1.1.

The concept and definition of semantics

1.1.1. The Concept of Semantics
When you communicate using language, you convert or decode your thought (meaningful
expression) into a series of sounds or alphabets and the listener decodes the sounds or alphabets
into meaningful expression. It is the grammar which helps you to encode your thought into
speech or written signals or decode the encoded speech or written signals into meaningful
expression. If you don't know the grammar, the given speech or written text will be simply a
series of sounds or alphabets for you. You might have
learned from the introduction to linguistics that the grammar has at least four levels of analysis:
(1) phonology which decodes sounds or phones into functional sound units or phonemes of the
given language,
(2) morphology which decodes the series of phonemes into morphemes (the minimal meaningful
units of a language) and morphemes into words
(3) syntax which decodes the words into phrases, phrases into clauses and clauses into sentences
and (3) semantics which decodes syntactic out put into meaningful representation. You can
represent the above information as given in the following diagram (Leech 1981:11).
The word ‘semantics’ is still a puzzle and has been interpreted and defined in many ways
depending on the interest of the scholars who defined it. For example, the logicians, philosophers
and linguists have different definitions for the word semantics. Ogden and Richard (1923) and
Bloomfiled (1933) looked at the science for the clarification of semantic concepts. The problem
of Ogden's and Richard's and Bloomfileld's approaches to meaning arises mainly from their
determination to explain semantics in terms of other scientific disciplines. It is mistaken to try to
define meaning by reducing it to the terms of science rather than the science of language.
Meaning has to be studied as a linguistic phenomenon in its own right, not as something 'outside
language'. As a linguist you are interested in recognizing relations of meaning between
sentences, and in recognizing which sentences are meaningful and which are not. You wish to
distinguish the 'knowledge of the language' from the 'knowledge of the world' (Leech 1981:21).
Here you are concerned with linguistics semantics and so semantics is the way to interpret units
of language such as morpheme, word, phrase and sentence. It is the meaning that distinguishes
one linguistic unit from another unit.
Study of meaning is one of the major areas of linguistic study. Linguists have approached it in a
variety of ways. Members of the school of interpretive semantics study the structures of language
independent of their conditions of use. In contrast, the advocates of generative semantics insist
that the meaning of sentences is a function of their use. Still another group maintains that
semantics will not advance until theorists take into account the psychological questions of how
people form concepts and how these relate to word meanings.

1.1.2. The Definition of Semantics

Semantics as a term was first formally used by Breal in 1897. Hence, we can deduce that Breal
was the first to bring to the fore in a formally acceptable way, the nature of meaning in language.
Though the quest for the understanding of meaning has always been of interest to scholars,
semantics was not mentioned as a term and did not come up in literature until 1897 when it was
first used by Breal. This first attempt to study meanings by philosophers brought about the area
of semantics called philosophical semantics which examines the relationship between linguistic
expressions and the phenomena they refer to in the external world. Philosophical semantics
focuses on examining the conditions under which such linguistic expressions and the phenomena
they refer to are true or false. This can be traced to as far back as Plato’s and Aristotle’s works.
However, contemporary philosophical semantics can be traced to the works of the following
authors: Rudolf Carnap [1891 - 1970], Alfred Tarski [Born 1902] and Charles Peirce [1839 -
1914]. According to Peirce, philosophical semantics developed as Semiotics in America while
with the influence of Saussure in France, the term Semiology was used. However, the idea of
truth-based semantics was Tarski’s major contribution. Linguistic semantics emphasizes the
properties of natural languages while pure or logical semantics is the study of the meaning of
expressions using logical systems or calculi. Examining semantics in this dimension makes it
more mathematically related than linguistic in nature. It is important to note that the discussion
of semantics as a branch of linguistics began recently and this shall be our next focus.
You have noted that semantics has its origin in philosophy. Earlier scholars in philosophical semantics
were interested in pointing out the relationship between linguistic expressions and identified phenomena
in the external world. In the contemporary world, especially in the United States philosophical semantics
has led to the development of semiotics. In some other parts of the world, and especially, France, the term
semiology has been favoured. The reliance on logical calculations in issues of meaning has led to the
development of logical semantics. However, for our purpose in this course, emphasis is on linguistic
semantics, with our interest on the properties of natural languages. You shall see how this study relates to
other disciplines. We shall also examine the real issues in linguistic semantics.
1.2. Brief History of Semantics
It has often been pointed out, and for obvious reasons, that semantics is the youngest branch of
linguistics. Yet, interest in what we call today "problems of semantics" was quite alive already in ancient
times. In ancient Greece, philosophers spent much time debating the problem of the way in which words
acquired their meaning. The question why is a thing called by a given name, was answered in two
different ways.
Some of them believed that the names of things were arrived at naturally, physei, that they were somehow
conditioned by the natural properties of things themselves. They took great pains to explain for instance
that a letter like "rho" seems apt to express motion since the tongue moves rapidly in its production.
Hence its occurrence in such words as rhoein ("to flow"), while other sounds such as /s, f, ks/, which
require greater breath effort in production, are apt for such names as psychron ("shivering") or kseon
("shaking"), etc. The obvious inadvertencies of such correlations did not discourage philosophers from
believing that it is the physical nature of the sounds of a name that can tell us something about its
meaning.
Other philosophers held the opposite view, namely that names are given to things arbitrarily through
convention, thesei. The physei-thesei controversy or physis-nomos controversy is amply discussed in
Plato's dialogue Cratylus. In the dialogue, Cratylus appears to be a part of the physei theory of name
acquistion, while Hermogenes defends the opposite, nomos or their point of view. The two positions are
then debated by Socrates in his usual manner. In an attempt to mediate between the two discussants he
points out first of all that there are two types of names. Some are compound names which are divisible
into smaller constituent element and accordingly, analyzable into the meaning of these constituent
elements: Poseidon derives his name from posi ("for the feet") and desmos ("fetter") since it was believed
that it was difficult for the sea god to walk in the water.
Socrates points out that the words in themselves, give us no clue as to their "natural" meaning, except for
the nature of their sounds. Certain qualities are attributed to certain types of sounds and then the meaning

of words is analyzed in terms of the qualities of the sounds they are made of. When faced with abundant
examples which run counter the apriori hypothesis: finding a "l" sound ("lambda") "characteristic of
liquid movements" in the word sklerotes ("hardness") for instance, he concludes, in true Socratic fashion,
that "we must admit that both convention and usage contribute to the manifestation of what we have in
mind when we speak".
In two other dialogues, Theatetus and Sophists, Plato dealt with other problems such as the relation
between thought language, and the outside world. In fact, Plato opened the way for the analysis of the
sentence in terms which are partly linguistic and partly pertaining to logic. He was dealing therefore with
matters pertaining to syntactic semantics, the meaning of utterances, rather than the meaning of individual
words.
Aristotle's works (Organon as well as Rhetoric and Poetics) represent the next major contribution of
antiquity to language study in general and semantics in particular. His general approach to language was
that of a logician, in the sense that he was interested in what there is to know how men know it, and how
they express it in language and it is through this perspective that his contribution to linguistics should be
assessed. In the field of semantics proper, he identified a level of language analysis - the lexical one - the
main purpose of which was to study the meaning of words either in isolation or in syntactic constructions.
He deepened the discussion of the polysemy, antonymy, synonymy and homonymy and developed a
fullfledged
theory of metaphor.
The contribution of stoic philosophy to semantics is related to their discussion of the nature of linguistic
sign. In fact, as it was pointed out centuries ahead of Ferdinand de Saussure, the theory of the Janus-like
nature of the linguistic sign - semeion - is an entity resulting from the relationship obtaining between the
signifier - semainon - (i.e. the sound or graphic aspect of the word), the signified - semainomenon (i.e. the
notion) and the object thus named - tynkhanon -, a very clear distinction, therefore, between reference and
meaning as postulated much later by Ogden and Richards in the famous "triangle" that goes by their
name.
Etymology was also much debated in antiquity; but the explanations given to changes in the meaning and
form of words were marred on the one hand by their belief that semantic evolution was always
unidirectional, from a supposedly "correct" initial meaning, to their corruption, and, on the other hand, by
their disregard of phonetic laws.

During the Middle Ages, it is worth mentioning in the field of linguistics and semantics the activity of the
"Modistae" the group of philosophers so named because of their writings On the Modes of Signification.
These writings were highly speculative grammars in wich semantic considerations held an important
position. The "Modistae" adopted the "thesei" point of view in the "physei-thesei" controversy and their
efforts were directed towards pointing out the "modi intelligendi", the ways in which we can know things,
and the "modi significandi", the various ways of signifying them.
It may be concluded that throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages, and actually until the 19 th century
almost everything that came to be known about meaning in languages was the result of philosophic
speculation and logical reasoning. Philosophy and logic were the two important sciences which left their
strong impact on the study of linguistic meaning.
It was only during the 19th century that semantics came into being as an independent branch of linguistics
as a science in its own right. The first words which confined themselves to the study of semantic
problems as we understand them today, date as far back as the beginning of the last century.
In his lectures as Halle University, the German linguist Ch. C. Reisig was the first to formulate the object
of study of the new science of meaning which he called semasiology. He conceived the new linguistic
branch of study as a historical science studying the principles governing the evolution of meaning.
Towards the end of the century (1897), M. Bréal published an important book Essay de sémantique which
was soon translated into English and found an immediate echo in France as well as in other countries of
Europe. In many ways it marks the birthday of semantics as a modern linguistic discipline. Bréal did not
only provide the name for the new science, which became general in use, but also circumscribed more
clearly its subject-matter.
The theoretical sources of semantic linguistics outlined by Bréal are, again, classical logic and rethorics,
to which the insights of an upcoming science, namely, psychology are added. In following the various
changes in the meaning of words, interest is focused on identifying certain general laws governing these
changes. Some of these laws are arrived at by the recourse to the categories of logic: extension of
meaning, narrowing of meaning, transfer of meaning, while others are due to a psychological approach,
degradation of meaning and the reverse process of elevation of meaning.

Alongside these theoretical endeavours to "modernize" semantics as the youngest branch of linguistics,
the study of meaning was considerably enhanced by the writing of dictionaries, both monolingual and
bilingual. Lexicographic practice found extensive evidence for the categories and principles used in the
study of meaning from antiquity to the more modern approaches of this science: polysemy, synonymy,
homonymy, antonymy, as well as for the laws of semantic change mentioned above.
The study of language meaning has a long tradition in Romania. Stati mentioned (1971: 184) Dimitrie
Cantemir's contribution to the discussion of the difference between categorematic and syncategorematic
words so dear to the medieval scholastics.
Lexicography attained remarkably high standards due mainly to B. P. Hasdeu. His Magnum
Etymologicum Romaniae ranks with the other great lexicographic works of the time.
In 1887, ten years ahead of M. Bréal, Lazar Saineanu published a remarkable book entitled Incercare
asupra semasiologiei limbei romane. Studii istorice despre tranzitiunea sensurilor. This constitutes one
of the first works on semantics to have appeared anywhere. Saineanu makes ample use of the
contributions of psychology in his attempts at identifying the semantic associations established among
words and the "logical laws and affinities" governing the evolution of words in particular and of language
in general.
Although it doesn't contain an explicit theory of semantics, the posthumous publication of Ferdinand de
Saussure's Cours de linguistique générale 1916, owing to the revolutionary character of the ideas on the
study of language it contained, determined an interest for structure in the field of semantics as well.
Within this process of development of the young linguistic discipline, the 1921-1931 decade has a
particular significance. It is marked by the publication of three important books: Jost Trier, Der Deutsche
Wortschatz im Sinnbezink des Verstandes (1931), G. Stern, Meaning and Change of Meaning (1931) and
C. K. Ogden and J. A. Richards: The Meaning of Meaning (1923).
Jost Trier's book as well as his other studies which are visibly influenced by W. von Humbold's ideas on
language, represent an attempt to approach some of the Saussurean principles to semantics. Analyzing the
meaning of a set of lexical elements related to one another by their content, and thus belonging to a
semantic "field", Trier reached the conclusion that they were structurally organized within this field, in
such a manner that the significative value of each element was determined by the position which it

occupied within the respective field. For the first time, therefore, words were no longer approached in
isolation, but analyzed in terms of their position within a larger ensemble - the semantic field - which in
turn, is integrated, together with other fields, into an ever larger one. The process of subsequent
integrations continues until the entire lexicon is covered. The lexicon therefore is envisaged as a huge
mosaic with no piece missing.
Gustav Stern's work is an ambitious attempt at examining the component factors of meaning and of
determining, on this ground, the causes and directions of changes of meaning. Using scientific advances
psychology (particularly Wundt's psychology) Stern postulates several classifications and principles
which no linguist could possibly neglect.
As regards Ogden and Richard's book, its very title The Meaning of Meaning is suggestive of its content.
The book deals for the most part with the different accepted definitions of the word "meaning", not only
in linguistics, but in other disciplines as well. It identifies no less than twenty-four such definitions. The
overt endeavour of the authors is to confine semantic preoccupations to linguistic problems exclusively.
The two authors have the merit of having postulated the triadic relational theory of meaning - graphically
represented by the triangle that bears their names.
A short supplement appended to the book: The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages due to an
anthropologist, B. Malinowski, was highly instrumental in the development of a new "contextual" theory
of meaning advocated by the British school of linguistics headed by J. R. Firth (1935).
The following decades, more specifically the period 1930-1950 is known as a period of crisis in
semantics. Meaning was all but completely ignored in linguistics particularly as an effect of the position
adopted by L. Bloomfield, who considered that the study of meaning was outside the scope of linguistics
proper. Its study falls rather within the boundaries of other sciences such as chemistry, physics, etc., and
more especially psychology, sociology or anthropology. The somewhat more conciliatory positions
which, without denying the role of meaning in language nevertheless allotted it but a marginal place
within the study of language (Hockett, 1958), was not able to put an end to this period of crisis.
Reference to semantics was only made in extremis, when the various linguistic theories were not able to
integrate the complexity of linguistic events within a unitary system. Hence the widespread idea of
viewing semantics as a "refuge", as a vast container in which all language facts that were difficult to
formalize could be disposed of.

The picture of the development of semantics throughout this period would be incomplete, were it not to
comprise the valuable accumulation of data regarding meaning, all due to the pursuing of tradition
methods and primarily to lexicographic practice.
If we view the situation from a broader perspective, it becomes evident that the so-called "crisis" of
semantics, actually referred to the crisis of this linguistic discipline only from a structuralist standpoint,
more specifically from the point of view of American descriptivism. On the other hand, however, it is
also
salient that the renovating tendencies, as inaugurated by different linguistic schools, did not incorporate
the semantic domain until very late. It was only in the last years of the sixties that the organized attacks of
the modern linguistic schools of different orientations were launched upon the vast domain of linguistic
meaning.
At present meaning has ceased to be an "anathema" for linguistics. Moreover, the various linguistic
theories are unanimous in admitting that no language description can be regarded as being complete
without including facts of meaning in its analysis.
A specific feature of modern research in linguistics is the ever growing interest in problems of meaning.
Judging by the great number of published works, by the extensive number of semantic theories which
have been postulated, of which some are complementary, while some other are directly opposed, we are
witnessing a period of feverish research, of effervescence, which cannot but lead to progress in semantics.
An important development in the direction of a psycholinguistic approach to meaning is Lakoff's
investigation of the metaphorical basis of meaning (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). This approach draw on
Elinor Rosch's notion of prototype, and adopt the view opposed to that of Chomsky, that meaning cannot
be easily separated from the more general cognitive functions of the mind.
G. Leech considers that the developments which will bring most rewards in the future will be those which
bring into a harmonious synthesis the insights provided by the three disciplines which claim the most
direct and general interest in meaning: those of linguistics, philosophy and psychology.

Here’s a simplified version of the information you provided, broken into 15 presentation slides:

Slide 1: Introduction to the History of Semantics

 Semantics is a relatively new branch of linguistics.

  Interest in meaning in language has existed since ancient times.

Slide 2: Ancient Greek Philosophers

 Ancient Greek philosophers debated how words get their meaning.

 Two main ideas:
1. Physei: Words naturally match the things they describe.
2. Thesei: Words are given meanings by social agreement.

Slide 3: Physei vs. Thesei Controversy

 Physei thinkers believed that the sound of a word relates to its meaning (e.g., "rho"
sounds like movement).
 Thesei supporters thought names are chosen arbitrarily, based on convention.

Slide 4: Plato’s View on Meaning

 Plato discussed these ideas in his dialogue Cratylus.

 He suggested that some names make sense based on their parts, but overall, both nature
and convention contribute to meaning.
 Plato also explored how thought, language, and the outside world connect.

Slide 5: Aristotle’s Contribution

 Aristotle focused on how language expresses knowledge.

 He studied lexical meaning (meaning of words) and concepts like polysemy (words with
multiple meanings) and synonymy (words with similar meanings).

Slide 6: Stoic Philosophy and the Nature of the Sign

 The Stoics created an early theory of the linguistic sign.

 They identified three parts of a sign: the word itself, the idea it represents, and the object
it refers to.
Slide 7: Etymology and Word Evolution

 Ancient thinkers also studied how word meanings evolve over time, but they didn’t
always consider phonetic (sound) laws.

Slide 8: The Middle Ages

 In the Middle Ages, the "Modistae" philosophers focused on how language represents
knowledge.
 They followed the Thesei view, arguing that names are based on social convention.

Slide 9: The 19th Century: Birth of Modern Semantics

 Semantics became an independent branch of linguistics in the 19th century.

 The German linguist C.C. Reisig first used the term semasiology, which studied the
evolution of word meanings.

Slide 10: M. Bréal’s Key Contribution

 In 1897, M. Bréal published Essay de sémantique, marking the start of semantics as a

modern discipline.
 He focused on how word meanings change over time and connected semantics to logic
and psychology.

Slide 11: Lexicography’s Influence

 The creation of dictionaries helped further the study of meaning.

 Lexicographers analyzed concepts like synonymy (similar words), polysemy (multiple
meanings), and semantic change.

Slide 12: Early Romanian Contributions

 Romanian scholars, like Lazar Saineanu, made early contributions to the study of
semantics, combining psychology and logic to study word meanings.
Slide 13: Saussure and Structuralism

 Ferdinand de Saussure’s work in structuralism influenced semantics by emphasizing

language structures and how meaning is shaped by relationships between words.

Slide 14: Crisis in Semantics (1930-1950)

 Between 1930-1950, meaning was largely ignored by linguists, especially due to

Bloomfield’s view that meaning wasn’t part of linguistics.
 Semantics was seen as a “refuge” for difficult language facts.

Slide 15: Modern Approaches to Semantics

 Since the 1960s, there has been a resurgence of interest in meaning.

 Linguistics, psychology, and philosophy now work together to study meaning in a more
comprehensive way.
 Lakoff explored metaphors as a basis for meaning, connecting language to cognitive
functions.

This breakdown simplifies the key points for a more understandable presentation of the history
of semantics.