1.

Reference definition + examples

2. Types of reference (variable references according to the context+ example) (One
reference + example physical objects) (Mythical existence + examples ) (Abstract
words + examples) (Referential boundaries according to different geographical
areas and communities + examples)
3. Sense definition
4. Types of sense (Synonyms as type of sense + examples)
5. Different aspect of sense according to De Saussure
6. Sense vs. Reference (Syntagmatic vs. Paradigmatic)

Reference is the relation between the linguistic expression and the entity in the real
world to which it refers. By means of reference, a speaker indicates which things are
being talked about. Therefore, in this type of relationship we have two essential
elements which are “the language” and “the thing being referred to that belongs to
the world”. For example, let’s consider this phrase “This Pen”; first, this expression is
part of the English Language (The language); in addition, we have the object or the
referent which is the thing that is being referred to and it is part of this world.
However, it is impossible to say that we can only refer to one physical object that
exist in this world; instead, there are many expressions that have a variable of
references according to different contexts. For example, the present king of Morocco
may have different references according to the period of time we are living in at that
very moment, so when we refer the present king of Morocco in the year 1958; it
would refer to the King Mohamed 5th. If it said in 1988, it would refer to Hassan the
2nd and if we intend to refer to 2012 then we would refer to the King Mohamed the 6 th.
Furthermore, another type of reference could refer to other terms that have mythical
existence. To illustrate, the lexemes goblin and unicorn do refer to creatures that
exist outside the real world and do not have physical existence but we can refer to
their mythical features in a certain kind of discourse. We might also refer to abstract
words such as intelligence, love, loyalty or goodness, these expressions do not refer
only to objects which have physical features that exist in the real world nor do they
have mythical existence, but we can refer to them as abstract words that exist in a
metaphorical discourse. Moreover, referential boundaries may also differ from a
community to another especially for those who live in the same geographical area.
For instance, the lexeme “Mountain” for Syrian people maybe “hill” for Europeans.
That is, there is no clear cut distinction between referential boundaries of these two
lexemes in particular; therefore, by using reference, we can admit that sometimes
absolute preciseness is unattainable, especially when we talk about referential
boundaries because any community would divide language they use in their life
according to their environment and culture. To conclude, reference is more
comprehensive because it includes all the items of the vocabulary of the language.
Hence, we can say that scope of reference is larger than the scope of denotation.
Reference is to be distinguished from "sense" as a type of meaning.

Sense as a type of meaning relates to the system of relationships that holds between
linguistic elements, when we say linguistic elements (we mean lexemes items of the
vocabulary of the language). The sense of a word is its place in a system of
relationships which it contrasts with other words in the vocabulary of language.
Sense as a relationship of meaning has nothing to do with the external world; it is
concerned simply with the relation of lexemes as part of the vocabulary of the
language and the relation that holds between linguistic elements (Intralingusitic
approach of meaning) (When we talk about system we are referring to De Saussure
definition of system. We have many types of sense relations between lexical items as
we will see) An example of sense relation between words is when the lexeme
"almost" is contrasted with the lexeme "nearly" in this structure: (It's almost/nearly
empty), therefore, almost and nearly in this structure have a sense relation called
"synonymy" because they can replace one another in the same context without
affecting the meaning. So we can say either: (It's almost empty) or (it's nearly empty)
because they are synonymous words that share this sense relation called synonymy.
Another example: Mary broke the vase. The vase was broken by Mary. We have two
structures that have the same meaning, so we can say that those two expressions
are synonymous because they represent the same meaning. We can talk about the
sense not only of words but of larger expressions such as phrases and sentences.
That is, sense has to do with the meaning of words and the meaning of expressions
and hence it is the type of meaning that deals with the meaning of lexemes and how
they relate to one another within language. So, it is an intralingusitic relation of
meaning and not an extra linguistic relation.
 The distinction between sense and reference (Frege)

1. Frege introduced the distinction between sense and reference in 1892: He

concluded that besides reference there is an item of meaning which he
called sense. He says that sense differs from reference in that two items
may have the same reference but differ in sense. To prove this he
provided his famous example. (The morning star) is (the evening star).
This structure includes two expressions (the morning star) and (the
evening star) the morning star in this structure is logically equal to the
evening star, so in terms of reference astronomers have discovered that
both the morning star and the evening star both refer to a star called
Venus. This star of Venus is sometimes called the morning star because it
can be seen at dawn, and it can be seen at the sunset then it's called the
evening star. (But it's the same star), but in terms of sense morning star
and evening star have different sense because morning and evening are
two different lexemes in the English languages (Antonyms). But those two
different lexemes with different sense have equal reference which is
Venus. They have the same reference outside language. If we consider
the morning star, we would consider that it is equal in terms of logic to the
evening star. We can say that logically speaking that the morning star is
the morning star in terms of logic. But if we replace this one with this one
the 2nd expression it's called tautological or analytic. Which means it is
non-informative it doesn't give any new information.

2. Another example, “My father is my mother's husband". This example is

what we call in semantics is tautologically and doesn't tell us something
new.
3. Another philosopher has been concerned with the distinction between
reference and sense and he provided the example of:"The victor of
Janna", "The looser of Waterloo" they have different senses based on
those two words (victor and looser) those two expressions have equal
referent; both refer to the same person Napoleon. They are not only
different, but they are opposite words that represent opposite meaning.
They have opposite sense however they have equivalent referent.
Therefore, we can say that the meaning of a sentence involves more than
reference it also involves how one determines reference. It involves both
sense and reference.
Clear example:

Another example, "The present queen of France is Algerian" here if you

want to analyze this structure in terms of sense. It has sense based on the
meaning of words and the way they are combined it indicates that they can
explain certain meaning called sense. The way those words are combined
they produce a meaningful sentence. They express a thought. However, it
has no reference because France doesn't have any queen that can be
Algerian. "The current queen of France is Algerian" doesn't have meaning
outside language. It has sense but it doesn't have reference. It has
meaning inside language but it doesn't have meaning outside language.
(So it is also possible for an expression to have sense without reference.)
 Different aspect of sense according to De Saussure
Sense as a type of meaning is to be discussed within De Saussure's theory of signs. That is,
when we use the term "sign" according to De Saussure's theory of language. He says that
language is a system of signs. Sign according to De Saussure includes two sides. Each sign
has signified and signifier. Signifier the meaning or concepts a signifier stands for.
Signified, the sequence of sounds or graphic signs by which a speaker refers to a
physical entity or abstract concepts of which he has a mental image. Here you can see
that whatever the presentation of the word has outside language we can talk about its
sense among any word whether it will represent something that has physical existence
or an abstract concept. We can talk about the sense of any lexeme. Those two
constituents of signs are combined by certain conventional rules but arbitrary rules. The
relationship between signified and signifier is conventional and arbitrary (chosen and
agreed upon by the language speakers.) (We saw this in introduction to linguistics) The
associations between these two depend on the value of the sign in the system, and
this value is determined by the language speakers. Linguistically speaking, we say that
the associations of these two depend on the value of the sign in the system. De Saussure
considers language as a system of independent items on which the value of each term
results solely from the simultaneous presence of others. To explain the above: This
system, the system of language when we talk about it, we talk about items or
constituents of the language and the rules that govern the function of these items in
language. When we say language system we refer to the sound system of the language
(phonology), so each language has a set of sounds and each sound has a specific
function governed by the rules of this language. The sounds (p b f) are contrasted if we
consider examples like (pit bit fit) they are phonemes that are part of the system of English
language. And besides phonemes we have morphemes that are combinations of these
phonemes to form morphemes or words by morphological rules of the language to have
function in the language like the bound morpheme (s) is combined to free morphemes like
table to give the plural form of the noun tables, and these morphemes or words are combined
to give meaningful phrases or sentences or clauses. (According to the syntactic rules)
words should have meaning and the way they are combined in a sentence they should
have meaning. The meaning of words depends on the system of the language in that
how the meaning of words depends on the value of the sign in the system. Meaning of
the word "bark «For instance has its value/meaning because of its relation to the word
"dog" in the language system. We can't define dog without mentioning bark, and we
can't define the word bark without mentioning the word dog. Each of these two have
their meaning depending on the relation of one to another, so the meaning of the word
bark depends on its relation with the word dog and vice versa, because bark is one of
the features that define the word dog. So you see that according to De Saussure the
value of each sign depends on its relation with the value of another sign in the system.
Example: The value of bachelor depends on its relation with words such as: man, woman,
husband, and wife. Bachelor is a man who is not married; as opposed to husband is a man
who is married. Another example, the lexeme “Wife” is a female who is married and “Spinster”
is a female who is unmarried. The meaning of spinster and of wife depends on their relation to
one another. So the sense of word is determined according to its relations with other items in
the language. We will see different kinds of sense relations between lexical items.
Sense is based on De Saussure's view of language, when we talk about the
sign that contains signifier and signified we have to discuss the way these
signs are related one to another to have certain meaning and to acquire their
own value which determines their place within the system of language.

The first way certain words are related one to another leads us to the
dichotomy between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations of sense.

This is the first dichotomy that reveals two different ways in which words can
be related to one another, and this reminds us of De Saussure's dichotomy
between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations of meaning.

Syntagmatic relations of meaning

This dichotomy has been raised by De Saussure as a result to his idea that
language is a structured system in which each item derives its existence from
its relationships with other units of the same language. So, words or lexemes
maybe related in terms of sense in different ways: The first way is called: The
syntagmatic relation is a unit which contrasts by virtue of its
combination with other units of the same level. When we talk about the
same level it means the same structure, how words are related one to
another within the same structure depending on their meaning/sense
like: blond and hair can be combined in the same structure because
they have a certain sense relation that allows them to be combined in
the same structure. The same with (bark and dog) (kick and foot) that
allows them to be combined in the same level in the same structure. She
has blond hair: We can have different colors of hair and blond is one of
the colors of hair, so we can say that blond and hair have
linear/horizontal relationship and this is what we call the syntagmatic
relation. The dog barks. Bark is a feature of the lexeme dog. Dog and
bark have a syntagmatic relation in this structure (the dog barks) they
give a certain sense relation that allows them to be combined or used in
the same level (the horizontal or linear level) (Kick and foot)-He kicked
his foot. Kick and foot have a certain sense relation that enables them to
be combined and used within the same structure at the linear or the
horizontal level. We can't say (he kicked his air). In terms of form then this
sentence is acceptable we have subject transitive verb and object. In terms of
form it is correct, but in terms of meaning this sentence is deviant which
means (he kicked his air) air can't be combined with kick at the same level.
This is a deviant sentence. It has the form of a sentence but it doesn't have
any sense, because the combination between kick and air can't make sense
in this structure, but we can say (he breathes air). In this case they can be
combined in the linear level and form a structure that has sense. We say
deviant or ill formed or meaningless structure that doesn't have sense.
The syntagmatic relation is related to syntax which is related to the
meaning of words that is related to the syntactic relation between words
within a structure.

Paradigmatic relations of meaning

The second type of words relationship is called the paradigmatic relationships

are relations between forms which might occupy the same particular place in
a structure. Example: He walks slowly/ quickly/ lightly (Slowly can be replaced
by quickly, lightly) those words are interchangeable one can be replaced by
the other within the same structure; they can occupy the same place within a
structure. (Slowly quickly and lightly) have vertical relationships. He walks
slowly/quickly/lightly. Those words have paradigmatic relationships. But not
any word can replace those words. We can't say for instance: He walks
openly or faithfully. Both of those adverbs cannot be combined with the verb
walk, because they don't share any paradigmatic relation with it. They can't be
combined with the verb walk, so "openly" can't be part of this paradigm,
because we can't say (he walks openly) or (he walks faithfully). They are not
part of this group of words that can replace one another in the same structure.
They can't be members of this paradigm. We call them paradigms because
they are paradigmatically related (which one can replace the other).They can
be paradigmatically related if they can replace one another in the same
structure. They have vertical/paradigmatic relationship.

That is to be opposed from syntagmatic/horizontal/linear relationship.