CC BY
151
Lingua mobilis № 5 (31), 2011
ASPECTS OF MEANING AS PART OF SYNONYMY
Leonard Danglli
(Tirana, Albania)
As almost all definitions of synonymy consider meaning as the basis of the synonymy relation, this paper pays special attention to the most important aspects of meaning, which have given rise to various debates among scholars. I will deal with the various approaches to the definition of meaning and its dimensions, as well as endeavor to find the “meaning” of meaning which “is everywhere, in our thoughts, in our words, in our actions, in the world. Wherever we turn, it is there” [Campbell 2002:1]. The paper also focuses on the relation between the various dimensions of meaning, such as reference, function, denotation or connotation, and synonymy. The definition of the latter requires a careful analysis of all the components of meaning.
Keywords: meaning, reference, function, denotation, connotation, synonymy.
Study of meaning
Numerous studies have shown that “meaning is one of the most unclear and controversial topics in the theory of language” [Ullmann 1967:54]. Problems of meaning have actually drawn the attention of scholars from ancient times who have been concerned about the relation between the name and the referent, as well as the role of meaning in this relation. Although several authors have focused for practical reasons only on the word when analyzing meaning, there is now a common agreement on three units of meaning which must be taken into consideration when studying it: “morphemes (which may be less than a word), lexemes (roughly words and idioms), and sentences” [Kreidler 1998:42].
Nevertheless, in spite of the numerous approaches to meaning, it remains one of the most important aspects of language as it performs an essential function, that of communication.
Meaning as reference
The simplest conception of meaning is when we relate different words with “objects, events and descriptions of things” [Ibid: 42] in the world
58
Языкознание
surrounding us. This relation between the word and its referent has been shown by the “triangle” of Ogden and Richards (1923):
symbol
concept (reference)
The triangle shows the relation between form, thought and referent, which are considered by Ullman as the “three components of meaning”. The dotted line connecting the symbol with the referent shows that their relation is not direct whereas the one connecting the symbol with the concept is direct. In short, the symbol shows a concept or reference and the latter may refer to an object, quality, phenomenon, action or abstract notion.
Ullman attempts to make a simplification of the relation displayed in the triangle by suggesting the terms: “name” (the phonetic form of the word, its sounds and the other acoustic features, such as accent), “meaning” (information conveyed by the word to the listener) and “thing” (the non-linguistic feature or event we are talking about). He recreates the relation shown by the triangle of Ogden and Richards by formulating meaning as “the reciprocal and reversible relationship between the sound and meaning” Therefore, if someone hears a word, he/she will think about a word and if someone thinks about something he/she will say a word.
As soon as we “see” the word “sound” referring to the “symbol” of the triangle, we immediately think of rejecting this term because words do not always have to be heard in order to evoke a thought in a person, but the same word can be written and after having been “seen” by the person can convey to him/her the same concept. An example could be that of persons lacking the capacity to hear but not the capacity to create a concept of “things” after having read them. However, it would be naive to claim that he was unaware of the problem of terminology as he himself declared that “the choice of terms is surely of secondary importance as long as analysis is accepted”.
Reimer reconstructs the semiotic triangle by including the following components:
-psychology of speakers, which creates and interprets language
-referent of the linguistic expression as projected by the psychology of the language user
59
Lingua mobilis № 5 (31), 2011
-linguistic expression
Other authors have transformed the traditional triangle into a trapeze by adding other components to meaning [Rrokaj 2000:100].
No matter how “stakeholders” of meaning are termed and in spite of being connected both with the referent (thing) and the concept (thought), it is identical with neither of them. Thus, meaning is not identical with the referent as the latter belongs to the extra-linguistic reality while meaning is a linguistic category. The same object can be named with different words, taking different meanings. A “woman” can be named mother, wife, teacher, etc. Moreover, meaning is not identical with the concept as it is a mental, not a linguistic phenomenon. For example, synonyms usually convey the same concept but differ in components of meaning. The concept of taking somebody’s life can be expressed in English by such words as kill, murder, assassinate, execute, but they do not have the same components of meaning in spite of conveying different aspects of the same concept.
As a result, reference alone cannot serve as a sufficient means of defining meaning because words of a language are not only concrete objects but they also convey abstract notions whose meaning cannot be analyzed by using the referential approach alone.
Denotation and connotation
Denotation, which is commonly regarded as the literary or primary meaning of a word, is the potential of a word to be used in linguistic expressions. However, meaning is more than simply denotation. People not only speak and write to describe things, events and descriptions but they also express their opinions or attitudes, either negative or positive. Certain words such as dog, cow, camel, etc have a particular denotative meaning and can be used in various lexical expressions:
(a) She has a dog
(b) There were no dogs.
What we need to clarify in this case is the feelings, thoughts or attitudes the same words evoke in different people. Does the word “camel” evoke the same feelings in an Arab, who considers it a very useful animal, and in an Albanian or Russian? The same question can be asked about the word “cow” in the case of an Albanian and Indian, or the word “dog” in the case of an Albanian and an inhabitant of Alaska. The answer is that the above-mentioned words would evoke “different attitudes in society or inhabitants” [Kreidler 1998:45], and as a consequence different connotations.
60
Языкознание
Denotation identifies the central aspect of meaning whereas connotation refers to the personal aspect of meaning, the emotional associations evoked by the word. Connotations can be different in different persons but they can also be similar or identical when two or more people have shared the same experiences. It must also be pointed out that “connotation conveys those aspects of meaning which do not violate reference or denotation of a word but it is concerned with secondary features such as emotional force, level of formality, its character as euphemism, etc” [Reimer 2010:40].
The above distinction between the denotational and connotational meaning has also been termed by other linguists as “the conceptual meaning” and “the associative meaning” [Yule 2006:100].
The distinction between denotation and connotation is very helpful for defining synonymy. We must not be satisfied with the somewhat evasive definition of synonyms as “words with the same or almost the same meaning”. This makes room for numerous interpretations that would confuse readers. A clear example of the role of connotations in a synonymous pair is that of “father” and “daddy”. They both refer to the same person but the level of feeling in each word is different. Therefore, when defining synonyms we must consider both aspects of meaning, denotation and connotation, as they are inseparable from meaning as a whole. Moreover, connotations generally perform one of the main functions of synonyms, that of accurate description and differentiation. Lincke further emphasizes the interrelation of denotation and connotation by stating that a language often has regional, social, and stylistic distinct words which have the same denotation.
Meaning as function
What is known as “the functional approach to meaning” or “the theory of meaning as use” has played an important role in the theory of language, usually regarded as “complementary” with the referential approach. The most widely recognized theories of use are those of Wittgenstein (1953), psychologist Skinner (1957) and Bloomfield (1933).
According to the functional approach “the meaning of the word is its functioning in use”. This is in conformity with the principle that the meaning a linguistic unit must be observed in relation with other linguistic units and not in its relation with the concept or reference. The functional approach is therefore helpful in defining the meanings of words in different contexts. This is in line with the contextual definition of synonyms, which considers context as essential for analyzing synonymy be-
61
Lingua mobilis № 5 (31), 2011
cause polysemantic words do not usually establish synonymous relations with other words in all of their meanings (except for the case of “perfect” synonymy).
What would make the functional approach to meaning debatable is the fact that the number of situations in which linguistic forms can be used are numerous or as Bloomfield states “the number of different situations in which language is used is endless.”
Ullman clearly expresses the “consensual” way of combining both approaches by comparing the relation between them to that between language and discourse: the functional theory deals with meaning in discourse whereas the referential one deals with meaning in language and “neither of them is complete without the other”.
Componential analysis
The relation of synonymy is usually characterized by both similarity and contrast between the members of the synonymic set. One of the ways to recognize the components of meaning, which are essential for synonymy and other lexical relations, is the componential analysis. It defines the meaning of the word as a group of elements of meaning which are mostly theoretical and are used to describe the semantic relations between lexical units of a particular language.
The table of Reimer gives a clear picture of the componential analysis:
with support with legs for one person to sit with arms solid
chair + + + + - +
armchair + + + + + +
stool - + + + - +
sofa + + - + + +
What we get is a description of the semantic field of furniture words based on the presence or absence of a number of features regarded as “conceptual units which make up the meanings of linguistic expressions” However, it has to be highlighted that componential analysis alone could not serve as a criterion for defining the synonymy relation as it would be difficult to analyze the great number of words in a natural language. Moreover, there are words which share most of their semantic features but they cannot be considered synonyms. For example, the words
62
Языкознание
armchair and sofa in the table above share all semantic components except for one and yet they cannot be considered synonyms.
Conclusions
Meaning remains an important aspect of the theory of language as it is complex in nature and poses numerous problems in terms of definition or analysis. Although various approaches can be applied to define it, we can conclude that a combination of them is the best way to “give meaning to meaning”. Moreover, the study of meaning is vital for providing a complete definition of synonymy. Synonyms may denote or refer to something, they may perform a certain function in a given context and they may also convey various connotations.
Bibliography
1. Campbell, K. Joseph, O’Rourke,
Michael, Shier, David, Meaning and Truth, Investigation in Philosophical Semantics, Seven Bridges Press,
LLC, 2002.
2. Kreidler, W. Charles, Introducing English Semantics, Routledge,
1998,pg. 42
Semantics, Seven Bridges Press,
LLC, 2002.
3. Reimer, Nick, Introducing Semantics, Cambridge University press, 2010, pg. 40
4. Rrokaj, Shezai, Hyrje ^
Gjuhёsinё e Pёrgjithshme, SHBLU,
Tira^, 2000, pg. 110
5. Ullmann, Stephen, Semantics.
An introduction to the Science of Meaning, Basil Blackwell, Oxford,
1967.
6. Yule, George, The Study of Language, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
63
