Lexical Semantics (Word Meanings) 153

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I
choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
LEWIS CARROLL, Through the Looking-Glass, 1871

As just discussed, the meaning of a phrase or sentence is partially a func-

tion of the meanings of the words it contains. Similarly, the meaning of a
morphologically complex word is a function of its component morphemes,
as we saw in chapter 2. However, there is a fundamental difference between
word meaning—or lexical semantics—and sentence meaning. The meaning of
entries in the mental lexicon—be they morphemes, words, or idioms—is con-
ventional; that is, speakers of a language implicitly agree on their meaning,
and children acquiring the language must simply learn those meanings out-
right. On the other hand, the meaning of most sentences must be constructed
by the application of semantic rules. Earlier we discussed the rules of semantic
composition. In this section we will talk about word meaning and the semantic
relationships that exist between words and morphemes.
Although the agreed-upon meaning of a word may shift over time within a
language community, we are not free as individuals to change the meanings
of words at will; if we did, we would be unable to communicate with each
other. Humpty Dumpty seems unwilling to accept this convention, though for-
tunately for us there are few such bad eggs among speakers. All the speakers of
a language share a basic vocabulary—the sounds and meanings of morphemes
and words. Each of us knows the meanings of thousands of words. This knowl-
edge permits us to use words to express our thoughts and to understand the
thoughts of others. The meaning of words is part of linguistic knowledge. Your
mental storehouse of information about words and morphemes is what we
have been calling the lexicon.

Theories of Word Meaning

It is natural . . . to think of there being connected with a sign . . . besides . . . the reference
of the sign, also what I should like to call the sense of the sign. . . .
GOTTLOB FREGE, “On Sense and Reference,” 1892

Dictionaries are filled with words and give their meanings using other words
rather than in terms of some more basic units of meaning, whatever they might
be. In this sense a dictionary really provides paraphrases rather than mean-
ings. It relies on our knowledge of the language to understand the definitions.
The meanings associated with words in our mental lexicon are not like what
we find in a conventional dictionary, although it is a challenge to linguists to
specify precisely how word meanings are represented in the mind.
If the meaning of a word is not like a dictionary entry, what is it? This
question has been debated by philosophers and linguists for centuries. One
proposal is that the meaning of a word or expression is its reference, its asso-
ciation with the object it refers to. This real-world object is called the referent.

Copyright 201 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

10686_ch04_ptg01_p139-188.indd 153 08/11/12 10:29 AM

 154 CHAPTER 4 The Meaning of Language

Reference

Michael Maslin / The New Yorker Collection/Cartoonbank.com

We have already determined that the meaning of a proper name like Jack is
its reference: the link between the word Jack and the person named Jack,
which is its referent. Proper names are noun phrases (NPs); you can substitute
a proper name in any NP position in a sentence and preserve grammaticality.
There are other NPs that refer to individuals as well. For instance, NPs like the
happy swimmer, my friend, and that guy can all be used to refer to Jack in the
situation in which you’ve observed Jack swimming. The same is true for pro-
nouns such as I, you, and him, which also function as NPs. In all these cases,
the reference of the NP—which singles out the individual referred to under the
circumstances—is part of the meaning of the NP.
On the other hand, not every NP refers to an individual. For instance, the
sentence No baby swims contains the NP no baby, but your linguistic knowledge
tells you that this NP does not refer to any specific individual. If no baby has
no reference, but is not meaningless, then something about meaning beyond
reference must be present.
In the fictional world, Superman and Clark Kent have the same reference—
they are one and the same person. But there is more meaning to their names
than that. If we substitute Clark Kent for Superman in the sentence Lois Lane is
in love with Superman we alter its truth value from true to false. Again, we see
that there must be a dimension of meaning beyond mere reference.
Similarly, Barack Obama and the President have (at this writing) the same
reference, but the meaning of the NP the President is additionally ‘the head of
Copyright 201 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

10686_ch04_ptg01_p139-188.indd 154 08/11/12 10:29 AM

 Lexical Semantics (Word Meanings) 155

state of the United States of America,’ which is an element of meaning separate

from reference and more enduring.

Sense
There must be something more to meaning than reference alone. This is
also suggested by the fact that speakers know the meanings of many words
that have no real-world referents (e.g., hobbits, unicorns, and Harry Potter).
Similarly, what real-world entities would function words like of and by, or
modal verbs such as will or may refer to?
These additional elements of meaning are often termed sense. It is the ex-
tra something referred to earlier. Unicorns, hobbits, and Harry Potter have sense
but no reference (with regard to objects in the real world). Conversely, proper
names typically have only reference. A name like Clem Kadiddlehopper may point
out a certain person, its referent, but has little linguistic meaning beyond that.
Philosophers of language dating back to ancient Greece have suggested that
part of the meaning of a word is the mental image it conjures up. This helps
with the problem of unicorns, hobbits, and Harry Potter; we may have a clear
image of these entities from books, movies, and so on, and that connection
might serve as reference for those expressions. However, many meaningful ex-
pressions are not associated with any clear, unique image agreed on by most
speakers of the language. For example, what image is evoked by the words
very, if, and every? It’s difficult to say, yet these expressions are certainly mean-
ingful. What is the image of oxygen as distinct from nitrogen—both are color-
less, odorless gases, yet they differ in meaning. What mental image would we
have of dog that is general enough to include Yorkshire Terriers and Great
Danes and yet excludes foxes and wolves? And the image of no man in no man
is an island presents a riddle worthy of a Zen koan.
Although the idea that the meaning of a word corresponds to a mental image
is intuitive (because many words do provoke imagery), it is clearly inadequate
as a general explanation of what people know about word meanings.
Perhaps the best we can do is to note that the reference part of a word’s
meaning, if it has reference at all, is the association with its referent; and the
sense part of a word’s meaning contains the information needed to complete
the association, and to suggest properties that the referent may have, whether
it exists in the real world or in the world of imagination.

Lexical Relations
Does he wear a turban, a fez or a hat?
Does he sleep on a mattress, a bed or a mat, or a Cot,
The Akond of Swat?
Can he write a letter concisely clear,
Without a speck or a smudge or smear or Blot,
The Akond of Swat?
EDWARD LEAR, “The Akond of Swat,” in Laughable Lyrics, 1877

Although no theory of word meaning is complete, we know that speakers have

considerable knowledge about the meaning relationships among different
Copyright 201 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

10686_ch04_ptg01_p139-188.indd 155 08/11/12 10:29 AM