Explorations in Language and Meaning - Essay Example

Although dictionaries exist that claim to offer clear and concise definitions of words, for linguistics the issue involves philosophical concerns: How is objective meaning determined for language? What methods are used to determine the difference between one word and another? Is it possible to say words spelled similarly have different meanings? This essay examines these questions by analyzing the linguistic concepts of Referential Theory, Image Theory, Polysemes, and Homonymys. 1. THEORIES OF MEANING Referential Theory Referential Theory refers to a method of determining linguistic meaning. In this theory, word meaning is determined by everything that can be physically referenced to the word. These connecting words are referred to as the base word’s extensions. For instance, the extension of a word like Seoul, Korea would be Seoul, Korea. For a word like water, it would refer to every incarnation of water – rivers, lakes, oceans, drinking water. To determine the semantic meaning using a referential approach requires the actual physical referencing to a real world object (i.e. defining the word finger by pointing to your finger). Referential Theory becomes convoluted when you consider that not all words have direct relations to real world entities. For instance, what would be the referent for a word like ‘the’? Linguists argue that ‘the’ isn’t necessarily a word that requires semantic definition, but is rather a grammatical entity. Another objection to the theory is the problem when words refer to imaginary things. For instance, what would be the referent for a word like ‘moronic plant.’ Clearly, plants do not exhibit the same intellectual qualities as humans, yet this word is not entirely non-sensical, as it could be imagined by a cartoonist. Other entities that don’t lend themselves to direct interpretation are terms with ambiguous connotations. When determining the direct referent for a term like ‘passion’ it’s possible to point to passionate people or experiences, but the exact nature of the experience remains vague. For linguists, this makes determining objective meaning impossible. Referential Theory also calls into question various elements of structural and pragmatic interpretation. Murphy, M. Lynne, (2009) write: A classical example is Hesperus and Phosphorus, the Latin names for the Morning Star and the Evening Star. Since these two words both refer to the planet Venus, Referential Theory holds that the two words mean the same thing. But the Romans who used these words believed that Hesperus and Phosphorus were two different stars, so from their point of view, they didn’t mean the same thing. (p. 52) Considering contemporary pragmatic approaches to the philosophy of truth, Referential Theory equates truth claims to the scientific claims of a particular society. While Roman society equated the words with two different stars, contemporary referents include them as one. This doesn’t pose a current problem with meaning, but what if scientific advancements prove that they are actually three stars -- then meaning is displaced. On a smaller scale, Referential Theory fails to account for the structural differentiations in language (Crick 1976). For instance, is the meaning of ‘je ne sais quoi’ the same as charming in English, and if it isn’t, then referents of referents are required to translate the term. This disrupts the continuity of meaning and questions the nature of objective interpretation. Image Theory While the Referential Theory of meaning can’t define the actual physical extension of imaginary things like ‘moronic plant’, image theory develops a linguistic theory of semantic meaning to help account for such entities. An imagistic concept of meaning attempts to locate objective definitions by the image the perceiver holds of them in the mind. While it’s impossible to point to physical extensions for words like ‘moronic plant’, it is highly possible to visualize what a plant would look like if it took on human qualities and turned out, in fact, to be a moron. Clearly there are issues with this theory of semantic meaning. One common complaint is that while the mind is able to conjure up specific imagery for the concept, it is perhaps too specific. For instance, when envisioning a moronic plant, the mind could conjure up images of a plant looking dumb, a plant having difficulty finding sunlight, or a plant in the role of a human participating in moronic activities. However, the underlying reality is that there are no direct mental connections between the image in the perceiver’s mind and the syntactic structure of the vocabulary word. This results in a multitude of interpretations. Conversely, sensory image could be too specific, so that the individual incarnation of the word in the perceivers mind would necessarily eliminate different, but just as valid interpretations. Therefore, objective meaning is not achieved through this approach. An argument is that it’s just this very interpretation of the visual into the textual realm that authors seek to differentiate themselves over. There is almost a limitless incarnation of feelings, situations, or even things we would consider to have stationary meaning – such as, a glass of wine – found throughout poetry and literature and claiming one imagistic text more ‘objectively’ true over another is preposterous. At best, humans can pragmatically adopt imagistic theories of perception on an individual basis, so that one particular signification of images is valued over another (Keith 1986). While this doesn’t objectively account for semantic meaning, the argument is that objective or essential meaning of words is necessarily impossible to achieve, but the pragmatic model of image theory goes furthest in developing functional definitions. Another issue is the problem with words, like ‘love’ or ‘the’, that don’t have direct image connections. For instance, how would you describe the word love to another human being? This is a strict definition of Image Theory that seems to be more closely linked to Referential Theory. It’s possible to extend the definition of Image Theory to include the cognitive connections humans make when thinking about the term. Thus, the fact these words cannot be so readily defined in objective terms actually helps substantiate Image Theory as a viable alternative. The argument is that words cannot necessarily be defined by others words, but they exist in a mental state, such that they are understood on an unconscious or intuitive level. While humans cannot readily describe to others what the word ‘the’ means, they have no trouble utilizing it in functional communication situations. 2. POLYSEMY VS. HOMONYMY Make-Up One method linguists use to determine the semantic difference between a polyseme and homonym is to attempt to determine the etymological origin of the term in question. In researching the term make-up, the Oxford Dictionary of Etymology defines it origins in 1803 and states, “Manner in which something is put together," 1821, from make (v.) + up. Cosmetics sense is from 1886; verbal phrase make up "to apply cosmetics" is from 1808. (Onions 375)” The definition refers to the meaning of ‘make-up’ that directly relates to cosmetics and the applying of them. The converse definition – make up – which refers to ending a quarrel, is said to have originated in 1669. The results of this can be interpreted in different ways: etymologically, two distinct periods of the terms have been identified, which speaks to their social distinction and points to them as polysemes; however, a second possible interpretation is that the originary connotation of the word – ending a quarrel – is directly related to the later definition – applying cosmetics. The very act of ending a quarrel carries in it the connotation of dressing up the truth to make things better, so it’s possible to see how the latter term could be considered a more direct use of the term and is thus a homonym. Another method used to differentiate between polysemes and homonyms is by exploring uses of the term in structural and morphological contexts. For instance, it’s possible to say, “Let’s make-up” when referring to ending a quarrel, but you cannot say “Let’s make up” when referring to the cosmetic definition. This essential structural difference points to the clear differentiation of the terms as polysemes. An example of morphological distinctions is when the gerund form ‘making up’ is applied, as a direct equivalent cannot be used when referring to cosmetics (although a future incarnation of such a gerund form is imaginable). A subtle distinction of the structures of the two words is also noticeable: in the cosmetics definition – make-up – there is a dash that distinguishes the words, whereas in when referring to resolving a conflict – making up – the dash is absent. The argument could be made that the two words are actually lexically different as well as semantically, further solidifying the term(s) as polysemes. Wicked The Oxford Dictionary of Etymology discusses the term ‘wicked’ by referring to its originary definition as referring to evil or wickedness and identifying its second connotation with F. Scott Fitzgerald. It states, “c.1275, earlier wick (12c.), apparently an adj. use of O.E. wicca "wizard" (see wicca). For evolution, cf. wretched from wretch. Slang ironic sense of "wonderful" first attested 1920, in F. Scott Fitzgerald. (Onions 967)” This definition lends itself closer to the definition of a homonym than a polyseme, as the terms functions in exactly the same contextual manner: “He is wicked”; “That was a wicked jump”. The variance in the terms seems to be more closely linked to a matter of personal expression. At what is the exact threshold level where ‘wicked’ meaning evil, means ‘wicked’ meaning cool. It seems that the youthful co-optation of the word arises from competing definitions of what constitutes good and bad, immoral vs. moral. While older generations might deem something, like skateboarding, evil, the younger generations view it as hip and youthful. Ultimately, the term ‘wicked’ actually refers to the same essence. In this instance, it’s just the sociolinguistic understanding of the term that differs and it is therefore a homonym. (One argument against this categorization might be instances where the two terms are placed in direct conflict with each other and linguistic understanding is dependent on essential differentiation between the terms. Take the statement, “It might be wicked, but it’s not wicked.” Here the terms are clearly distinguishable, lending themselves to a polyseme perspective.) Door Using the Referential Theory of meaning, the definition for door can be extended to include the actual physical door and the walkway you must enter through. The extensions for door would include the door itself and the more abstract path through entrance, making the word a homonym. It seems that in the discussion the unifying concept is that the door represents entrance through, and that while you can hang something on a door, and refer to a door as an individual entity (in a hardware store), it’s intended use must be as an entranceway or else it stops being considered a door and becomes a large piece of wood. Furthermore, there are few distinctions between the concepts in the dictionary, lending itself to a single definition. CONCLUSION In conclusion, it’s evident that the issue of determining word meaning is highly abstract and very much difficult to determine. Objective definition of terms becomes more than an issue of stating what a word means and ultimately is an issue of what philosophy can tell us about the nature of absolute truth. While Referential Theory and Image Theory might fall short of determining exact definitions, and Polysemes and Homonyms are vaguely defined, it seems linguistic meaning can be determined in the pragmatic reality of the word’s use. Works Cited Keith, Allan (1986) Linguistic Meaning, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Murphy, M. Lynne (2009) Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: CUP. Onions, C.T. (1996) The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, USA: Oxford University Press. Crick, Malcolm (1976) Explorations in Language and Meaning, New York: Halsted Press. Read More