You are on page 1of 4

Semantics of the English language: sense

and reference
Contemporary linguistics is influenced by an extensive, and growing, body of research and
plentiful theoretical orientations. Semantics is no exception, and can be approached from an
array of different perspectives, including structuralist-traditional, generative, systemic-
functional and cognitive perspectives, each of which presents descriptions of language
according to models and frameworks developed in consonance with the theories and
assumptions they espouse. Semantics is also the central object in other fields such as
philosophy and psychology, which promotes the sharing of ideas among scholars who
investigate the same object from different stand points.
The concepts currently applied and available to those interested in semantics can suggest
different typologies and categorisations which might appear to conflict, and can cause a great
deal of confusion. In linguistics, denotation, for example, is a concept analogous in some ways
to what is labelled ideational meaning by Halliday in Systemic-functional grammar, descriptive
meaning by Lyons in generative grammar, and referential, logical or propositional meaning by
several other semanticists adopting various perspectives (Cruse, 2011).
In order to avoid confusion, applicable concepts will be explored here in relation to their use
within the particular literature from which these were gathered and their interpretation will be
anchored on a perspective consonant with that adopted by the relevant sources. These concepts,
as well as extensions based on them where appropriate, will then be used to draw a description
of English semantics with focus on sense and reference.

A brief overview
Semantics can be broadly defined as the study of meaning. It has a long history that can be
traced back to Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece, initially focused on the relation between
form and meaning. Along the history, the investigation of meaning developed into a range of
different traditions and is currently approached from various perspectives. One point of
convergence in the majority of contemporary treatments, besides the original focus on form-
meaning relations, is the division of meaning into diverse categories.
While the categories into which meaning can be divided differ substantially from one
perspective to another, to the point that it would not be feasible to compare such categories
across different perspectives, two realms seem to be shared by most current approaches to
semantics. We will label these language-internal and language external realms.
The first can be equated with sensethe meaning of words in relation to their role in the
linguistic structure in which they occur. The second can be understood as referencethe
meaning of words in relation to real world aspects of language use. Not all approaches to
semantics make such distinction, but it can be recognised in the majority of approaches and its
need can be assessed if one considers the difference between the meaning of a word and the
meaning of an utterancea sample of language-in-use.
Early developments
The origin of the concepts of sense and reference can be linked to semioticsthe study of
signs and the work of Charles S. Pierce. In an attempt to model the process of signification,
named semiosis, Pierce produced a triadic diagram containing an object, a physical
representation of the object, which he called representamen, and a mental interpretation of
the physical representation, termed interpretant.

In the absence of the object, the use of the representamen, written or spoken word in the case
of a linguistic sign, would trigger the correspondent interpretant in the minds of those using
the sign.
Pierces diagram was interpreted and adapted in different ways, and the original labels were
replaced with several combinations of other labels. One well known example of a similar
diagram is found in Ogden and Richards (1966). While the label object remained unaltered,
representamen was substituted with word and interpretant with concept. The authors
called the bond between word and concept an association, the bond between concept and
object reference, and the bond between object and word meaning.
The impact of developments such as this interpretation of the sign can be recognised in current
theories of meaning. Note that the relation between the concept and the object is termed
reference, alluding to the idea that concepts refer to objects in the real world, which is still
present, although somehow expanded, in current semantic definitions of reference. Concept, in
turn, came to be equated with sense.

How theory applies to language analysis


In the early days of the development of a theory of reference, critics claimed that reference
presupposed the existence of real world objects corresponding to each word in the language,
but there were words that did not refer to concrete objects, such as unicorn. This was resolved
extending the definition of objects to elementary things (Wittgenstein, 1922) and ideas (Frege,
1918). Contemporary criticism often points out that there are many words in English such as
articles and prepositionsthe , as, of, etcthat have no corresponding object in the real
world, not even if such objects are defined as elementary things, and perhaps neither if they are
defined as ideas.

Language offers its users a range of signs, each of which have semantic content termed senses,
equated to what they are able to denote or which are developed through conventionalised usage
Some of these signs refer to objects, concrete or not, in the real world
Language users are free to choose among such signs to construct utterances to convey what
they intend to express
Speakers choices are guided by conventional usage and the combination of signs is guided by
grammar
The utterances refer to that which the speaker intends to convey, which might correspond to
the conventionalised senses beared by the chosen signs in varying degrees
Each utterance refers to a specific context of use and might be dependent on the context in
varying degrees in order to be interpreted
Besides choosing from the repertoire of signs offered by the language, speakers can also coin
new signs and ascribe new usage to existing signs
Utterances can be understood as context dependent signs, as they stand for that which the
speaker intends to convey in that particular context
Utterances are distinguished from sentences by (Hurford et al., 2007; Kreidler, 2014) and not
(Griffiths, 2006)

Cruse, D. A. (2011). Meaning in language : an introduction to semantics and pragmatics (3rd ed.).
Oxford England ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Griffiths, P. (2006). An introduction to English semantics and pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Hurford, J. R., Heasley, B., & Smith, M. B. (2007). Semantics : a coursebook.
Kreidler, C. W. (2014). Introducing English semantics (Second Edition. ed.). London ; New York:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1966). The meaning of meaning a study of the influence of language
upon thought and of the science of symbolism (10. ed., 6. impr. ed.). London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. New York,
London,: Harcourt, Brace & company
K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & co., ltd.

You might also like