaining the nature of the conceptual element by which a person understands words and sentences.

In the theory of the mentalist, meaning is seen as a representation (Jackendoff, 1990). Language user create a mental picture of what they wish to express and then use words to communicate them. These ideas or mental representation have already being naturally processed. Learners simply make choices from a range of lexical concepts in their lexicon.

One of the weaknesses of mentalist theory of meaning is in its inability to proffer answer to the following question: How does one just create a mental image of an expression one has no idea of?

However, many theories on grammar, especially those proposed by Noam Chomsky find bearing on the mentalist theory. The strength of this theory is binding on its effort to explain how children acquire their first language.

(4)        BEHAVIOURAL THEORY OF MEANING

Behavioural theory of meaning criticizes the mentalist point of view, stating that no such internal structure, or innateness determine our view of meaning rather, a practical responsive participation to things around us forms a basis for understanding mental life (Skinner, 1957).

This theory was pioneered by B.F Skinner who proposed that correct semantics for a natural language is behaviouristic i.e. the meaning of an utterance as uttered on a particular occasion is determined by its context. Let’s take for example the word, ‘fire’ in the expression below.

Help! Fire!

Keep the fire burning

Different individuals would respond differently to these expressions. These individual may include, a shop owner, a student, a fire fighter, a policeman and so on. As a result, the language and the meaning it makes hold significance in more ways than just an idea or thought. ..

(5)        GRICEAN THEORY OF MEANING

This theory was advanced by Paul Grice in his book, Studies in the way of words. It holds firmly that the essence of meaning in language is the communication of the speaker’s intention (Grice, 1991). The speaker’s intention determines the effect that the hearer makes of it. Accord to Grice, language constitutes a feature of words that speakers can exploit in realizing the intention referred to in his ana1ysis of speaker’s meaning. Meaning is reduced to the psychological state of the speaker.

(1)        THEORY OF MEANING

Two scholars, Ogden and Richards clearly defined meaning in terms of reference. They came very close to the analysis of meaning by combining philosophical processes to linguistic methodologies. How did they do this? They introduced the concept “referent” to describe the physical object or situation which the word identifies in the real world. They pointed out that the representation or situation should be seen as a referent while the actual pronunciation or orthographic representation will constitute the symbol.

The core of this theory is in its establishment of the relationship between iangu and thought expressed in symbols. The key terms include: reference, symbol and referent. This is explained in the meaning triangle below:

 

 

 

The triangle describes a simplified form of relationship between the speaker as subject, a concept as object or referent, and its symbol. Expressions have meaning because they stand for things. Words are labels or symbols while the person or thing being refereed denote the referent.

One problem referential theory is that every word refers to an actual also, some words can refer to the same thing but may not necessarily share the same mean

Beyond there is also a contextual meaning. Scholars are of the opinion that so many other factors outside language use contribute to the meaning that utterances make in a language. The aspect of linguistics that concern these unique significance aspect is purgation’s.

PRAGMATIC THEORY

Pragmatics is the study of meaning in context (Levinson, 1983), it focused on those situations that surround a text and helps in its interpretations. These include: the participants, their shared background of knowledge setting, and other psychological and social factors, all of which goes a long way to contribute to the meaning.

Context is very important in the study of meaning. As a matter of fact, without context, the meaning that an expression makes would be limited to the linguistics meaning expressed by the words contained in the expression.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Axtell. Jar.es. 1968, The Educational Writings of John Locke, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Erickstad. J. (1998). Richards’ meaning of meaning theory. Unpublished research paper, University of Colorado a: Boulder. Retrieved 12-01-2017 from http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourse/Papers/App_Papers/Erikstad. htm

Jackendoff Ray (1990). Semantic Structures Cambridge Mass: MIT Press:

Kerson R. (1977). Semantic theory London: Cambridge University Press

Ogden, C.K & Richards, I.A. (1923). Meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt. Brace and Company.

Palmar, F.R (1976). Semantics: A new outline London: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1958) Verbal Behavior, Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.

Wilensky, Robert (1978). Understanding Goal-based Stories. New York: Yale University press.