The Concept and Definition of Meaning

Meaning and context. Meaning and Use

Semantics is commonly defined as the study of meaning. It is unfortunate, however, that the term 'meaning' turns out to be elusive and is used to cover a variety of linguistic and extralinguistic aspects. This is the reason why there is no general agreement "either about what meaning is or about the way in which it should be described" (Palmer, 1982, p. 9).

One of the earliest books on semantics that was not concerned with the historical change of meaning was written in 1893 by the French linguist M. Breal who had coined the term semanique from Greek and defined it as "the science of meaning". In C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards's "The meaning of meaning" which dates back to 1923 there is already plentiful evidence that neither the noun 'meaning' nor the verb 'mean' can be defined or understood in a single sense: the authors list at least 16 different meanings for the verb 'mean' (Palmer, 1982, p. 10). If we turn to the most authoritative works on the subject including contemporary research we shall discover even greater dissimilarity in the approach and the terminology used.

As Geoffrey Leech puts it, "the word 'meaning' and its corresponding verb 'mean' are among the most eminently discussible terms in the English language" (Leech, 1981, p. 1).

St. Ullmann defines 'meaning' as "a reciprocal relation between name and sense, which enables them to call up one another (Ullmann, 1964, part I).

According to C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards "meaning is a relation in the mind between the facts and events on the one hand ac the symbols or words you use to refer to them" (Ogden, Richarc, 1972).

J. R. Firth believes that "meaning is function in a context… Meaning, then, we use for the whole complex of functions which linguistic form may have" (Firth, 1957).

M. A. K. Halliday describes 'meaning' as "a function of the description at all levels" (Halliday, 1956, p. 179).

As can be seen the variety of definitions is truly immense. Many scholars agree however that lexical meaning is the specific kind 'content' produced (or engendered) by the reverberation of objective reality in the human consciousness which constitutes the inner (semantic) structure of linguistic units with respect to which their material form is the outer (or phonetic) structure (Ахманова, 1966, с. 160; Минаева, 1982, c. 43).

Meaning is a linguistic category because of a constant and firmly established association between a given piece of extralinguistic material and a certain combination of sounds. This relationship is socio-historically conditioned: it is firmly rooted both in the extralinguistic reality and in the psychology of language speakers.

According to V. V. Vinogradov, "значение слова в большой степени зависит от общественно осознанных и отстоявшихся контекстов его употребления" (Виноградов, 1953, c. 6). This means that the semantics of the word is established not merely on the conventional-logical basis as is the case with 'closed' code-like systems: it can be studied and apprehended only against the background of the lexical-semantic system of language as a whole. Since words are used in verbal communication, they form part and parcel of the speakers' shared knowledge of the language, and as such cannot be torn apart from culture, history, traditions constituting the social consciousness of members of a given speech community.

The problem of the ontology of meaning has an important heuristic aspect. What is the main unit of meaning? In some trends of linguistics meaning is regarded as an extralinguistic phenomenon or a fact of the world. The content of thought is then excluded from language which is relegated to the position of a subservient tool in moulding or framing meanings. In American descriptive linguistics, for example, words are seen through the prism of psychological notions, such as reaction or stimulus and are perceived as incentives stimulating the speaker's reaction or behaviour in a given situation. The very concept of the 'word' being thus substituted for by that of the 'linguistic form'.

We proceed from the assumption that meaning is an indispensable inherent property of the word as the basic unit of language. According to St. Ullmann, "if words had no meaning outside contexts it would be impossible to compile a dictionary... single words have more or less permanent meanings, they actually do refer to certain referents, and not to others, and this characteristics is the indispensable basis of all communications... A series of tests designed to study the influence of context has shown that there is usually in each word a hard core of meaning which is relatively stable and can only be modified by the context within certain limits" (Ullmann, 1962, ch. 2).

Some other scholars, however, set great store by emphasising the significance of those factors (in the extralinguistic situation) which affect the understanding and interpretation of language. Hence an array of terms, such as 'contextual/ functional/ interpersonal/ situational meaning' (Crystal, 1985, p. 191).

In O. S. Akhmanova's "Dictionary of Linguistic Terms" the term 'occasional meaning' as opposed to 'usual meaning' seems to refer to very much the same aspect in the study of meaning. It must be mentioned, however, that 'occasional meaning' is mostly confined to departures from the generally accepted usage as well as to the emotional-expressive-evaluative overtones the word acquires in a given context.

J. R. Firth's view is that "the use of the word 'meaning' is subjected to the general rule that each word when used in a new context is a new word... The meaning of words is only appreciated when the symbols are expanded, or... contextualized" (Firth, 1957, p. 10).

R. Quirk speaks about 'multi-faceted' meaning, its different "faces shining in different lights". Otherwise stated, "the ways a word is used constitute its meaning" (Quirk, 1990, p. 136).

In this connection it is important to distinguish between the meaning of the word as its inherent property, and different uses of words as occurring in various contexts. In V. V. Vinogradov's words, "irrespective of its use in the present context, the word exists in our consciousness as a global entity, in a variety of its meanings, actual and potential, ready, when necessary, to come to the fore and get more prominent" (Виноградов, 1947, c. 14).

The ontology of lexical meaning, its basic essential properties are sometimes considered against the background of functions of language. No doubt "language is not simply a matter of providing factual information" (Palmer, 1982, p. 29). Whenever we use language it is by no means always for the sake of referring to certain objects of "the non-linguistic world of experience": "a great deal of our meaning is not 'ideational' (or 'cognitive') at all, but is 'inter-personal' or 'social', relating ourselves to others" (Palmer, 1982, p. 29).

This does not mean to say however that words can be used arbitrarily in speech ("'When I use a word', said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less'" (Ullmann, 1962). Neither should we wish to assume that they acquire meaning only when seen in context.

We agree that no serious study of meaning can be successful without an investigation of different functions of language as well as its prosodic and paralinguistic features. Intonation has an important role in defining the speaker's purport, what he or she actually intends to say. The meaning of a word cannot be entirely separated from the linguistic circumstances of its actual use in speech. From this point-of-view the notions of 'meaning' and 'use' appear to be closely interrelated since 'meaning-in-abstraction' (the lexical meaning proper) has been shown to depend on 'meaning-in-situation (what can otherwise be described as 'use') (Leech, 1981, p. 341).

This raises the question of how the relation between 'meaning and 'use' can be interpreted. If the emphasis is on the objective nature of a word's primary nominative meaning as its inherent property, then the distinction between meanings of a word and its various uses should be assumed to be very helpful in vindicating the idea of the word's semantic globality.

Within the Russian tradition the word's meaning is viewed as an integral part of its semantic content. As far as the British tradition is concerned the frame-of-reference as such does not make the distinction between 'meaning' and 'use'.

When lexical meaning is regarded as an important factor in communication, i. e., in terms of its relation to language users, an entirely different picture is observed. Here we are entering the domain of pragmatics where meaning is regarded as "something which is performed rather than something that exists in a static way. It involves action (the speaker producing an effect on the hearer) and interaction (the meaning being 'negotiated' between speaker and hearer on the basis of their mutual knowledge)" (Leech, 1981, p. 320).

Thus, in the British tradition we come across the following specific terms used in the analysis of Meaning:

Static

Found in dictionaries

Denotative

Isolated meaning

Conventionalised

Regulated by authority

Base-meaning

Predictable