Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

A-Z 733objects, characteristics and states of affairs in the real world which are referred to throughlinguistic expressions; (d) the speaker and the specific situational context in whichlinguistic expressions are used. The fact that these factors are taken into account andweighed out to varying degrees accounts for the multiplicity and heterogeneity of themany definitions of meaning that underlie the various semantic theories. Thus, deSaussure’s concept of meaning may be considered a psychological interpretation,inasmuch as he equates meaning in a static way to the result of signifying, namely to themental image; meaning is understood to be a mental phenomenon. The latter issubstantiated by holistic interpretations of meaning. The holistic aspect contrasts with thetraditional linguistic interpretation in which meaning is viewed as something to be brokendown or parsed ( componential analysis), while the mental aspect contrasts with thetraditional linguistic-philosophical interpretation in which meaning is seen as somethingobjective ( extension, referential semantics). In the behaviorists’ view (behaviorism), Bloomfield and Skinner, among others, try to provide a causal basis forthe origin of meaning by reconstructing meaning from the observable, situationalcircumstances as well as from the reactions of the listener. Speaker, listener, and situationare even more crucial in Wittgenstein’s notion of meaning found in the so-called ‘theoryof use’ (1953:20): ‘The meaning of a word is its use in the language.’ ( meaning asuse) Compare Leisi’s (1952) approach, which is similar.If meaning is interpreted as the process of referring to the real world, then meaning isdefined as the set of extralinguistic objects and states of affairs which are denoted by aparticular linguistic expression. While the above-mentioned approaches to the descriptionof meaning incorporate extralinguistic phenomena in their definitions of meaning(consciousness, mental models, behavior, use, reality), the notion of meaning in structuralsemantics rests upon intralinguistic, systemic laws: meaning arises from the set ofsemantic relations within the lexicon like synonymy, antonymy ( semantic relations,lexical field theory) and the placement of individual expressions within this system. Yetwithout mention of extra-linguistic reality and the user of language, such a descriptionremains incomplete.In semantic descriptions numerous terminological differences in the notion of meaningcome into play: lexical meaning ( lexical meaning vs grammatical meaning),denotation, connotation, extension, intension, logical semantics. Independent of thedifferent notions of meaning held by various scholars and schools, two basic issues arediscussed in every model: on the one hand, the relationship between lexical and sententialsemantics (sentence meaning), i.e. how can the whole meaning of a sentence beexplained by the meaning of the individual elements and how can the grammaticalrelations between them be explained ( principle of compositionality)? On the otherhand, the problem of delineating semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic aspects of meaningor the problem of the interdependence between these aspects, which is particularlyrelevant in the distinction between sentence meaning and utterance meaning.ReferencesCohen, L.J. 1962. The diversity of meaning. London.Droste, F.G. 1987. Meaning and concept: a survey. Leuvense Bijdragen 76.447–73.