BREAKING THE

DEFINITIONAL CIRCLE
Four Theories of Meaning
Explanations of meaning in terms of
meanings are circular ………….

 When we propose a definition in a metalanguage

as an analysis of the meaning of an object
language term, the more basic questions, ‘what is
meaning?’ and ‘what is it to understand a meaning?’
are left unanswered.
 All definitions of meaning in language, therefore,
are ultimately circular because they use one kind
of meaning to explain another.
 So we are in a CIRCLE
 Probably something essentially wrong with
DEFINITION
 We will talk about it in detail later
 How to get out of this circle???????????
 Four ways of breaking the circle

There are four important answers to the question ‘what is

meaning?’
1. The referential/denotational theory
2. The conceptual theory
3. The brain states theory
4. The use theory
The Two Entity Theories

 The referential/denotational theory

 The conceptual theory
 Why???????
 Because both these theories take meaning as
THINGS (mental or physical)
Meaning as Denotation/Reference
 The meaning of an expression is what it refers to, or names, is
often called referential theory or naming theory.
 The word tree, for example, names the object tree in the real
world. The object tree is called the referent. The word tree
stands for the properties that all trees have or for the class of
trees.
 Nouns name objects or events and adjectives name the
properties of those objects or events. Verbs name actions and
adverbs name their properties.
 In this view, words are “names” or “labels” for things in
our mind or in our experience. unicorn
The Reference Theory of Meaning

 Initially proposed by Aristotle (384-322BC)

 Other famous proponents of this view include J. S. Mill
(1806-1873), Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), (the
early) Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), Saul Kripke
(1940- )
 The basic idea is that meaning = reference. What a
word or sentence refers to is what that word of
sentence means.
The Reference Theory of Meaning

 “What does ‘Aristotle’ mean?” can be rephrased as

“What does ‘Aristotle’ refer to?”
 Hence, names mean what they denote or refer to.
 With respect to names, the reference theory seems
to work very well!
The Reference Theory of Meaning

 But it falters when we get to phrases, expressions,

other subsentential components, and also when we get
to whole sentences.
 What does “the oldest person in this class” mean?
Well, it refers to the oldest person (J. Cook), but
although “J. Cook” and “the oldest person in this
class” refer to the same person, they don’t mean the
same thing.
 And what about sentences? What do sentences
mean? What do they refer to?
The Reference Theory of Meaning

 Despite what your text says (p. 35: “many

philosophers regard them as untenable”), this is still
the most dominant theory of meaning in the
philosophy of language today.
 Meaning as concept

 Def.: Expressions actually mean the concept or idea associated with them. Any
particular sound image is psychologically associated with a particular concept.
[chair]→{chair}(signifier vs signified)

 Merits: The classification of objects in the world, for example, need not be natural or
universal, but only conceptual. So it solves the concrete and abstract ideas.
 Demerits: Yet still not the functional word classes in language such as and or but.
Meaning as Ideas
 Initially developed by John Locke (1632-1704)
 Current proponents include Noam Chomsky (1928- )
and Jerry Fodor (1935 - ), and many other cognitive
scientists and other cognitive semanticists.
 The basic idea is that meaning = idea. What a word
or sentence means is the idea in my head that I am
trying to convey with that word or sentence.
 Locke’s view was that an idea was an (visual) image.
The Idea Theory of Meaning
 So, when I use the word, e.g., “Santa” I form an
image in my mind, and the meaning of the word just
is that image or idea.
 If you want to know what I mean by a word you
need to identify the ideas that I associate with them.
The Idea Theory of Meaning
 Some problems:
 How does this theory fare with respect to mass terms
(or abstract terms, as George Berkeley (`1685-1753)
refers to them? E.g., what idea do I associate with
“dog”?
 “Dog” is a term that denotes all dogs, so the meaning must
be general enough to encompass all of them—but we can
only form ideas of particular things! I.e., we cannot have an
idea of a general dog.
The Idea Theory of Meaning
 Some problems:
 Another major problem with this view is that since we cannot
access someone’s ideas or mental images, we can never be
sure that we know what their words mean.
 When you say “The flower is yellow”, how do I know that
our words “yellow” mean the same thing? I know what my
word means since I have access to my mental images, but I
don’t have access to yours. Hence, how can I be sure that
we mean the same thing?
Meaning as Brain States
 Whatever is occurring, it must be represented
through our mind consequently through our brains.
 So why to look here or there in search of
meaning???
 Lets look into brain and find the meaning their.
 But there are certain problems and serious ones!!!
The Problem of Synonymy
The brain is just physical matter; it makes as little sense
to say that a state of brain matter is the opposite of, or
synonymous with, another as it does to say the same of
the state of the electrons in my computer at any one
time. It therefore seems that meanings have a property
which prevents them from being completely identified
with brain states. (Reimer, 2010)

This is because of INETENTIONALITY which is the

“aboutness or contentful nature of language”
Intentionality: The Problem
 Intentionality is distinctively mental.
 Purely physical things like brain or computer, which
consist of configurations of electrons, just aren’t the
types of thing which can possess intentionality.
 Electrons, whether in brain or in computer, aren’t
about anything; they’re just there.
 As a result, any attempt to simply identify something
intentional like language with something non-
intentional like a brain state cannot be successful.
 Meaning as Use
 L. Bloomfield: meaning exists in the relation between speech and the practical
events that precede and follow it. The meaning of a linguistic form is thus defined
as observable behavior. Such an approach to meaning is called behaviourism, or
behaviorist theory, which clearly draws on psychology. Jack & Jill

 Physical physical/linguistic linguistic/physical physical

 Problems: the practical stimulus S is not always obvious, so how to identify it?
Meaning as Use
 Another version of USE theory developed by (the
later) Wittgenstein (1889-1951) and J. L. Austin
(1911-1960).
 The basic idea is that meaning = use.
 On this view, if we want to know what a particular
word or sentence means, we are to ask what that
word or sentence is used for. What is the speaker
trying to accomplish by using those words or
sentences?
Meaning as Use
 On this view, it makes no sense to ask for the
meaning of a word in isolation.
 We first need to look at the role it plays in the
sentence, and then determine what the sentence is
being used for.
Meaning as Use
 Context is essential in determining use (= meaning)
 Important contextual features include:
 Social setting
 Speaker’s personal goals

 Nature and expectations of the audience

 What has already been said in the conversation

 Intentions of the speaker on a particular occasion

 Gestures
Meaning as Use
 Examples
(a) Hold it. (What does “hold” mean here? “It”?)
(b) The queen is in a vulnerable position. (What does
“queen” mean?)
(c) The President has been shot and died a few minutes
ago.
(d) Let me go. (“Me”? “Go”?)
Meaning as Use
 Some Problems: this theory is not immune from
problems
 In particular, knowing how a word or sentence is being used
in a particular context is sometimes a function of the
meaning of the words themselves.
 E.g., if I say: “You are a son of a stickleback fish” there are
really two questions here:
 What are you using that sentence for? (to insult someone, maybe)
 What do those words mean? (a stickleback is a species of
Gasterosteidae, found in northern temperate climates)
Conclusion
We do not have to categorically choose between
these theories. Instead, recognizing that the
notion of meaning in linguistics is a way of
talking about the factors which explain language use,
we can see referents, concepts, brain states and
uses as all relevant to this task. (Reimer: 2010)