The referential theory of meaning

The reference-based approach to meaning distinguishes between three closely related objects: the linguistic sign the (sound-form of a word or its graphic representation); the concept, or the mental object; and the referent, i.e. the actual part of reality to which the linguistic sign refers. Their connection and interrelation is best represented by the so-called semantic triangle:

concept

sound-form referent

[dʌ v]

As is seen from the diagram, there’s no direct connection between the sign and the referent. Instead, the sound or graphic form of the linguistic sign is connected with our concept of what it denotes, and only through that with the referent, i.e. the actual animal in question.

This scheme is over-simplified and several things are left out for the sake of clarity. It is important to remember, for example, that the word is represented by the whole left-hand side of the diagram, i.e. both the sign and the underlying concept, which form an inseparable unity.

Can the linguistic meaning be identified with the concept? To begin with, concepts are mental abstractions representing the most essential features of the real world objects; therefore they are almost identical for all people, no matter what language they speak. The meanings of words, on the other hand, are different in different languages, as additional structures (semantic, grammatical, etc.) are imposed on mental concepts. The Russian дом, for example, may have two different English equivalents, house and home, depending on the aspect of the concept we have in mind. Even in the same language, we can find words expressing the same concept but having different linguistic meaning: child, baby, brat, infant.

As we see, meaning cannot be identified with the concept; but neither can it be identified with the referent. While meaning is part of the system of the language, the referent is part of the real world, and so stands outside language. Besides that, the same object may be identified by using different words with different meanings: an apple, depending on the situation, may be apple or fruit or something or simply this (if you are pointing at it). Some linguists claim meanings can be identified by giving precise, scientifically accurate definitions of their referents; but again, this is not so. One may easily speak about things one has a very approximate knowledge of, just as one can use a computer or a TV set without any real knowledge of what’s inside it. In a similar way, when we talk of water, we need not know anything about its chemical composition.

Finally, there is no direct connection between the meaning and the corresponding linguistic sign, or the form of the word. Their connection has a perfectly conventional and arbitrary character, as identical meanings could be expressed by different forms (in a different language, or even in the same language: cf. car and automobile), and different meanings could be expressed by identical forms: cf. ball – a round object used for games and ball – a gathering of people for dancing. Therefore meaning cannot be identified with any of the three parts of the semantic triangle, although it is closely associated with all of them.

The main problem with studying meaning is that, being relative by nature, it can’t be " isolated" in a " chemically pure" form. THERE IS NO WAY OF GETTING MEANING OUTSIDE LANGUAGE, and the only method of describing it is in terms of language itself. Yet, by placing different words in identical contexts (= in an identical environment) or placing identical words in different contexts, and then contrasting them, i.e. by setting up linguistic oppositions, it is possible to prove that lexical meaning is not a homogeneous unity, but is a structure made up of various components. These components are usually described as types of meaning.

The four most important types or aspects of meaning are as follows:

1) Every word combines lexical and grammatical meaning (e.g. father is a personal noun, and the opposition father / fathers reveals a regular plural number paradigm);

2) Many words not only refer to some object but also serve to express the speaker’s attitude towards that object; thus their lexical meaning splits into denotational and connotational meaning (e.g. daddy is synonymous to father, but has added colloquial overtones and is a term of endearment);

3) Denotational meaning is further segmented into semantic components, or semes (e.g. the denotational meaning of father is clearly segmented into male and parent);

4) A word may be polysemantic, i.e. it may have several meanings, all interconnected and forming its semantic structure (e.g. apart from " a male parent", " father" can refer to an ancestor, a founder of a business company, a pioneer in some field, or a Christian priest). These component meanings are often defined as lexico-semantic variants.

3. Grammatical and lexical meaning

Word-forms so vastly different in meaning as tables, joys, machines and horses nevertheless have something in common. This common element is the grammatical meaning of plurality which can be found, and is also formally expressed, in all of them. From the point of view of lexicology, it is an expression in speech of relations between words by means of identical recurrent parts of individual forms of different words. These parts are known as " affixes" and can be isolated from word-forms similar or identical in function by comparing them. English has a limited number of such forms, all easily recognizable (as the plural and possessive forms in nouns, or 3rd person singular form in present tense verbs).

It may seem that grammatical meaning is of no importance for lexicology, but this is not quite so. Words preserve their grammatical meaning even when standing in isolation, as in a dictionary, and this should be taken into consideration when studying the other aspects of meaning. Besides that, some linguists speak of a lexico-grammatical meaning which stands in between lexical and grammatical meanings proper and deals with sub-categories within grammatical categories, such as " material nouns", " collective nouns" and " personal nouns" within the category of noun.

Unlike grammatical meaning, the lexical meaning is identical in all the forms of a word. For example, the word-forms go, goes, went, going and gone possess different grammatical meanings of tense, person, etc., but express the same notion, or concept, as they all refer to the process of movement. Lexical meaning is retained in all the forms of а given word, as well as in all the possible distributions.

As we see, lexical meaning is the feature of an individual lexical unit, while grammatical meaning is common to a class. However, none of these two meanings can be fully isolated from the other, as a word is impossible without both. (In some classes of words, known as form words, the lexical meaning is weakened and the grammatical meaning prevails).

4. Denotational and connotational meaning

Most linguists agree that lexical meaning involves not only mental concepts, but also the speaker’s emotions, as long as they are expressed by linguistic means (not by animal sounds). Therefore, the speaker's attitudes to what he is speaking about, to other communicants, and to the act of communication itself, are also relevant for semasiology and have to be accounted for.

The conceptual meaning of a word is expressed in its denotational or denotative meaning. To " denote" means to serve as a linguistic expression for a concept, or as a name for an individual object, and has a broader meaning than " refer to". The denotative meaning may be significative, if the referent is a concept, or demonstrative, if it is an individual object. The object denoted is a " denotatum" (pl. " denotata"), and is sometimes identified with the referent. Generally speaking, " signification", " denotation" and " reference" differ in their degree of abstraction, " signification" being the most abstract.

The opposite of denotation in language belongs to the field of expressiveness, which deals with the linguistic expression of the speaker's feelings and attitudes, and pragmatics involving the effect of words upon the listeners. Apart from the speaker's emotions, these also include evaluations, associations, social and expressive parameters of speech, etc. Taken together, these are known as connotations, or connotative meaning. Unlike denotation, this is an optional element of meaning, i.e. it may be absent completely, or present in varying proportions.

The connotative or connotational meaning, if it is present, may reflect the speaker’s observance of the appropriate style of communication (as in saying whether somebody was slain or killed or murdered or bumped off), his approval/disapproval of the object spoken of (as in saying whether a group of people is a party or a clique or a gang) or the person addressed (as in calling a police officer sergeant or constable or cop), his emotional state (as whether he speaks about his father as daddy or old geezer) or the degree of intensity (whether his feelings towards a certain lady are affection or love or adoration).

The description of the denotative meaning or meanings is the main task undertaken by lexicographers compiling unilingual explanatory dictionaries. The task is a difficult one because there is no clear line of demarcation between the semantic features strictly necessary for a definition, and those which are optional. In other words, the lexicographer should not include anything that rather belongs in an encyclopaedia. The definition of the word cat given by Hornby is: " a small fur-covered animal often kept as a pet in the house". It is brief and seemingly clear, but is it sufficient? The Chambers Dictionary, on the other hand, gives a scientific definition describing the animal in question аs " a domestic carnivore of the genus Felis". One actually needs a knowledge of Latin, not English, to understand that.

On top of this, different speakers of the same language may have a differing scope of knowledge about one and the same referent. What, then, are the features necessary and sufficient to characterize a referent? Should we be guided by all that science knows about it, or restrict ourselves to the simplest possible concept clear to every child? (The best-known example of this is a Classical Greek definition of man as " biped aptera", i.e. " two legs and no feathers", which also арplies to any well-plucked hen).

An obvious way out of this difficulty is greater diversity in dictionary-making. A dictionary, like a textbook, should be graded according to its future use. The compiler of a fundamental dictionary like the Oxford English Dictionary should take great pains to make his definitions as exact as possible. If, on the other hand, we need one for teaching English to an elementary class, we should stick to the minimum semantic components, explained as clearly as possible. Further steps could also be taken to study the very fuzziness (= lack of precision) of meanings in English. Of late, a special theory has been developed, enabling a precise translation of such abstract ideas as tall, young, beautiful etc. into a mathematical description suitable for a computer.

The denotative meaning, in spite of the difficulties described above, seems to be intuitively clear to the average user of the language. There is no doubt an Arctic explorer has a much larger knowledge of the place than a man in the street has. Yet, somehow, there seems to be an elementary core of meaning present in the word that enables both to use the word Arctic and understand each other.

If the denotative meaning links the word with its referent, and is therefore rather stable, the connotative meaning is the pragmatic communicative value of a word, which depends on where, when, how, by whom, for what purpose and in what contexts it is or may be used, and therefore a word's connotations are many and varied. We shall restrict ourselves to four main types, which are the stylistic, emotional, evaluative, and expressive or intensifying connotations.

Stylistic connotations deal with the situation in which the word is uttered, the social circumstances (formal, familiar, etc.), the social relationships between the speakers (polite, rough, etc.), the type or purpose of communication (learned, poetic, official, etc.). These are mostly dealt with in stylistic, but some words are so heavily loaded with stylistic connotations that they are hardly ever used outside of some specialized contexts, and this should be reflected in the dictionary, as part of the word's meaning. Usually, the dictionary-maker adds a special warning to the description of the word s meaning, stating it’s slang or poetic or official, etc.

An effective method of revealing connotations of this type is the analysis of synonymic groups, where the denotational meanings are close or identical. A classical example of such an analysis is the word horse and its synonyms: the head-word is stylistically neutral, steed is poetic, nag is informal and gee-gee is baby-talk.

An emotional or affective connotation is acquired by the word as a result of its frequent use in contexts corresponding to emotional situations. It may also be the result of the emotional significance implied in its referential meaning. An example of this is the word beseech, which differs from ask in exactly that quality (cf. Russian просить – умолять).

Evaluative connotation expresses approval or disapproval, whether on the part of the speaker or on the part of the society. In the latter case they are more stable, and are often felt to be " an inseparable part" of the meaning of the word. Thus magic, sorcery and witchcraft, long regarded as evil practices, still retain unfavourable associations (especially the last two). On the other hand, individual connotations are less stable and vary widely with ideology, culture, education and experience of the individual.

Words acquiring permanent unpleasant connotations – as those dealing with social taboos like crime, sex and disease – tend to be replaced by other words even in seemingly innocent contexts. This is especially so in politics and advertising, where deliberate use of words with vague denotational meanings and neutral or positive evaluative connotations is a great help in manipulating public opinion. Thus the poorest of the Third World countries are no longer backward or undeveloped countries, but less developed or developing.

There is some difficulty in separating the binary good/bad evaluation from connotations of the so-called bias words involving ideological view-points. Some authors think these should be regarded as a separate class. Indeed, words denoting social (political and national) groupings are notoriously rich in evaluative associations, which usually depend on whether the speaker belongs to the group in question. The evaluative component may be so strongly felt that the denotative meaning is all but forgotten, and the word is used as a term of abuse or praise. (Fascist is the most obvious example – as are the names of other extreme right– or left-wing parties). With a word like democratic, too, the connotative meaning seems to have taken over completely.

A fourth type of connotation that should be mentioned is the intensifying connotation, also known as " expressive" or " emphatic". This is easily traced in the colloquial use of words like magnificent, gorgeous, splendid, superb or divine as terms of exaggeration. This type of connotation, however, is often combined with other types, so we have two, three or even all four types expressed at once. For example, the word beastly in beastly weather is emotional, colloquial, evaluative (expressing negative evaluation) and also expressing intensity.

This phenomenon has often led linguists to neglecting the difference between various types of connotational meaning. The tendency was to put them all together into a single class described as " stylistic" or " emotive" connotations. The purpose of semantic analysis, however, is to try and differentiate meanings that come together (as is the case with grammatical and lexical meaning). Remembering also that each of the types of connotational meaning may occur separately, or in various combinations with other types, thus producing different effects, it becomes clear that they should be differentiated.

The interdependence of connotations with denotative meaning is also different for different types of connotations. Thus, emotional connotation based on denotative meaning may finally replace it completely, adding overtones of colloquial style, general emphasis and evaluation (positive or negative, depending on the context). For example, terrific no longer means frightening, but is a colloquial intensifier meaning either " very good" or " very bad". In other cases, the meaning is not replaced but modified, as in the case with absolutely which may be used аs a colloquial intensifier.

Care should be taken to distinguish between connotations, on one hand, and implications on the other. A connotation may be permanent, and form part of the dictionary meaning of a word, or spring up in some contexts and be absent in others but it would always be distinct from the denotational meaning of the word. Implications, on the other hand, would be caused by the speakers’ knowledge of the referent and its qualities. An implication is a potential meaning, a possibility until it is materialized in a secondary meaning – maybe in a metaphor or a derivative. A wolf, for example, is known to be greedy and cruel, but the denotative meaning of the word does not have to include these features. On the other hand, a derived metaphorical meaning " to wolf smth down" is based precisely on this implied feature of wolves.