3 01 4 4 2,

e .
at

PE R GA M ON PRE SS IN C .

12
2East 55 111 S treet ,N e w York 22,N . Y
.

140
4 Ne w York Av enue ,N . W , Washington
. 5 ,D . C .

PE RGA M ON PRE SS LTD .

Headingt on Hill,Oxfo rd .

4 5 Fitzroy S quare,London W . l .

PE RGA M ON PRE SS
2
4 . Rue des E co les . Paris V‘ .

PE RG A M O N PRE SS G . 111
. b . H .

Kais erst rasse 7 5 . Frankfurt am M a in .

Copyr igh t
1962

by Paflst w o w e Wydawnict w o N auk o w c

Warszaw a
L ibrary o f C o ngress Card N umber 6 1— 188 7 9

Printed in Po lan d

by Wro claw ska D rukam ia N au ko w a

 C ONTE NTS

Part O ne

RE S EA R CH PR OB LE M S OF S E M AN TI CS
O ne . Lin gu istics

Two . L ogic

Th ree . S em an tic Ph ilo soph y

Th e alleged
“
tu rning po int ”
in p h ilosoph y . Language as th e onl y
su b ect j m atter o f research

Langu age as a pro du ct o f arb it rar y c on v en tion

Four General S em antics

.

Part Tw o

SE LE CTED PR OB LE M S OF S E M AN T I C S
O ne Th e Philosoph ical Aspect o fth e
. Co mm un ication Process
Th e essence o f th e problem o f c o mmun ic ation

Th e c ontr o v ersy betw een t h e tran scen den tali st and th e n aturalist
co n ceptio n

Foun dations of a M arxist formu lation o f t h e pro blem .

Two Th e S ign : An alysis an d Typ olo gy

.

Th e commun ication process as t h e star tin g p oin t in t h e

analysis o f t h e sign .

Hu sserl s tentativ e typ o lo gy o fsigns

’

D efin ition of t h e sign

General fo un dation s o f th e typ olo gy o f signs

A S ign als
.

B S ubstitu tiv e signs

.

Th e t
specific n a ure o f v erb al sign s
 CONTENTS

Ch ap ter Three . Th e M eanings of M eaning

sit u ation
1 O n t h e , sign -
.

2 M eanin g
. as a real o r ideal j
o b ec t

A .
“
M ean in g as j
t h e o b ectden o ted
B Th e
. tion concep o f intentio n al mean in gs

3 . M eanin g as a relatio n ( 1)
4 . M ean ing as a relation (2 )
A M ean in g as a relatio n betw een
. men w ho co mm u n ic a e t
w ith o n e an oth er

B Th e
. o rigin o f meanin g
C . M ean in g an d n o tio n
D Th e m ech an ism o f th e lin ks betw een sign
. an d me an in g
5 . Th e lin gu istic appro ach t o t h e issu e of m ean in g
Chap t er Four . Th e Commun icativ e Fun ct io n of L an gu age
“
1 L an gu age
. an d lan gu ages

2 Language
. an d reali ty
3 . L an gu age an d fectiv e
ef co mmm icatio n

Bibliograph y
I n dex of N ames
 T HE A UT HO R S FO REW O R D
’

On s ubm itt ing th is book t o the readers I w ish t o thank a ll those

om
mum
cate wh o ha ve h elp ed m e to br ing it to its p resen t fo rm .

First of all,I w ish to thank Professor Tadeusz Ko tarbtnski,

wh o had been kind enough to read th e m an uscrip t . His p rofound
and p ene trating crit ic ism h elp ed m e to add p recis ion to m a ny p as
sages o f th is book .

I also thank th e t ranslato r Dr O lgierd Wojtasie w icz an d

M r George Bidw ell wh o ch ecked th e trans lat ion .

l l l l l l
Q uo ta t ions from non-E nglish —
language books are e ith er given
in ex is t ing English vers ion ,if a vailable,or transla ted in to English .

l l l l l l In three cases on ly th ey are given in th e or iginal vers ion . Th is

f
re ers from Husserl,J asp ers ,and
t o quo ta tions Vossler,and is
due to the sp ecific ch aract er of th ese tex ts .

A . S .
 PR E FA C E

Au th ors prefaces ten d be mere v ti ons, tribu tes

’
to co n en

p a id t ou sage I n m y
. case ,h owever,I d o really feel a need t o

explain t o t h e read er m y in tenti o ns b efo re h e st art s t o read t hi s

b ook Hence I regard this Preface n ot as an appendix t o ,but

.

as a co mponen t part o f,m y w ork .

Th e p o int is that t h e su bj ect m atter o f m y in terests is ex

tremely c o m plicated and very vast I l ack ,u nfo rtu n at ely ,suc h
.

c om pet ence and eru diti on as w ou ld be n ecessary ade qu ately

t o treat all aspects o f th at su bj ect m atter ; i n d eed ,it is t o be feared

t hat n o in dividu al can m ast er th at su bj ect m atter in a com pletely
satisfact o ry degree C onse qu ently ,here t oo ,as in m an y o ther
.

Cases,a co n sci ou s restricti o n o f researc h i nterests sh ou ld be t h e

to ken o f mastery I do n o t kn o w whether I can satisfy that re qu ire
.

ment pro perly ,bu t I sho uld like t o explain what tasks I h aVe .

set mysel f,and why It is u p t o t h e read er t o dec ide whether,

.

and t o wh at extent ,I h ave achi eve d them .

First o f all ,I wish t o expl ain ,b oth t o myself and t o others,

.

what w e m ean by sem antics As a disci pli n e,seman tics is n ow

.

so in tri cat e ,an d it s n am e so am bigu ou s,th at sem anti c an alysis

“
mu st be appli ed t o t h e very term sem an ti cs if deplorable mi s
un derstandin gs an d errors o f l o gic are t o be avo ided .

Su ch is t h e o bj ective aspect ,n ot t o m en ti o n t h e attitu de

towards sem antics ad opted in M arxi st literature And yet t h e .

presen t au th or wo u ld like t o appro ach an d handle t h e i ssu e o f

sem antics frOm t h e M arxist
p o in t o f view,b o th in t h e sen se of
makin g -M arxi st phi l o so phy assimil ate as far as possible t h e
real research pro blems o f sem an tic s,and o f su bj ect i n g t o critic

ism any po ssible p hilo so phic al ab u ses of su ch pro blem s .

 PREFACE

I n it s present fo rm of a lo gical an d phi lo sophical theory ,

sem antic s is a c o m paratively y o u n g di sci pli ne S ettin g aside t h e
.

em bry on i c form o f lin gu i sti c sem antic s, n o su c h di sci plin e exi st

ed at t h e ti m e o f M arx and En gels It w as al ready t akin g sh ape

.

in Leni n s tim e ,bu t it s phi l o sophical im plicati on s were revealed

’

on ly t o ward s t h e en d o f h is li fe ,when h e w as o therwi se ab sorb ed .

”
Even an i n curabl e qu ot ati on m ani ac c o u ld find n o au t h o ri
t at iv e M arxi st st atem ent on this i ssue exc ept for a paragraph

in S tali n s M arxism and the Problems of L inguist ics whi ch rightly

’

em ph asiz ed t h e i m p ort ance o f lin gu i sti c sem an ti cs,an d n o less

rightly warn ed again st ab u sin g it . Bu t that is far fro m adequ ate

in View o f t h e en orm o u s scope o f t h e pro blem s i nv o lved .

I n rec en t y ears M arxist literatu re h as,o f cou rse,i n clu ded

criti cal pu bli cati o ns on sem anti cs, bu t it can be d efin itely affirm ed
that they were n ot credit able perform an ces .

Th e b ri ef form u l ati ons o f t h e pro blem in M arxi st en cyclo

paedias, phi lo sophi cal dicti on aries, et c , which are avail able
.

t o thi s day,sh o w that sem an tics w as u n d erst o o d excl u sively

as t h e id eali sti c sem an tic phil o so phy ,an d th at t h e l att er w as

in tu rn identified with S tu art Chase s so m ewh at pecu li ar inter

’

pret at ion offered in h is b oo k The Tyranny of Words (N ew Yo rk

Th e credit for h avi n g i ntro du ced C h ase i nt o M arxi st
literatu re b el on gs,it seem s,t o B Bykh ovskyl Chase h as sin ce
. .

then stereo typically hau nted all M arxist pu bli cati ons in which
“
t h e term sem antics h as appeared .

It is characteristic th at it is n ot onl y M arxi st pu bli cati on s

which have i nterpreted sem antics as a pseu d o -sci ence d
t o bl ur class stru ggle,a theo ry i m plyi n g th at a m ere

et c
“ ” “
o f cert ai n t erm s (su ch as c apit ali sm , soci ali sm

elim i n ate t h e c orrespo n di n g so ci al i ssues A sim ilar .

d i ti -C om mu n ist
p re ss e n an propag an d a In his 19 8 4,
.

a scen e in whi ch Sym e , t h e edit o r o f a dict io n ary o f

explai n s t o Wi n st o n th at a red u cti on o f t h e st oc k

“ ”
1 M ap co np e menn o fi 6 yp>1<ya3 n o fi b
( nn o co dmn
Contemporary B ou rgeo is Ph ilo so ph y] ,in E on b mecux,1947 ,M . 16 .
 PRE FACE xi

can eli min ate d an gerous so ci al i ssu es wh ich will becom e ih

conceiv able after an appro pri ate reform o f v o cabu l ary .

I do n ot mean th at there is absolu tely n o j u stificati on fo r

ascribin g all th ese ab su rd id eas t o sem anti cs S u ch an attitu de
.

is su pporte d by t h e o pini o n s o f c ircles close t o K orzyb ski ,as

Will be discu ssed later on in this b ook But is that sem antics
.

“ ”
in general ? I s it fai r t o identi fy su c h o pini ons integrally with
sem anti cs and thereby d eny t o it all sci en tific signi fic an ce ?

I see my first task in answerin g these qu esti ons B oth t h e

.

vari ou s fields co ncerned with sem antics,and t h e vari ou s mean

in gs o f t h e term mu st be reviewed A sui generis sem antic an alysi s
.

will be devo ted t o explainin g t h e am biguities o f t h e term itself .

Thus an i nqu i ry m u st be made in t o what is t h e sign ificance an d

t h e su bj ect m att er o f sem antics as a b ranch o f li n gu istics ; what
is t h e di fference b etween li n guistic sem antics an d sem antics
co nn ec ted with l o gi c , sem an ti cs b o rn o f t h e specific needs o f t h e

l att er disci pli ne whic h h as sho wn that langu age is n ot only

an i nstru m en t bu t also an o bj ect o f research ; wh at is sem antics

as t h e specific phil o so phi cal tren d whi c h sees in l an gu age treated

as a c o nventi o n the so le su bj ect m att er o f research (so - called

sem an tic phil osophy) ; an d finally ,wh at is sem an tic s in t h e sense

o f so- called general sem antic s whi c h fo r all it s pecu li arities

appro aches t h e i ssu e rather fro m t h e soci al an d soci o lo gic al

po int o f Vi ew .

O f co u rse ,my o bj ect is n o t o nly t o give a passi o nl ess sem antic

an alysi s,t o ext ri cat e an d t o presen t all t h e m ean in gs c o ncealed
“ ”
by t h e si n gle term sem antics I shall also en deavour t o sho w
.

t h e act u al spheres o f i nt erest o f sem anti cs an d t o clari fy t h e

.

real sci entific pro blem s it fo rtn u lat es

. S uch an approac h d o es
n ot ,o bvi ously , exclu d e a criti cal appraisal Y et ,in m y opin i on ,
.

pride o f place sh ou ld go t o a clear un derst andi n g as t o what

are t h e n ew an d phi l o so hi call y sign ifican t i ssues rai sed by seman
p
tics.

I b elieve t h e em phasis on t h e p h ilosop h ical sign ifican ce o f

these i ssu es t o be extrem ely i m p o rt an t in Vi ew o f t h e wid e dia
xii PRE FACE

paso n of t h e pro blem s co vere d by t h e term sem an ti cs As ai

ready i n dicated , suc h pro blem s i nclu d e b o th spec ifically lin gu i stic

m atters an d specifically lo gical i ssues,connected with t h e t ech

nique o f l o gi cal calcu lu s S u c h pro blem s will b e d ealt with in t hi s
.

b o o k onl y from t h e point o f view o f thei r phil o sophical im plica

ti on s,since w e are co ncerned with t h e phi lo so phi cal aspect of
sem an ti cs an d t h e phil o sophical pro blem s o f th at di sci pli ne .

Thu s,t h e pro blems will be treated bro adly ,and n o abso lu te
i mport ance will be ascribed t o parti al ,an d co nsequ en tly o n e
sided ,an alyses,as is so m etim es d o ne by expo n en t s o f fo rm al

lo gi c : o bj ecti o ns against su ch a pro cedu re are raised even by

“ ”
people o f t h e sam e professi on , su ch as Ru ssell an d Wittgen st ein .

In t hi s co nnecti on ,t h e very title o f t h e presen t work , I n tro

w

duct ion to S em an t ics,so fon dly u se d by tho se sem antici st s w h o

represen t fo rm al l o gi c ,t akes o n a d elib erat ely pro v oc ativ e t o ne .

S tarti n g from these assu m pti on s,an d b asin g m y self o n t h e

resu lt s o f t h e an alysi s t o be m ad e in t h e fi rst part o f t h e b oo k ,

I shall en deav o ur t o expo se a nu m b er o f m ain problem s an d t o

so lve th em ef fectively in t h e light o f M arxi st phi lo sophy Th at .

is m y secon d t ask , t o b e d ealt with in t h e seco n d part o f t h e b o o k

.

Su ch is my pro gramm e and su ch are m y i nt en ti o ns There .

is a stro n g im pu lse t o poin t o u t ch an ges in t h e m etho d o f present

in g an d criticizin g n on-M arxi st tren ds in philo sophy ,by M arxist s,
an d t o an aly se t h e so ci o l o gical foun d ati ons o f t h e di st orti on s

revealed in th at respec t in M arxi st lit erat ure Y et perh aps su f

.

ficient h as been written o n th at p o int in Polan d ,en ou gh po stu

lates h ave b een formu lated ,m aybe ,an d d ecl arati on s m ad e M ore .

o ver , t o pro mise t o o m u ch at t h e o u tset i n v o lves t h e ri sk o f disap

po inti n g t h e reader C o nsequ en tly ,

. su ch m att ers are t o be h an d led

i n a di f ferent w ay si m pl y by givi n g eff ect ,as far as my abili

ties an d com petences permit ,t o t h e n o ti on o f a s cien t ific an aly si s
o f t h e v ari o u s tren d s an d i ssu es.
 C H A P TE R O N E

LI N G U I S TI C S

SEMAN TIC S (S em aSi010gy) is a b ranch o f linguistics Th e ques .

ti ons whi ch are o f parti cu l ar i nt erest in thi s c o nnectio n are

with what is that branch o f lin gu istics c oncern ed ,an d in what
d oes it see t h e distincti on between itsel f an d t h e semanti c pro blem s
found i n contem porary logic l .

To b egin with t h e term itself: it comes from t h e em i nen t

French lin guist B real2an d is geneticall y co nnected with lin gui stics .

In t h e late 19th centu ry M i chel Bréal pu bli shed h is Essai de

seman t ique S c ien ce des signifi cat ions,in which h e writes :
’

“
M y i ntenti on w as t o give a general ou tli ne, t o sketch a gen eral
divisi on and,as it were,a pro vi si on al plan o f a d o m ain that
h as n ot b een stu died so far an d whi ch sho u ld b e t h e resu lt o f
Work for m an y generati on s of lin gu i sts Th e reader is therefore .

requ este d t o consid er thi s b o o k a simple i nt ro du cti on t o t h e

sb ience whi ch I propose t o call sem anti cs

In a fo otn ote,Bréal explains t h e m eani n g o f t h e t erm sem an
-
tics E mmot t m i; r éxv v) t h e sci en ce o f meani n gs,fro m t h e
°

Word a nnot at e)
‘
den ote ,as opposed t o ph onetics,t h e science ’

”
o f speech soun d s 3
'

1 An ou tlin e of t h e h istory o f sem asio lo gy an d th e v aryin g aspec s oft

its interests can b e foun d in su ch w orks as : E . Cassirer,Ph ilosop hie
der sym
bolischen Fo rmen ,Pt I : D ie S prach e .
”
Berlin 192 3 ; H Kron asser,Handbuch
.

der S ema sio logie,Heidelberg 195 2; S . U llm an ,The Princip les of S emant ics ,
Oxford 19 5 7 ; B . A . 3Ber mmeB , CeM ac uonozua [Sem asio logy] , M o cxna
19 5 7 .

2 Kro n asser cit ,p w h o den ies th at,comes t

o u t agains the
(op . . .

generall y t
adop ed opin ion .

M fica t i ons,Paris 190

'
3 . Bréal,Essai de semant ique . S cience des signi 4
4 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OF S E M ANTI CS

What did Bréal i mply by that term ,and h ow in general w as

t h e n ew di sci pli n e defin ed by t h e li n gu i st s?
Bréal defined t h e su bj ect m atter o f sem anti cs by det ailin g
appro pri at e research whi c h o u ght t o be u n dert aken .

“
I n that secon d part w e p rop o se t o i nvestigate h ow it h ap

pens that words, o nce create d an d en d o wed with a cert ain m eani n g ,

ext en d th at meanin g o r c ontract it ,t ran sfer it from one grou p

o f n oti ons o n t o ano ther, rai se it s v alu e o r l o wer it , in a w ord

brin g ab ou t chan ges It is thi s secon d part that constitu tes
.

”
sem anti cs,i e sci ence o f m ean in g 4
. . .

Th is shows that ,fo r Bréal,sem anti cs w as t h e sci ence t h e

su bj ect m atter o f whi c h w as st u dy o f t h e cau se an d st ructure

o f t h e pro cesses o f ch anges in m ean ings o f w ords : expansi o n

and con t racti on o f meani n gs,tran sfer o f m eani n gs,ele vati on

and d eg rad ati on o f their v alue,et c .

Su ch a deli neati on o f sem antics as a bran ch of lingui stics

is maint ained t o thi s day, for all t h e di fferences b etween t h e v ari o u s
sch oo ls in li n gu i sti cs S u ch d egree o f u ni formity is n o t confined
.

t o t h e d efiniti o n o f sem anti cs al one5 N ot all au th ors give such

.

a d efin iti o n ; so m e o fthem appro ach t h e i ssu e fro m a differen t poi nt

o f vi ew as reg ard s gen eral classi fic ati on dc S au ssure,w h o

d evelops t h e co ncept o f semi o lo gy as t h e science w hi ch stu dies
th e fun cti o ni n g o f sign s in soci ety , an d t reat s li ngui stics as a branch

o f such a gen eral sci ence o f signs),bu t all sch oo ls o f lin gu i stics

en g ag e in t h e stu dy o f t h e meanin gs o f wo rds an d thei r chan ges .

Thu s all o f them ,in one w ay o r an o ther,en gage in semantics

as un d erst oo d by Bré al .

For inst ance,D armestet er conceives o f t h e science o f t h t

m eani n g of w ord s,i e sem anti cs, as a branch o f t h e hi story
. .

o f psych ol o gy ,bu t appreci at es it s reS po nsibilit ies in t h e in vesti .

4 I bid .
,p . 99 .

5 Cf A
. . W . R ead, A n A cc o unt of t h e Word ‘
S em an tics in Wora
1948 ,N o . 4 Pp . . 7 8—9 7
.
 LING UI STIC S

gation o f t h e h i st o ry o f m e an n gs an d
i t h e c au ses o f thei r c h an gesé .

Vendryes di sagrees with D arm est et er and d eni es that t he gen eral
laws o f t h e ev o lu ti on o f m eanin gs o f w o rds sh ou ld b e i nheren t
in word th s e m se lves 7 He t o o ,ho wever,en gages in t h e traditi o n
.

al probl em s o f li n gu isti c sem anti cs,and ev en p o stu l at es t h e

foun d ati on of general sem antics,t o be b ased o n d at a concernin g

chan ges in m eani ng s in all l an gu age s 8 In P o li sh li ng ui sti c lit .

erat ure,sim ilar i ssues are d ealt with by Zen o n Klem ensiew icz 9 .

In fact ,t h e m aj ority o f wo rks o n general lin gu isti cs t reat sem antic

pro blem s as b ein g thei r focal problem s I sh all later en deavo ur .

t o analyse in gre ater det ail what t h e general pro gram m e o f lin
gu ist ics sem antics st an ds fo r Bu t at this po i nt I sh o u ld like t o
.

dwell o n cert ain general formulati ons .

Th e fact th at t h e general definiti on given in a new t extb o o k

b ased on M arxist principles d oes n ot in any degree devi ate from
‘

t h e old d efin iti o n as fo rm u late d by Bré al,sh o ws that t h e t radi

t io n al m eani n g o f sem antics h as already st abilized An I n tro .

duct ion to L inguist ics by L Bulakh ov sky b egin s with t h e defin i

.

ti o n o f sem anti cs as o ne o f t h e importan t bran ches o f lin gui stics

S em anti cs (sem asi o l o gy) as a bran ch of linguis tics is con
cerned w ith the mean ing and the changes in m eaning f
o words
and exp ressions 10
”
.

All this is n ot t o imply that ,within that u ni versal agreement

on general defini ti on , there are n o di fferences o f opini on ,in some
cases qu ite c o nsiderable ,as t o t h e essence o f t h e problem N ei .

ther d oes it mean that lin guists rest conten t with such a general
defin iti on an d direct thei r con troversies and differences o f o pin i o n

A D armesteter,L a vie des mots

' '
6 . e t udie e dans leurs significat ions,Paris
(with ou t date) .

7 J . Ven dryes,Le lang uage,Paris 1950

,pp . 28-2
2 2
9 .

3 40
Ibid ,pp 2 —2.41 . .

9 . War
Z Klemensiewicz,J ezyk p olski [Th e Polish Langu age] ,Lw ow -
1937 pp 10
-14 2
, 2—2 4,et passim
. .

J] A Bynaxoncxmi ,Beeoeuue e n abmo su au ue [An I n tro duction

‘
. . to
6 R ES EARCH PROBLEMS or S E M A NTICS

to th e field i
o f spe c al i ssu es c o n cerni n g t h e essen c e o f m eani n g,
t h e cau ses o f chan ges in m ean in gs ,an d co ncre e t fo rm s o f su c h

c h an ges .

Fo r i n st ance,t h e attitu d e o f Wit old D oro szew ski h as o b vi o u s

ph i lo sophi cal i m pli cati ons Fo r h im ,at t h e r o o t o f sem anti c
.

an aly si s li es t h e phi lo so phi cal i ssu e o f t h e rel ati o n shi p b etw een

t h e general an d t h e partic u l ar ,t h e st arti n g p o i n t b ei n g t h e an al

“ ”
ysis o f t h e functi o n o f t h e copu la is D o roszew ski an alyses
.

t h e pro blem o f m eani n g as cl o sely lin ked with d en o t ati o n It .

is in th at q uesti o n that h e sees t h e fo cal p oi nt o f sem antic s .

Th e p otenti al con fli ct i nheren t in every word ,an d fin d in g

expressi o n in t h e fact th at t h e u se o f every w o rd is an i n divid

u al em b o dim en t o f a g en eral con cept , is t h e fo cal p o in t o f sem an

tics u n derst o o d as a part o f li n gu i sti cs that is as a sci ence
”
o f t h e m ean i n gs o f w o rds an d t h e hi st o ry o f su c h m eani n gs 11 .

Acco rdi ng t o D oro szew ski,t h e hist o ry o f m eani n g con si st s

“ ”
in t h e growth o f a gap b etween t h e sign an d it s design atu m ,
and t h e cau se o f c h an g es in m eani n gs li es in t h e co n fli ct b etween

t h e ge n eral ch aract er o f t h e sign and t h e n eed fo r its bei n g m ad e

t o ri se t o t h e o ccasi o n whenever it is c o ncretely em b o di ed .

Th e attitu de o f D o roszew ski,a represent ative o f lin gu i sti c

sem anti cs,is o f i nt erest n o t o nl y b ecau se h e d raw s concret e

c onclu si o ns fr o m t h e g en er al defin iti on o f sem anti cs,b u t also

becau se o f his reflecti on s on t h e relati onship b etween sem antic s

as pu rsu e d by li n g ui sts,an d sem anti c s as pu rsue d by l o gi ci an s .

By t ou chin g here u pon th at i ssue,I an ticipat e further an alysis .

Thi s d o es n ot advance t h e clarity o f expo siti on ,bu t is,u nfo r

t un at ely,o ft en in evit able I n thi s case ,it is j u stifi ed in so fa r
.

as it h elps u s t o realize b ett er t h e specifi c t rait s o f li n gu i stic se

man ti es an d it s research o bj ectives .

A c ollo qu i u m o n sem an tics,att en d ed b y lo gici an s an d lin

gui st s,w as held in Warsaw in 1955 Th e o bj ect w as t o n arrow
.
.

th e gap b etw een c ert ai n p oi n ts o f vi ew , an d t o agree o n t h e su bj ect

11 W . D o roszew ski, Z leksykografii p o lskiej

zagadn iet i [S elected Pr o b
lem s of Po lish Le xico gr aph y] , Warszaw a 1954,p 93 . .
 8 R ESEARCH PROBLEM S or S E M A NTICS

Th u s t h e c h aracteri sti c feat u re o f li n gu i sti c sem an ti cs is n o t

t h at it d eals with m ean in gs and relati on shi ps as b etween word s
an d their d esi gn at a,but th at it is co n cern ed wit h t h e hi st o ry

o f m eani n gs, their o ri gin s,t h ei r chan ges,an d t h e laws accordin g

t o whi ch su c h chan ges occu r Th i s fo cu ses t h e specific fe at ure
.

o f li n gu i sti c sem anti cs .

While layin g stress,in its st u dies,o n t h e h is tor ical aspect

o f li n g ui stic entiti es and th ei r m eani n g s, li n gui sti c sem an ti c s

(sem asi o lo gy) d o es n ot o verl o o k t h e oth er,sys tem a t ic, aspect

O f t h e pro blem Th e divi si on i n t o di achr on ic an d sy n chr o n i c
.

an aly si s,i niti ated by de S au ssu re,is b ein g co n tin u e d by appro

priat e research whi ch in it s d ev el oped form b eco m es t h e theory

o f t h e sem anti c d om ai n ,t o be fou n d in cert ai n li n gui sti c sch o o l s

J ost Trier 14 .

Let u s c onsider n ow what research pro b lem s ari se fro m lin

gu ist ic sem antics so i nterpret ed Rem em b er th at ,as indicated .

in t h e Preface, w e are i nterest ed ab o ve all in th o se pro blems whi ch

h ave p hilo sophi cal impli cati on s an d are in o ne w ay o r an o t h er
dealt with by t h e vari ou s scho o ls Of phil osophy .

L in guistics is d ev o ted t o t h e stu dy ,in some w ay or an o ther ,

o f lan g uage,li n gu i sti c expressi o ns ,an d th ei r m eani n g s When .

appro achi n g relati o n sh ip b etween lin gu i sti c expressi on s an d t h e

desi gnat a they den ot e,lingui stic sem antics com es u p against
t h e pro blem o f signs A lin gu i st en gage d in t h e st u dy o f sem an
.

tics m ay n o t di sregard t h e theory o f si gns Th at theo ry h as .

been ,t o som e exten t ,for a lo n g tim e with in t h e sphere o f li n gu i sts

’

interests Fo r exam ple,Wilhelm v on H um b oldt rai sed t h e qu es

.

ti on as early as 182 0,when h e m ade a distin cti on b etw een lan gu age
as a refl ecti o n o f reality and lan guage as a sy st em o f si gn s “ .

y
an al se an d syst em a iz e t th e m ean ings th at alw ays exist in t h e min ds Of u

of lan gu age,an d w ou ld stu dy pu re mean in gs regardless of th e ir fo rm

dev elopm ent .

14 On th at p o in t cf . U llman ,o p . cit .
,p 15 2if
. .

15 W . v Hu mbo ldt ,Uber das v ergle ich ende Sp rachs mdium

. Tasch en aus
Philo so phisch e n B ib lio t h ek ,l ,p 2
2
“ ”
gab e n der . .
 LIN G UIS TICS

Th e pro blem o ft h e s
ign O ften appeared su bseq uen tly also ,especial
ly in works o n t h e phi lo so phy and psy ch olo gy Of lan gu age “ .

Pride o f place in th at respect is held by t h e w o rk O f de

Sau ssu re ,b oth in vi ew o f it s lin g ui stic character and b ecau se
o f it s wid e theo retical h o riz o n At t h e tim e when sem i otics as
.

a general theo ry o f signs h as acq ui red su c h i m po rt ance in t h e

literature o f t h e su bj ect ,attenti on o u ght t o be directed t o t h e

lingu istic aspect o f t h e pro blem D e S au ssu re wrote o n this m at
.

t er as foll ows
“
Thu s w e m ay fo und t h e science fo r t h e stu dy o f t h e life of
signs ag ainst t h e b ackgro un d o f so ci al life ; it w o uld fo rm part

of so ci al psych ol o gy ,and con se quently o f general psych o l o gy ;

w e shall call it semi o l o gy (from Greek c anei ov That

science w o ul d expl ain t o u s in wh at sign s c onsist o f and by wh at

laws they are go vern ed S ince it is a sci ence whi ch do es n ot yet

.

exi st ,w e do not kn o w what it will be li ke ; it h as,h owever,a reason

for it s e xistence,it s place is all ocated in advance Li ngu istics .

is onl y a part o f that general science ; t h e laws whi c h semi ol o gy

will disco ver,will be applicable al so t o lin gu istics,which in tu rn
w ill be lin ked with a d om ain clearly defin ed th ro u gh ou t th e
”
entirety o f hu m an afl ans l 7 .

De S au ssu re o penl y protested against th e interpret ati o n o f

his i nten ti ons in term s Of i ndividu al psych olo gy Th e si gn sh ou ld .

be an alysed as a soc ial phen om en on ,an d m o re o ver as su ch

a phen om en o n as d o es n o t depen d o n o u r wi ll ,whether i n di

16Th e foll o w in g w orks m ay be cited by w ay o f example : K B u h ler, .

Sp rach t heo rie ,Jena 1934 ; E C assirer,Ph ilosop h ie der symbo lischen Formen ,
.

an d An Essay on M an An I nt roduct ion

. t o a Ph ilosop hy of Human Cult ure ,
N ew York 1954 ; OJespersen ,L anguage,I ts N ature,Develop ment and O rigin,
.

London 19 5 4 ; A M arty, Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der a llge meinen

.

Grammat ik und Sp rachp h ilosop h ie,Halle a S 190 8 ; A v M ein on g,Uber An

. . . .

nah men , Le i zig

p 19 10; C H Py6 nn m r efm , O cuoe bt o6 1uei2 ncuxonozuu
. .

[ Prin ciples O f Gen eral Psych o lo gy] ,Ch ap XI ,M o crcn a 1946 ; E S apir,L an
. .

guage ,N ew Y o rk 19 2 1; W Wu n dt, Volkerp sych ologie ,Vols 1 2,Die

'

. .

Sp rach e ,Le ipzig 19 11—19 12 .

W F de S au ssure Cours de lin uisti ue 1949 ,p

, generale,Paris
'

.
g q . 33 .
10 R ES EARCH PROBLEMS O F S EMANTICS

vidu al o r soci al In this w ay a lingu ist pro po sed t o bu ild a gen

.

eral th e o ry o f sig ns,i e ,sem i o l o gy (sem i o ti cs) ,a m att er whi ch

. .

fro m a di fferen t p o i nt o f Vi ew w as appro ached by l o gi ci an s an d

philo sophers .

Li n gu i sti cs as su ch h as n ot d eveloped semi ol o gy ,b ut it h as

i n d eed develo ped a theory whi ch is li nked di rectly with lin gu i stic
p ro bl em s t h e th e ory O f m ean i n g 18 .

Th e lin gui st s fi rst Of all ask them selv es wh at is m eanin g ?

An swers t o that qu esti on s vary S om e Of them are q u o ted b el ow .

by w ay o f exam ple .

I n P oli sh li n gu isti c literatu re is foun d fi rst Of all a co ntro

v ersy b etween t w o c o n cepti on s : asso ci ati on i sm an d t h e o p

pon ent s Of asso ci ati oni sm .

St an i slaw Szo ber i nt erpret ed m eanin g as t h e associ ati on

o f a li n gu i sti c represen t ati o n with an ext ra-li n gui sti c o n e (i e .

a sou n d i m age with an im ag e o f an O bj ect o r att rib u t e) .

“
Th e m eanin g O f a w ord is est ab li shed by t h e associ ati on
o f it s so un d im ag e with an i m age o f som e O bj ect o r
”
att rib u t e 19

S u c h an i nt erpret ati on led S zo ber t o t h e asserti o n that t h e

w o rd b eco m es a sign O f an extra-lin gu i stic im age”,in such a
w ay that it m akes p o ssible t o i n cl u d e in t h e c o n t en t o f t h e

m eani n g of t h e wo rd n ot t h e fu ll ext ra-lin gu isti c i m age , bu t

o nly s o m e O f it s d et ails ,th at is,a sim plified i mag e .

A qu it e di fferent p o siti o n , O pp o si n g asso ci ati o n i sm , w as

represent e d in Po li sh li n gu i sti c literat u re by H en ryk G aert ner ,

w h o en g aged in di rect p o l em i cs with S zo ber21 .

13 Cf G . . S tern ,M eaning Ch ange of M eaning , G o te borg 19 3 1

and .

S zo b er,Z arys jezykozna ws t wa ogo l nego [A n O u tline O f G e neral

'
19 S .

Lin gu istics] , Warszaw a 19 2

4,p . 5 .

20 I b id ,p . . 6 .

21 H G aert ner,Gramatyka wsp o lczesn ego jezy ka p olsk iego [A G ram mar
.
’

o f C o ntemporary Po lish Lan gu age] ,Pt 2,Lw ow 19 33,pp 96 if A crit ic ism . . .

of S zober
’
s asso cia tionism is t o be fo un d in an ar t icle by M . O sso w ska,
S em an tyka pro fes ora S zo bera [ Pro fessor S zo ber s S emantics]
“ ’
.
 I sh ou ld like n o w t o pay m ore atten ti on to t h e in terpretati o ns
Of m e ani n g by de S au ssu re an d by Bu lakh o v sky I h av e c h o sen .

these t w o au thors becau se O f t h e di fferen ces in thei r attitu des

t owards t h e i ssu e .

With de Sau ssure,t h e co ncept O f m eanin g is in separably

con nected with hi s c o ncept s o f sign an d l an gu ag e Th e pro b lem .

can ,o f cour se,o n ly be in t ro du ced here ; it will b e an alysed in

greater det ail in t h e secon d part o f t h e b oo k .

Accordi n g t o de S au ssure,a lin gu i stic sign is a psychi c wh o le

with t w o aspec ts : sou n d im age an d n o ti on ” Thu s t h e si gn .

is a spec ific com b inati on Of these tw o elem en ts F o ll owin g fro m .

de S au ssure s analy sis, th at t w o -sided rel ati on shi p b etween

’

sou n d an d n oti on is m eani n g Thi s is why de S au ssu re su ggests

.

“ ”
that t h e term soun d im age shoul d be replaced by t h e term
“ ” “
signifian t (that whi ch mean s) ,an d t h e term n o ti on by t h e
term signifié (that whi ch is t h e O bj ect o f meanin g) Th e sign
“ ”
.

fu lfils its functi on onl y by vi rtue O f th at rel ati onship of meani ng ,

th e m em b ers o f whi ch are c onn ected i nsep arably Th e breaki n g .

o f th at u ni ty w o u ld resu lt in t h e d estru cti o n o f t h e sig

n .

Bu t n ot o f t h e sign alone It al so refers t o l an gu age,whi ch

.

is a system o f sig ns Wh at h as b een said here co ncernin g th e

.

rel ati o nshi p O f m ean in g whi c h c on diti o ns t h e exi sten ce o f t h e

sign , is fu lly a
pplicable t o t h e relati ons hip between tho u ght
and so un d in lan gu age .

Lan gu age can be com pare d t o a sheet Of paper: th ou ght

is it s recto an d so u n d it s verso ; o ne c ann o t cu t t h e verso witho u t
sim u lt an e o u sly cu ttin
g t h e re cto Similarly , in t h e m att er o f
.

langu age , o ne can separat e n either sou n d from thou ght n or

tho u ght from so u n d ; such separati on c o u ld be achi eved on ly
by ab stracti on ,which wo u ld lead either t o pure psychol o gy,
o r t o pu re ph o n o l o gy 2
”
3 .

It is i nteresti n g t o O b serve t h e con trast b etween t h e views

O f Bu lakh ov sk
y an d Of de S au ssu re o n t h e pro blem Of m eani n g .

22 F de S au ssu re o c it
.
, p . .
,p 99
. .

23 I bid
,p 15 7
. . .
 12 RES EARCH PROBLEMS OP S EM A NTICS

It is in tere stin g becau se it n ot only en ables u s t o un derst and

w h at is t h e su bj ect matter O f lin gui stic sem anti c s,bu t it also

sh ows u s t h e po ssibility o f appro achi n g t h e sam e i ssu e in dif

ferent ways whi ch d epen d ,am o n g o ther thi n g s,o n t h e i n divid

phi losophi cal and m eth o d o l o gical b ackgrou n d We see
’
u al s .

here t w o scho lars w h o are interest ed in t h e pro blem O f m eani ng

from t h e lin gu istic po int o f vi ew and in t h e li ght o f lin guisti c
m eth o d And yet b oth o f them reso rt t o a defini t e phi l osophi cal
.

an d m eth o d o l o gi c al b ack groun d m u ch b ro ad er in ki n d : de

S aussure is o bvi ou sly influenced by t h e co n cept s o f D urkheim ,
an d Bu lakh ov sky by th ose o f M arx Hen ce t h e difference o f
.

o pini on concerni n g t h e same researc h problem s .

Bulakh ov sky o pp oses t h e associ ati on theo ry , whi ch sees

t h e e ssen c e O f m eani n g in th e associ ati on b etween t h e represen
t at ion an d t h e so u nd aspect O f t h e w o rd Th e fu ncti o n o f m ean ing .

is for h im i nseparably c onnected with t h e fu n cti o n o f deno ta

t ion2 4 A w o rd ab o ve all deno t es some real fact o r
.
phen o m en o n
ab ou t whi ch t h e in dividu al wants t o c omm u ni cat e somethin g

t o o thers An d mean i n g is t h e c o n ten t O f t h e w o rd ,revealed by

.

co nnecti ons with reali ty Th e pro per m ean in g o f a w o rd is sh aped

.

by t h e hi story O f it s c onn ecti ons with reality25 .

Let u s extract from that st atem en t wh at is new in rel ati on

t o t h e co ncepti o ns an alysed ab o ve Tw o po in t s em erge in th at
.

re spect : em ph asi s o n t h e c o nn ecti o n b etween so u n d i m age and

a fragm ent o f realit ( d st d s t h e w o rld exi sti n g o bjec

y u n e
r o o a

t iv ely) ,wh ic h appears in t h e fu ncti o n O f d en o t ati o n ,an d em ph asi s

o n t h e rOle o f t h e h is tor f a giv w o rd in d et erm in i n g it s act u al
y o en

m eani n g .

TO be ex act ,I m u st add th at this is by n o m eans t h e d om in ant

attitu de am o n g t h e S o vi et lin gu i sts For i nst ance A I S mi rnit sky
. . .

rej ect s t h e O pi n i o n whi ch h o ld s th at m ean i n g is co nn ect ed wit h

t h e rel ati o n shi p b etween sou n d i m age an d t h e d en o ted fragm e nt

24 Byn axonc xnfi ,o

p . c it .
pp . 12
—13 .

25 I bid , 13
p . . .
 LING UI STICS 13

o frea lity ,an d u nd erstan d s by m ean in g t h e c o n cept o r t h e represen

t ation (repro d u ctive o r pro d u ctive) whi c h reflects t h e fragm ent

of reality in qu esti o n Thu s, fo r h im ,m ean in g is t h e i nt erm ediary

.

lin k b etween so u nd and reality26 .

I m u st expli citly m ake t h e reservati on that I con fine mysel

here t o i n fo rm ati on ; t h e lack o f a critical appraisal is n ot t o be
interpreted as i n dicati n g that I am in agreem en t with t h e o pi n i ons
I record .

In connecti on with t h e pro blem o f meanin g ,t h e li n gu ists

also deal , within t h e sco pe o f their sem antic pu rsui ts,with cert ain
derivative i ssues .

Wh at lin gu i stic entities have meani n g as their attribu te ?

That pro blem is an alysed by ,fo r e xam ple,Vendryes when
h e intro du ces a differenti ati on as b etween t h e word ,t h e sem ante
“
me and t h e m orphem e He u nderst ands by sem an tem es lin
.

gu ist ic elements whi ch express i deas o f represen t ati ons (les idees
’

des an d by m or phem es, su ch li n gui sti c element s

“
as express t h e rel ati onships w hi ch hu m an mi n d e st ab lishes

between sem antem es 27 ; h e en deav ours t o defin e what is t o be

”

understo o d by t h e w o rd an d by t h e expressi on ” Thi s is a lin .

guist ic i ssu e o f extrem e sign i ficance, with a sem antic aspect .

Ven dryes vi ew h as b een qu o ted here j u st by w ay o f example

’

becau se t h e pro blem is O ften t o be m et with in li n gu isti c li tera ~

ture .

Th e sam e h o lds for t h e di f ferenti ati o n of m eanin gs an d at

tempts t o classi fy them For i n st ance,Ku rylov ich di sti n gui sh es
.

general m eanin g , whi ch is an ab stracti o n , and fo ll o win g

hi s num erou s predecessors pr in ci pal m eani n g (in depen dent
of t h e con text) ,an d speci aliz ed m eani n g (with elem ent s o f t h e

co ntext added) A separate qu esti on is that of c alque m eani n g

.

26 A W ord],
Ca Hu uRmZ 3Haue1m e [Th e M ean ing of a
‘

. r, ch o Ba

in Bonp ocat n 3 buc03 n anun ,195 5 , N9 2, pp . 82

—84 .

27 Ven dr e s O
y , p cit ,p 8 6 . . . .

23 Ibid
,pp .10 3.
- 1
04 .
14 RESEARC H PROBLEMS O F S EM A NTICS

whi ch devel ops in th e actu al vocab u lary o r fro m ne o lo gisms

lo aded with t h e co nt en t O f fo reign wo rd s?-9
Th e seco n d great i ssue o f lin gui stic sem antic s co n cern s change s
in m eani n g s and t h e c au ses o f su ch chan ges .

Lin gu istics h as si n ce it s very i ncepti on b een co ncern ed ,in

som e fo rm or an other,with t h e hi st o ry o f l an gu ag e and t h e

etym o l o gy O f li n g ui sti c ex pressi o n s On e mi ght even ri sk t h e st ate

.

m en t th at it is precisely in tho se pro blems th at t h e roo ts o f lin

gu ist ic s are t o b e fo un d An d it is fro m su c h ro o ts th at li n gui sti c
.

sem antics h as d evel o pe d as t h e sci en c e o f m eani n gs o f w o rd s

an d o f c au ses o f c han ges in m ean i n gs .

Th e sp ecifi c tra it O f li n gu isti c sem an ti cs, then ,c o n sists precise

ly in t h e stu dy O f t h e h is tory o f m eani n gs Th e cau se s O f t h e vari a .

bilit y o f m eani n g s are seen by sem anti cs either in lan gu ag e

itsel f or in fact ors psy ch ol o gical o r soci ol o gical e xt ern al

t o l an gu age Th e l aws O f that v ari ability are accordi n gly treated

.

either au t on o m o u sly o r hetero n om ou sly Credit ,h owever,m u st .

be given t o t h e research reali sm o f t h e lin gu i sts w h o in pri nci ple

t ake b oth facto rs int o acc o u nt an d in terpret th em as reacti n g
o n e u p on t h e o ther .

Breal expli citly conn ected t h e evo lu ti o n o f lin gui stic m eanin gs
w ith t h e ev o lu ti o n o f so ci al li fe in t h e b ro ad sen se o f t h e term .

I n m o d ern so ci ety ,t h e m eanin g o f w o rd s ch an ges m u ch

m o re qu i c kly th an it did in an tiqu ity o r even in t h e recen t p ast .

Thi s arises from t h e i ntermin glin g o f soci al classes,t h e stru ggle

O f i n terests an d o pin i o ns,t h e stru ggl e o f p oliti cal parties an d

t h e v ari ety O f aspirati o n s an d t ast es 30 .

Th e s oci al an d cl ass fact o r w as stressed pro b ab ly t h e m o st

st ron gly by A M eillet , Bré al s su c cesso r in t h e C o llege de Fran c e
’
. .

I n partic u l ar ,in hi s w o rk Comm en t les m o ts ch angen t de w as“,

29 E . P
. Kyp nn OBnu “
3 amer xu o 3 Hauen nn
”
cn O B a [ Rem ar ks o n
M ean ing O f W ords] ,in Bo np ocu fl 3 bl K03 HaHUfl , 19 5 5 , N9 3,pp 7 8—7 9
. .

3 0 Bré al o
, p ci t pp 10 5 —10
. 6 . . .

31 First pu b lish ed in Annee S ociologique ,1905- 19 06 ,an d th en reprin te d

'

in t h e b o o k by A M eillet,L inguist ique his torique et lingu is t ique ge ne rale

' '

Paris 1948 .
16 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OE S EM A NTICS

developmen t O f m ateri al an d spi ritu al cu ltu re in general

techn o l o gy , sci ence , art with chan ges in t h e character o f
rel ati o n s with o th er co u n t ri es,w e n o tice ,o n t h e o ne h an d ,t h e

disapp earan ce O f m an y w o rds,whi ch lo se m eani n gs as t h e c on

cept s they d en o t e pass o u t of circu l ati o n , an d on t h e o ther,mu ch
m ore fre qu en tly,th e em ergen ce of wo rd-sign s u sed to den ot e
new id eas an d co ncepts,w o rked ou t in prac ti ce by t h e u sers o f
”
t h e giv en l an gu age 35 .

Th e un d erst andi n g o f t h e so ci al an d hi st orical ch aracter

“

o f lin g ui sti cs,expressed in v o n H u m b o ldt s lectu re qu ot ed ab o v e ,

’

is also clear in t h e w o rks O f su ch sch o l ars as de S au ssu re ,M eil

let ,Vendryes,M arcel C o hen ,and o thers As regards sem antics , .

it appears with particu l ar force .

Even Bré al,when explain in g hi s these s by w ay O f t h e e x ample

o f t h e etym o l o gy o f n am es O f R om an m agi st rates,wro t e :
“
We mu st realiz e t h e exten t t o which it is n ecessary that our
kn o wledge of l an gu age be b ased o n hi st o ry Onl y hi st ory can .

i mpart t o words that de gree of precisi o n which w e n eed in order

”
t o un derst an d them well 36 .

Hence h e c onclu ded that sem antics b el o n gs t o hi sto rical

di scipli nes .

“
All t h e m ore,therefo re ,sh ou ld sem antic s be i n clu d ed am o n g
t h e hi st o ri cal sci en ces There are n o ch an ges in m eani n gs o f
.

w ords an d n o pecu li ariti es o f syn tax which can b e regarde d as

”
an ythi n g o ther th an mi n o r hi st o ri cal event s 37 .

Fro m th at po i n t o f view,t h e -stu dy o f l angu ages O f prim itive

peoples m u st als o be vi ewe d as a c o ntrib u ti on t o a h i st o rical

Byn axo ncxm i ,o p

‘
35 . cit .
,p 8 8
. .

36 Bré al,o p . cit .

,p . 112 .

37 I bid .
,p 25 6 . .

33 L . Lev y-Bruhl ,L es fonct ions m entales dans les so cié t és infé rie ures,
Paris 19 12; F . B o as,Kult ur und R asse ,Leipzig 19 14,an d Race,Language
a nd Cu lt ure ,N ew York 1949 ; B . M alin o w ski, The Proble m of M eaning in
Primit ive L anguages (as an Appen dix in C . K O gde n
. I A R ich ards,The
. .

M eaning of M eaning,L ondon

 LIN GUI STICS

i nterpretati on O f sem antics I refer here t o t h e works o f su ch

.

sch ol ars as Levy- B ru hl ,B o as,M alin owski and others38 I sh ou ld .

like t o ab st ract here from such con troversi al i ssues as that o f

t h e prel o gi cal c h aracter o f t h e thi n ki n g O f pri m itive peo ple ,

whi ch at on e ti me evo ked a wave of accu sati ons by S o viet au th o rs

(accu sati ons whi ch,in my opini on ,were largely b ased on a m is
-
un d er st an di n g) : L é v y B ru hl and o thers were c harge d with
su ccu m bi n g t o t h e pressu re o f raci ali sm ,i m peri alism , et c 39 . .

Certain resu lt s of t h e relative researches are b ey on d cont en ti on ,

irrespective Of thi s or that interpret ati on : I refer t o tho se re
searches whi ch i n di cat e a great er concret en ess in prim itiv e lan

guages,t h e i nability Of su ch lan gu ages t o express gen eral n o ti on s,

and t h e c onn ecti o n b etween th o se fact s an d t h e m o d e Of li fe,

and t h e need s, o f prim itive peo ples It w o uld be di f

ficu lt t o fin d
.

a m ore con vinci n g dem on strati on o f t h e hi st o rical character

Of v o cab u lary an d m eanin g .

A separate chapter o n thi s su bj ect w as pro vided by t h e hi st o

rical sem an tic s o f N I M arr an d h is sch o o l It h as n ever reach ed
. . .

t h e li n gu i sts in t h e W est ,and in t h e S o viet U ni on it w as an nihi

lated fo ll owi n g a discu ssi on in t h e l ate 1940s Th e m anner in ’

.

whi ch M arr s theory w as th en rej ected mu st be co nsidered det

’

riment al t o science ; su ch m eth o d s in sc i en tific di scu ssi ons mu st

be reg arde d as in adm i ssible,in t h e sam e w ay as t h e previ ou s

sanct ificat ion O f that very theory as t h e o nly t rue an d c o rrect

o ne is i n adm i ssible It is b ei n g said at presen t th at M arr s th eory ,

’
.

an d in parti cu lar his an aly si s b ased o n fou r e l ement s in sharp

con t rast t o t h e hi st ori cal co m parative m eth o d c on t ai ned

many fantasti c elem ent s It is al so m ain tain ed that M arr s

’
.

co ncep t o f t h e class ch aract er o f l an guage ,and t h e d evelo pm en t

o f l an guage by st ag es,as well as hi s c o ncep t that l an g u ag es de

v elo ped on ly by crossi n g , c on stitu te d a vu lgari zati o n Of t h e

39 III ensua (I) . H , Teo pm i Jl eBn -Bpio nn

.
“
Ha cn yx< 6 e mvm ep u ai m cr n
”
uecxoia peaxurm -
[ Lé v y Bruh l s Th eo ry in S ervice of I mp erialist Re
’
th e
act ion ] ,in di uno cogi a cue sanu cn u ,B arn 5 , A H CC C P, I/IHcr n r yr (Dun c
.

co dmn ,M o c a 19 50,p . 148—175 .

18 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OF SEM ANTICS

M arxi st theo ry Th i s is a t en able o bj ecti o n Bu t M arr s theory , ’

. .

even apart fro m co n crete resu lt s in t h e stu dy O f Cauc assian

lan guages,i nclu d ed ,b ey on d d o u bt ,m any i nteresti n g an d valu

able ideas o f gen eral th eo reti cal si gn ifican ce 1 refer in parti cu l ar .

“ ”
t o t h e co ncept O f t h e m an u al l an gu age as t h e pro t o -l an g u age,

an d t h e rel at ed hyp othesi s o f t h e d ev el o pm en t o f hu m an sp eech

from t h e pict ori al concrete t o t h e ab stract Further,I refer t o t h e .

hypo thesi s conn ecti n g t h e devel o pm en t O f lan gu age-thin king

with t h e pro cess of pro du cti on These are i ssu es o f n o sm all .

i m po rtan ce fo r a hi st ori cal in terpretati on Of sem anti cs,an d they

c ann o t be rej ect ed with ou t ad equ at e argu m en ts An d su ch ar .

gu m ent s were n ot alway s t o be fou n d in wh at M arr s opp on ents

’

said an d wr o t e, ev en as re g ards t h e c riti c ism o f t h e m o re d etail ed

theses o f hi s lin gu i sti c theory40 .

As already in dicate d ,co ncern for t h e hi st o ri cal an d soci al

fact or in t h e developm ent o f m eani n g is with all lin gui sts ac
com pani e d by t h e st u dy o f t h e i nner li n gu i sti c laws o f su ch de

v elopm ent .

If w e g i ,by
a a n w ay o f ex am ple ,refer t o t h e textb o o ks of

Ven dryes an d Bu lakh ov sky,w e find that t h e co u rse o f reaso ni n g

is in prin ci ple t h e s am e in b oth cases S in ce thi s i nv o lves pro .

fession al an aly sis,t o b e m et with in all t extb ooks,an d seasoned

i
co p o u s ly with ex am ples drawn fro m m any lan guages,I qu ote
th e generalizati on attem pted by Ven dryes .

Th e vari o u s c h an ges in m ean in g s t o whi ch w ords are su bj ect ,

are sometim es red u ced t o t h ree b asi c typ es : c o n t racti o n , ex

40 C f B B Bunorp anOB C B OOOnB ax nn cxycc u a B ’

I IpaBne
‘
. . . no

Bon po caM a sbrxo sn aunx 2

11 cc 3 Hauenne rum nams n efi mer o p a3 BnTn x CO
”
Ber cxo ir
'

Hayxn O ass nce [A Free D iscu ssio n in

‘
Prav da
’
on Lin guistic
Problems] in Bonp ocm a s buro snanun e ce eme mp ydoe H B Cma/t uua [ Lin guis . .

tic Problems in t h e Ligh t Of th e Works of J V

. . S talin] , M oc _
a 195 0;
”
II VI PaM mII B I/IJI I/I Hen pneM n eM o c Teo p rm n em
“
. . o cr n n sb ma xcecr O B

[ In accepta bility O f th e Th eo ry o f th e Priority o f a Lan gu age Of Gestures] ,in

H seecmun Arcade/n un Hedaeo eu q ecxux Hayn PC CDCP , Bonp oc bt ncuxono

euu s ut /te nun u Pe uu , Bb m 8 1, M OCKB a 19 5 6

. .
 L IN G UIS TICS 19

pansion ,shiftin g C ontracti on

. when there is a transiti on o ccu rs

from a gen eral t o a Specific m eanin g (fo r in st ance, p ondre ,se vrer

or traire) ; expan si on ,when ,on t h e c o n t rary ,th ere is a t ran si

ti on fro m a specific t o a gen eral m ean i n g (fo r i n st an ce,arrach er,

g a gner or tr io m p h er) ; shi fti n g ,when b o th m ean in g s either are
eq u al in sco pe or in th at respect i n di f feren t t o o n e an other (fo r
i nstance,ch ercher,cho isir o r me t tre),and when t h e shi fti n g fr om
o ne m eani n g t o an o ther is cau se d by t h e n eighb o u rh o o d o f t h e

desi gn ata when t h e m ean in g o f a word shi fts fro m what

cont ains t o wh at is co nt ai n ed ,from cau se t o ef fect ,from Si gn
t o design atu m ,et c ,or vi ce versa) It is O bvi o u s that con trae
. .

ti on s an d expansi ons o f meanin gs are in m ost cases th e resu lt s

of shi ftin gs, and th at su c h shifti ngs o f m ean i ngs t ake on

different fo rm s t o which t h e gramm ari an s give speci al term s

(metaphor,syn ecd oche,m et onym y ,cat achresi s,et c ) .

These are t h e p roblem s d ealt with by Bré al,D armest et er,

Nyrop42,an d also Klem en siew icz43, Zv egint sev an d B u lakh o v
sky Th e l ast -
. named au th or h as a v ery d et ailed exp o siti on o f

th e su bj ect ,su ppo rted by extrem ely n u m erou s lin gu i sti c d ata“ .

This is why I refer in tereste d readers t o hi s textb o o k45 .

Fi nally,I sh ou ld like t o dwell on th e lin gu i sti c aspect of

am biguity o f exp ressi on s an d o n t h e n eed t o b e preci se with

them These are m atters di rectly connected with t h e m etho d

.

o f sem an ti c an aly si s, u sed in phi l o so phy a fact whi ch can

o n ly add t o ou r in t erest in th em .

Bré al,t h e father o f li n guisti c sem an ti c s,also d eal t with t h e

pro blem o f ambi guity an d it s sources (alth ou gh t h e pro blem

itself h as a mu ch l on ger hi st o ry an d can be traced b ack at least
t o Ari sto tle) It w as in t hi s co n t ext that Bré al saw t h e pro per
.

41 Ven dryes,o p . cit .

,p 235
. .

42 K . N yro p D as L eben der

. Wart er,Leipzig 19 03
.

43 Kl emen siew icz,op cit ,pp 10

—1
4
'

. . . .

44 Byn axo ncxnfi ,O p . cit ,p 49 if

. . .

45 Very in terestin g an d c o m p reh en siv e d ata w ill be fo un d in t h e w or k

of S . Ullm an an d H . Kr on asser, qu oted ab o v e .
20 RES EARCH PROBLEMS O F SEM A NTICS

rem e dy again st t h e d an ger o f sli ps in t h e in terp retati on o f

m ean in g s“ Th e attitu de o f Ven dryes w as si mi lar“ He dif
. .

feren tiated b etween th e p ri m ary m eani n g o f a w o rd (in d epen dent

o f co n text) an d t h e secon d ary m ean i n g (b o u n d u p with co n t ext) .

Bulakh ov sky,t o o ,is concern ed w ith am bigu ity an d t h e way s

o f elim i nati n g it .

“
There are,h o wever,d o m ai n s O f thou ght sci en ce ab ov e

all such a s fin d t h e psy ch o l o gi cal sh ad e O f t h e w o rd o f min

im u m im portance I n tho se d om ain s,everythi n g is su b ordin at

.

ed t o t h e t ask a purely i n tell ectu a l (l o g

i i cal) u n d erst an di n g O f

reality ; t h at explai n s why t h e w o rk o f m aking sp eech m ore p re

c ise is o f en o rm o u s si gn ifican ce there That pu rp o se is served .

by ch o i ce o f w o rd s with a stri ctly d efin ed scope Of applicati o n ,

wo rd s whi ch h ave each on ly o ne specifi ed , especi al ly reserved
m eani n g such as in pri nciple ev o k es n o additi onal asso ci ati on s .

It is wh at are call ed term s that are su ch preci se wo rd s,d efin ed

”4
so as t o b eco m e di rectly co n ven ti o n al 8 .

Thu s li ngui sti c sem an ti cs appeals fo r m aki n g speech m ore

p rec i se ,w hi ch i s t h e m ai n m eth o d o l o gi ca l p o st u l ate O f sem an ti c

an aly si s . Bu t th e lin gui sts al so O b serve t h e d an ger ent ailed in

abu se o f th at m eth o d ,an d w arn ag ain st it .

“
I n t h e o verwhelm in g m aj ority Of c ases, th e conn ecti on
between t h e wo rd an d its m eanin g is purely extern al , an d ye t as a

result o f freq uen t u se th at co nnec ti on b ec om es so cl ose th at w e

are i ncli n ed t o t ake t h e w o rd for it s m eani n g ,an d fu rther,fo l ~

'

lowin g t h e o bj ectiviz ati on O f i m ages,t o id en t ify w ord s with

t h e o bj ect s they d en o te We are so easy -g o i n g as t o accept c ou n t ers
.

fo r real valu es,an d sym b o l s Of a su bj ective reflecti on o f reality ,

fo r reality it self U n d er t h e o v erwhelm in g i n fluence Of l an guage
.

id eas,w e push i nt o th e b ackg ro un d th e extra-li n gui sti c ideas

whi ch lin k u s with th e real w orld ,an d,h avi n g thu s b ro ken o u r

46 Bréal,O p . cit .
,p 143 if . .

47 Ven dryes,o p . cit .

, pp . 232
—233 .

Byn axo ncxma, cit ,p 2 2

‘
48 op . . . .
 C H A P TE R TW O

LO GI C

IN givin g cfl ect t o o ur i nten ti on t o i n vestigate, by an aly si s

“
O f t h e v ari o u s di sci pli n es, wh at t h e t erm sem anti cs m ean s
an d wh at are it s researc h pro b lem s,w e pass fr om lin gu isti cs

t o lo gi c We thu s c o m e t o t h e fo cu s o f t h e pro blem s i n v o lved ,

.

fo r it is l o gic whi ch ,si nce t h e en d o f t h e 19th cen tu ry ,h as b ec o m e

t h e field o f se m anti c pu rsu it s m ost clo sely relat ed with phi

losoph y Thi s is why w e en c o u n ter here n u m erou s dif

. fi cu lti e s,
esp eci ally di f fi culties meth o d o l o gic al in natu re .

It is ObVIOUS that hist ori cal (li n gu istic) sem an tics t o o h as

signifi can t p hil o sophi cal im p li cati ons . It is o bvi ou s that t h e
vari ou s li n gui sts en gagin g in sem anti c researc h take u p qu ite
definite phi loso phi cal positi on s (which they som etim es st at e
plainly an d o pen ly) that m ake them so lve sem anti c pr oblem s
in specific ways Bu t in lo gic al sem antics t h e situ ati on is dif
.

In lin gu i stic sem an ti cs,w e can easily separate purely li n gui sti c
an alysi s fr o m t hi s or th at phi l o so ph i cal i n t erpret ati o n It is o nly
.

in excepti on al c ases,for ex am ple in de S au ssure s sy stem ,that

’

w e h ave t o d o with a clo se,o rg an ic li n kin g o f t h e li n gu i sti c t h e

o ry with a phi lo so phi cal co n cepti o n ,so th at t h e t w o cann o t

be separat ed m ech ani cally Bu t wh at is i n v olved here is an en tire

.

sy st em o f t h e sci ence o f l an guage ,an d n o t m erely st u di es in t h e

h i st ory o f m eani n g s
.

N ow wh at t en d s t o be an excepti o n in lin gu i stic sem antic s

is a rule in l o gi cal sem an tic s T hi s is so b ecau se ,first O f all ,
.

w e di sregard t h e pu rely techn i cal fie ld s o f lo gical calculi ,lo gi c

is a phi lo sphical di sci plin e i n capable o f separati on fro m epi s

t em o lo gy an d We ltans ch auung .Sec o n dly , it is so b ecau se t h e
 24 RESEARCH PROBLEMS or S E M A NTICS

R everti n g n ow , afte r t h at b ri ef d igre ssi o n , t o th e histo

of th e pro blem ,it c an be t t d t h at if by sem an tics w e m
s a e

in a m o st gen era l w ay,an an aly si s O f t h e re lati o n sh i p s b

lan gu age expressi o n s an d t h e o bj ect s t h ey d en o te , or e lse
flectio n s o n th e m ean in g o f expre ssi o n s,th en elem en ts o f s
a di scipli n e are t o b e fou n d ev en in an tiq u ity ,e speci ally in

wo rks Of Ari sto tle Thro u gho u t t h e w h o le cou rse o f

.

hi st ory o f phi lo so phy ,w e fi n d v ari o u s phi lo soph ers w h o

i n terested in these matters Y et as a sep arate di sci pli n e lo g
.

sem anti c s appears o n ly in t h e lat e 19 t h c en t u ry , ari si n g

O f qu ite sp ecific di f fi cu ltie s an d research p ro blem s

an d m athem ati c s Th e u n d er st an di n g O f t h e fact th at
.

is n o t o nly an i n stru men t bu t also an objec t o f

em e rg ed m ai n ly fro m t h e n eed t o o v erco m e di f ficu lti e s
th e lo gi cal (set th eo reti cal) fo u n d ati o n s O f ari thm etic ,

whi ch threaten ed t h e en ti re con ceptu al st ru ctu re O f

an d l o gi c as well .Far b e it fro m m e t o c lai m t h at

on ly cau se o f an i n creased i n t ere st in lan gu age by 1 0

There w as an o th er so u rce o f t h at i n terest,wh i ch from
m en tal di sciplin es led t o co n ven ti o n ali sm , an d h en ce
stu dy o f lan gu age Bu t t h e sti m u li du e t o t h e di sco v ery
.

h om i es w ere sp ecifi c an d p ar ti cu larly st r o n g : t h ey w er

gen ou s, con n ected with t h e parti cu lar needs O f m at h em at

an d l o gic ,an d i n d epen d en t o f ev en if accom pan ied by
any phi l o sop hi cal i n t erpretati on s .

It all b egan with a letter from ,y o u n g th en B ertran d

s ell ,t o t h e great G o ttlo b Frege at t h e ti m e when t h e latt e

j u st fin i shi n g t h e seco n d v olu m e o f his Gr undscitz e der

’

In h is letter ,R u ssell fo rm u lat ed h is fam o u s parad o x

O f classes w h ic h are n o t t h ei r o w n e lem en t s,an d de

t h at at t h e v ery fo u n d ati o n o f Frege s ’

con t radi cti o n wh i ch t h re at en ed t h e en ti re sy stem H ence

.

great m athem ati ci an an d lo gici an ,n o w b eli ev ed to h av e

t h e g reatest i nn o v at o r in lo gi c si n ce A ri sto tle ,h ad t o w ri
”
th e Appen dix t o h is w o rk the se sad w o rd s :
 LOG IC 25 '

Hard ly anyt hi n g m o re un fo rtu n ate can befall a scien tific

writer than t o have one o f t h e fo u n d ati o n s O f h is edifice sh aken
aft er t h e w o rk is fin i shed .

Thi s w as th e po siti o n I w as placed in by a letter o f M r .

Bertran d Ru ssell ,j u st when t h e prin tin g o f th i s v o lu m e w as

ne arin g co m pleti o n
“
S ola tium (sic) m iseris so cios h abu isse do lo rum I at least hav e .

thi s com fo rt ,if co m fo rt it is ; fo r everyb o dy w h o h as m ad e in h is

pro o fs u se O f exten si o n s o f c on cept s,classe s,set s,is in th e sam e
po si ti on as I Wh at is in qu esti o n is n o t j u st m y parti cu lar w ay
.

of est abli shin g a rith m eti c ,bu t whet h er arithm eti c can po ssibly

be given a lo g ical fo u n d ati o n at all” .

Thi s show s th at Frege w as far fro m u n dere stim ati ng t h e sig

nifican ce O f R u ssell s criti c i sm ,w hi c h in fac t af fected C an t or s
’ ’

set theory ,with whi ch F rege s syst em w as also related Thi s w as

’
.

also t h e i ssu e t o w h i ch Pr incip ia M a th em a t ica ,t h e m ai n lo gical

treati se by R u ssell an d Whitehead w as devo ted .

In what did t h e critic ism cont ai ned in Ru ssell s lett er t o Frege

’

co nsist ? T o u se Fre ge s w o rds agai n :

’

M r R u ssell h as disc overe d a co nt radi cti on whi ch m ay

.

no w be st at ed .

“
Nob o dy will wish t o assert of t h e class o f m en th at it is
a m an : We have here a class th at d oes n ot b el o n g t o itself I say .

that som ething b el o n gs t o a class when it falls u n der t h e co ncept

w hose ext en si o n t h e cl ass is Let u s n o w fix o u r eyes o n t h e co n
.

cept : class th a t do es n o t be lo ng t o itse lf Th e ext ensi o n o f thi s .

co ncept (if w e m a
y speak O f it s exten si o n) is thu s t h e class o f
classes t h at d o n o t b el o n
g t o them selves For sh ort ,w e wi ll c all .

it t h e class K Let u s n o w ask wheth er this cl ass K b elo n gs t o

.

itself Fi rst ,let u s su pp ose it d o es I f anythin g b el on gs t o a class,

. .

it falls u n der t h e co n cept w ho se exten si o n t h e c lass is Thu s if .

o u r class b elo n gs t o it self,it is a class t h at d o es n o t b elo n

g to

1 “ Fre e
R u ssell
’

g on s Parado x in Transla t ions fro m th e Ph ilosop h ical

Writ ings f Go t t lo b
o Frege,O xford 19 5 2,p . 234 .
26 RESEAR CH PROBLEMS OF S EMANTI CS

itself . iti on thu s leads t o sel f-c on tradi cti on

O ur fi rst su ppos .

S eco n d ly ,let u s suppo se o u r c lass K d oes n o t b el on g t o itsel f,

then it fall s u n der t h e c on cept who se exten si on it it self is,an d
thu s d o es b el on g t o itsel f H ere o n ce m o re w e li kewi se arrive .

at a con t ra di ti
c o n !
”
2

R u ssell s p arad o x achi eved speci al fam e, alth o u gh m any

’

o thers were di sco v ered l at er It al so c am e t o b e fo rm ul at ed in .

vari ou s m anners,m o re o r less i ntu itive ,m o re o r le ss difli cu lt .

N ot all t h e p arad o x es will be presen t ed h ere 3 ,bu t in view o f t h e

ex cepti on al hi st o ri cal i mp ort an ce o f R u ssell s parad o x I sh all
’

give it o n ce m ore as form ul ated by M o st owski It m u st be b orn e .

“ “ ”
in mi n d th at fo r M o st o wski t h e co n cept s set an d pro perty
are id en tical .

“
Let no rmal properti es be called th o se properti es which are
n o t att rib u te s O f th em selve s Thu s t h e pro perti es : t o be a m an , .

t o be a fun c t ion ,to be a num ber , et c ,are n orm al pr o perti es (si n c e .

n o m an is id en ti cal with that pro perty , Th e property : to

be a p rop erty is n o t n o rm al si n ce it is an att rib u te o f itself .

2 Frege,o p ; cit .
,p 235
. .

3 Th e reader w h o w ou ld be w illin g t o stu dy t h e pro blem o f p ar ado xes

in greater detail c an be referre d t
t o t h e exh aus iv e liter a ure O f t h e t su b ec j t .

A general appro ach t o t h e prob lem is giv e n by : A N Wh iteh ead B . . .

R u ssell, Princip ia M ath ema tica, V o l 1, Cam bridge 19 2 5 , pp 60 —6 5

; R . . .

Carnap ,Th e L ogical S yntax of Language, Lo n don 1937 , 6 0a if ; F P . . .

R amsey,Th e Fo undat ions f M athemat ics,N ew Yo rk

o 19 3 1,pp 20if ; D . .

Hil bert W Ackerman n ,Grundziige de r t heoret ischen

. L ogik, Berlin 19 28,
p . 9 2if .

In Polish literature th ese pro blems in detail by A M o sto w

are an a lysed .

ski in L ogika ma tem atyczna [ M ath em atic al L o i

g ],
c W arszaw a-Wroclaw 1948,
pp 2 04—
.2 22an d 308 —32 4 S ee also T K o t arb ifiski ,Elementy t eor ii p o znan ia,
. .

logiki formalnej i m et odologii nauk [E le ments Of E pistem o lo gy,Fo rm al L o gic

an d th e M eth o do logy of S cie n ces] ,Lw ow 19 2
9 ,pp 13 8— 139 ; L . . C h w istek,
Gran ice nauki [Th e Lim it s Of Scien ce] , Lw ow -Warszaw a pp . 125
136 ; T . C zezo w ski,Log ika [ Lo gic] , W arszaw a 19 49 , p p . 13—19 .

M ore spec ialis t w orks by S Le sn iew ski,L C h w istek

.
'

. an d A . T ars ki are

giv en in th e B iblio grap h y at t he en d o f th is boo k .

“
In
LOGI C 2

If w e u se term set i nstead o f p rop erty w e shall say th

the
normal set s are th o se set s whi ch are n ot thei r ow n el em en t

Thu s t h e sets o f m en ,fu n cti on s,nu mbers,are n o rm al ; t h e s

o f all set s is n o t n o rm al .

Let u s now ex am ine t h e fo llowin g property W :

“
O

to be a normal p rop erty

(In an o ther fo rmu lati on : W0 is t h e set O f all n orm al sets ) Th u .

for any property W there is t h e e qu ivalence :

( ) (
1 W h as t h e r
p po e r ty W0) 5
( W is a norm al p rop ert
y
from whi ch by t h e law o f t ran spo siti on w e O btain th e seco
equ ivalen ce

(2 ) ( W h as no t t h e p rop er ty W0) 5
( W is no t a n orm al p rop er t

Let u s n ow ask whether W0 is,or is n ot ,a n orm al pro pert

“

I f W0 is a n orm al pro perty ,then (by defin iti o n Of t h e n o rm

properti es) t h e pro perty W0 is n o t an attrib u te o f it self, so th at

h as no t th e p roper ty W0 Hen ce by (2 ) w e i nfer th at W,is n

.

a n o rm al pro perty ,co n t rary t o t h e assu m pti o n th at it is .

I f W0 is no t a n orm al property ,then (by d efiniti o n o f t

“

no rm al p roperti es) t h e pro perty W0 is an attrib u te o f itsel

Hence by ( l ) w e in fer that W,is a n o rm al property ,contra

t o t h e assum pti o n that it is n o t .

Thu s b o th t h e assu mpti on that W,is a n orm al pro per

“

and t h e assu m pti o n that W0 is n o t a n o rm al pro perty ,lead 1

a c on tradi cti on ; in o ther w o rds ,W0 neither is n o r is n ot a n o rm

pro perty althou gh , by t h e law O f t h e exclu d ed m idd le,one o f t h e

”
case s sho u ld o ccu r 4

Thi s reaso ni n g can be still m ore sim ply presen ted b y m ea

of fo rm u la :
“
Th e defin iti on of th e pro perty W0 is

W o r d/Y) (X e Xl
'
.

From t h at definiti o n we O b tain

-
l Xe

4 M o sto w ski,o p . cit . 0

,p 2 9
. .
28 RESEARCH PROBLEMS O F S E M ANTICS

whence,by su b stitu ti o n o f th e co n stan t W0 fo r t h e letter X,

’
an d o n st ren gth o f t h e t au t o lo gy l (p E p ) 5
'
the p p ,it fo ll ows
.

that

1 ( WO 6 W0) (W o
e

I have dwelt at som e len gth o n R u ssell s parad o x b ecau se ’

it is typi cal as least o f t h e gro u p O f parad o xe s conn ected with

“ ”
set th eory an d with t h e u n re st ri ct ed u se o f t h e w o rd s ev ery
“ ”
an d all I n Prin cip ia M a th em at ica ,R u ssell still did n o t dif
.

feren t iat e b etween t h e vari ou s types O f parad o xes,bu t t h e pu bli

cati o n O f Th e Founda t io ns of M a th em a t ics by F P R am sey . .

in iti ated t h e divi si o n i n to m athem ati cal an d li n gu istic (sem antic)

parad o xes ; that divisi on w as accept ed by R u ssell in t h e i n t ro
du cti o n t o t h e seco n d editi on o f Th e Pr in cip les of M athemat ics

What i ssu e at stake in t h e case o f this parad o x w hi ch ,

is t h e
“ ”
like t h e sem an tic p arad o xes O f t h e li ar type (Eu b ulides par
’

ado x) , appear s t o be a sophi sti c qu ibb le ? Th e pro blem

in v o lved is n o trifli n g on e,sin ce t h e dem o nstrati on that con
t radict io n s can be c o n st ru cte d withi n a d e d u ctive the o ry is t an

t am o u nt t o c an cellin g su ch a theory R u ssell s an d si mi lar p ar

’
.

ado xes thu s gave ri se t o t h e necessity o f either ab an d o ni n g

t h e law o f t h e exclu d ed midd le an d t h e lo gical pri n ci ple o f con

t radict ion ,that is fro m t h e sy stem O f fo rm al lo gi c a s w e k n o w

it ,o r else seeki n g way s O f eli m i natin g co n tradi cti o n s by c or

rect in g t h e sy st em O f fo rm u lati n g on e s t h o u ght s Thi s h as di
’
.

rect e d t h e att en ti o n O f sci en ti st s t o lan gu age n o t o n ly as an in

st ru m en t ,b u t al so a s an objec t o f re search ,t h e m o re so si n ce

o ne type o f t h e parad o xes,e g , t h e cl assi cal an ti n o m y O f t h e

. .

li ar or th e later an ti n om i es O f B erry an d R i ch ard 6 ,sh o wed clearly

that t h e i ssu e w as one O f lan gu age .

Li n gu i sti c i n t ere st s in lo gi c thu s re su lt e d fro m t h e n atu ral

n eed s O f t h a t di sci plin e an d w e re di c t ate d by t h e n ec essity t o e li m

5 I bid .
,p 210
. .

6 I bid .
,pp . 0
3 15- 32.
 LOG IC 29

in ate t di cti o ns th reaten i n g t h e very fo u n d ati o n s O f lo gi c

con ra .

I t h as b een foun d th at ,in th e case o f t h e m athem ati cal parad o xes,

“ ”
th e po in t lay in an i llegitim at e u se o f t h e w o rd ev ery ,whi ch

in evitably expo sed set theo ry an d related l o gi cal theo ri e s t o th e

dan ger o f co n tradicti o n s ; in t h e c ase o f lin gu i sti c parad o xes th e
po i nt lay in t h e con fu si on O f t h e lan gu age b ei n g stu di ed with t h e
lan gu age u sed as co n cern i n g th e lan gu age u n d er in vestigati on .

“ “
I n b oth cases, say s M o st ow ski , w e O b serv e t h e sam e phen om
‘ '
enon : a s s tem th a t is to o un iversal,a s s t em in w h ich to o
y y
”
much be sa id ,m us t be co n tradic tor
’
can 7
y .

In ,lin gu i sti c problem s h ave sin ce beco m e an i n sep

an y case

arable part o f lo gi cal researc h (m o re st ri ct ly ,re search i n t o t h e

foun d ati on s o f m athem ati c s an d l o gic) ,creatin g a stim u lu s t o

th e vari o u s phi l o so phical in terpretati o n s an d specu lati on s,whi ch
thus in tertwin e with lo gical i n vesti gati o n s sensu stric to Th at .

philo sophi c al t ren d rest s o n lo gic an d t h e re su lt s o flo gi cal research ,

but it in tu rn i n fluences t h e fu rther co urse an d directi o n o f ih
v est igat io n s Th at is why it is s o difli cu lt ,as m en ti o n ed ab o ve ,
.

t o separat e phil o so phy an d l o gi c in these m atters Alth ou gh .

strictly phil o so phi cal p ro blem s will b e d e alt with in t h e next

ch apter,I sh o u ld like t o an ti ci pat e m y fu rth er rem ark s by st at

ing my neg ative attitu d e t o w ards t h e vari ou s form s Of sem an tic

philo sophy as a n ew vari ati on o f su bj ective id eali sm Bu t th e m o re .

so ,in my o pi n i on ,is it nece ssary t o b ri n g o u t t h e real sci en tific

achi evem en t s O f con t em p orary m ath em ati c al lo gi c ,whi ch con

si st in m aki n g u s realiz e th at l an gu age al so is an o bje c t o f lo gi c al

research Thi s di sco very is brilli an t in it s very sim plicity Tru e,

. .

elem en t s o f a k no wledge O f th at fac t c an b e fou n d m u c h e arlie r

in t h e hi sto ry Of science,bu t they were b rilli an t in tu iti on s rather

than sci en tific conclu si on s A s a d evelo ped theo ry ,th e m atter
.

w as rai sed at t h e very en d O f t h e 19 th cen tury an d is in fact a pro d

u ct o f t h e 2 0t h cen tu ry A s a st atem en t it is n o w so sim ple an d

.

self-evid en t th at it seem s alm o st t rivi al Bu t su c h is t h e fat e o f

.

7 I bid ,p
. . 0
32 .
30 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OE S E MANTICS

all g reat di sco veri es,o nce they are absorb ed by th e o rgan i sm o f
sc i en c e TO b e ex act ,it m u st b e add ed th at t h e latt er O pi n i on
.

h as m any vi o len t o ppon en t s as far a s reg ard s c onclu si on s fro m

a general st at em en t .

Th e lo gi cal stu dy o f l an guage fo l lo wed v ari ou s courses an d

t o o k vari ou s fo rm s in di fferent peri o d s They b eg an with an
.

analy si s o f l an gu age fro m t h e po i n t o f vi ew o f i ts di fferen t l ay ers

(som e sci enti sts di sti n gu i shed hierarchi cal types ; o thers,sem anti c
c at eg o ri e s) Then t h e l o gi cal syn t ax O f lan gu age w as t h e su bj ect
.

o f i n vestig ati on F i n ally , cam e t h e stu dy O f th e rel ati on ship

.

b etween lin gu i sti c expressi on s an d t h e O bj ects they den o te,an d

al so b etween li n gu i stic exp ressi on s an d t h e su bj ec t u si n g t h e

l an gu age These researches an d theo rie s b o re differen t n am es

.

type theo ry ; t h e theo ry o f metalan guage ,m et ascien ce an d m eta

l o gic ; t h e l o gical syn t ax O f l an gu age ; sem an ti c s ; sem i o ti cs (di
v ided i n t o synt ax ,sem an ti cs an d p ragm ati c s) Thu s,t h e t erm
.

“
sem an ti c s seem s t o b e reserve d h ere fo r a speci al field O f re

se arc h Bu t let u s n o t fall i n t o err o r : t h e o v erw helmi n g m aj o rity

.

o f li n gu i sti c an aly si s an d research b el on g s t o sem an ti cs in th e

bro ad sen se Of th e w o rd , since it deal s,in so m e form o r an

o th er,with t h e rel ati o n shi p b etween li n gu i sti c expressi on s an d

t h e O bj ect s they d en o te We are thu s in fu ll ag re em en t with lin

.

gu ist ic i n tu iti on wh en w e speak o f seman tic analysis as O f sem an

ti c s appli ed in every case o f i nvestigati n g li n gu i sti c am bigu ity .

In su ch an aly si s,w e av ail o u rselve s n o t o n ly o f d at a fro m hi st o r

i cal (li n gu i stic) sem antics,bu t al so from t h e theo ry Of m etalan
guage ,l o gi cal syntax an d sem an tic s in th e n arrower sen se O f t h e
w o rd Thi s is why it is c o rrect t o di sti n gui sh b etween sem an ti c s
.

in a broad sense of the term ,which co ve rs all li n gu i sti c i n terest s

O f l o gic ,fro m sem an tic s in a narro w e r sense of th e t erm ,c on

fined t o speci al stu dies O f t h e relati on shi p b etw een expressi on s and
th e O bj ects they d en o te Thi s vi ew is in fu ll
.

o f Alfre d Tarski He u nd erst an d s sem an ti cs as

.

analy si s co n ce rn ed with co n cept s whi c h re fer t o

sh i ps b e tween expressi on s an d th e o bj ect

32 RESEARCH PRO BLEMS OF S EM A NTICS

w as t h e dev elo pm en t o f type theo ry ,an d in particu lar

fu rth er
t ran siti o n from what is called t h e ram ified th eory of typ es ( Ru ssell)
t o what is called t h e simp lified th eo ry of typ es 12 (C h w istek,

R am sey) ,th at m ade it m o re n atural an d i n tu itiv e an d b ro u ght

it cl o ser t o distin cti o n s of gramm ati cal catego ries,as especi ally
m ani fested in S tan i slaw LeSn iew ski s theory of sem an t ic ca t e
’

g o r ies ,a c o n ce pt re l at e d t o t h e si m plifi e d t h eo r y o f ty pe s 13

Ru ssells s idea is th at lan g uage can n o t b e so u n iversal as t o

’

adm it o f st atem ent s ab o u t all t h e elem en t s O f a set ,if th at set

h as n o t b een previ ou sly strictly d efined and cl o se d O r,in o ther .

wo rd s : a statem en t ab o u t a ll t h e elem en ts o f a set cann o t be one

o f t h e el em en ts o f th at set , a st at em en t ab ou t a t o t ality c an be mad e
“ ”
v alidly o n ly from t h e o u t side o f th at t ot ality To fail t o o b serve .

that restri cti o n ,is t o O bt ain statem en ts th at are n ot wron g ,bu t

S im ply m ean i n gle ss S u ch m e an i n gless st at em en ts lie at t h e ro o t
.

o f a vi ci o u s ci rcle in re ason i n g,le adi n g t o parad o x es Th i s is, .

pu t b riefly ,t h e fu n d am ent al idea O f t h e theo ry O f ty pes .

Bu t let R u ssell speak fo r him self:

“
An an aly si s o f t h e parad o xes t o be av o ide d sh o ws th at
they all resu lt from certain ki n d Of vici o u s circle Th e vi ci o u s .

ci rcle s in q u esti o n ari se fro m su pp o si n g th at a coll ecti on o f o bj ects

m ay cont ai n m em b ers whi ch can onl y b e defined by m ean s O f

t h e c o llecti on as a wh o le Thu s,fo r e x am ple ,t h e co llecti on o f
.

pro po siti o n s wi ll b e su ppo se d t o co n tain a pro po siti o n stati n g

that all pro po siti o n s are either tru e o r false It w o u ld seem ,
‘ ’
.

ho wever,that such a statem en t c ou ld n o t be legitim ate u n less

‘
all p rop o siti o n s referred t o so m e already d efi n it e co llecti on ,
’

12 L . Ch w iste k, An t yn o mie lo giki form aln ej [An tin o mie s in Fo rmal

Lo gic] ,in Przeglad Filozoficzny ,V o l 2 4, 19 21,p ts 3 an d 4, an d Gran ice
. .

nauki [Th e L im it s of S cien ce] ,C h ap . V; F P R am sey,Th e Foundat io ns

. . o f
M ath e mat ics .

13 S Lesn iew ski, G ru n dzu ge S yste ms G ru n dlagen

’

. e ine s neu e n cle r

,in Fundamen ta M at hem at icae ,19 2

”
'

“
der M ath emat ik 9 ,v o l 14,an d O p o d .

”
st aw ach o n t o lo gii [Th e Fo un datio n s O fO n t o lo gy] ,in Sp ra w ozdan ia z p o
s iedzen To w arzys t w a N auko w ego Wa rsza wskiego ,S ect io n 3,V o l 23, 19 30 , .

p t.s 4—6 .
 LOGI C 33

wh ich it cann o t do if n ew pro po siti o n s are created by statem en t s

ab ou t
‘
all pro po siti o n s
’
We shall,therefo re,hav e t o say th at
.

‘
st at em en t s ab o u t all p ro p o siti o n s are m e an i n gless M o re gen er
’
.

ally ,giv en an y set O f O bj e ct s su ch t h at ,if w e su pp o se t h e se t

t o have a t o tal ,it wi ll co n tai n m em b ers whi ch pre su pp o se t h i s

tO t al,then su ch a set c an n o t h ave a t o t al B y sayi n g th at a set .

‘
h as no t o t al ,w e m ean ,prim arily ,th at n o sign ific an t st at em en t
’

‘
can be m ad e ab ou t all it s m em ber s Prop o siti on s,as t h e ab o ve
’
.

illu strati on sh o w s,mu st be a set h avin g n o t o tal Th e sam e is .

true,as w e sh all S h o rtly see,o f prop o siti on al fu ncti on s,even

when th ese are restri cted t o su ch as can sign ifican tly h ave as
argu m en t a given o bj ect a I n su ch c ase s,it is n ec essary t o b reak
.

up ou r set i n t o sm aller set s,each O f w h i ch is c ap able o f a t ot al .

Th i s is what t h e theo ry o f types aim s at effecti n g .

“
Th e princi ple wh ich en able s u s t o av o id illegitim at e t o tal i
‘
ti es m ay b e st at ed as fo ll o w s : Wh atever i n v o lves all O f a co l
‘
lec ti on m u st n o t be one O f th e co llecti on ; o r, con versely : I f,
’

provided a certain collecti on h ad a t o tal ,it w ou ld h av e m em b ers

o nly d efin able in t erm s o f that t o tal ,then t h e said co llecti o n

h as n o to t al
’
.We shall c all th i s t h e vi ci o u s-circle princ i ple ,
‘ ’

becau se it en ables u s t o av o id t h e vi ci o u s-ci rcles in v olved in t h e

‘
assu m pti o n o f illegitim ate t o taliti es All pro po siti on s m u st
’

be in som e w ay lim ite d b efo re it b ec o m es a legitim ate t o t ality ,

‘

a nd any li m it ati o n whi ch m ake s it legitim at e m u st m ak e an y

”
st atem en t ab o u t t h e t o t ality fall ou t sid e th e t o t ality 14 .

Ru ssell appli es th e an aly si s O f p arad o x es t o pro po siti o n al

fu n cti o n s an d dem on st rat e s t h at th ere ,t o o , wit h o u t t h e h elp
of a hi erarch y o f ty es, arad o xe s ari se wh i ch are b a sed o n a vi
p p
ci o n s ci rcle in reason i n g .

We sh all fin d tha t it is po ssi ble t o i n cu r a vi ci o u s-ci rcle

fallacy a t th e v ery o u t set ,by adm ittin g as p o ssible argu m en t s
t o a pro po sit io n al fun cti o n t e rm s w h i c h p re su pp o se t h e fu n cti o n .

1“ Whi teh ead R u sse ll,O p . cit .

,pp . 37 —38 .
34 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OE S E MA NTICS

Thi s fo rm of t h e fallacy i s
v ery i n stru ctive,an d it s av o id ance
lead s,as w e sh all see,t o t h e hi erarchy o f types .

‘
When w e say that cpx am bigu ou sly den o tes (pa,cpb, ’

‘
c c et c , w e m ean that cpx m ean s on e o f t h e o bj ect s (pa ,(pb,cpc,
’

p .

et c ,
. th ou gh no t a d efin ite on e,bu t an un d etermi ned one I t .

‘
lows that (px only h as a well-defin ed ’

that is t o say,except in so far as it is of it s essen ce t o be am bi

o u s) if t h e O bj ect s cpa, (pb, c c,et c , a re w e ll -defin ed Th at is
p . .

say, a fu n cti o n i s no t a w ell- defined fu ncti on u nle ss all

values a re already well -defi n ed It fo ll o ws from .

11 0 fu n cti o n can h av e am on g
p o se s t h e fun cti on ,fo r if
am bi guou sly d en o t ed by

ti on w as d efinite,whil e co n versely ,
fun cti on cann o t be defin ite u n ti l it s
a p arti cu l ar case, bu t perh aps t h e mo
vici o u s—ci rcle p ri n ciple A fu nc ti on is .

so m e on e of a certain t o t ality , n am ely

hence thi s t o tali ty cann o t co

t h e fu n cti on ,si nce ,if it did ,it w o u ld co n tai n m em b ers i n v olvi

th e to tality ,whi ch ,by t h e vi ci ou s-circle prin ci ple ,n o t o tality can

”
do 15

In d
o r er t o av o id su ch
d an gers Ru ssell su ggest s a divi si o n
”
o f th e u n iv erse O f di sco u rse in t o types : i ndividu al s,set s o f
i n divid u al s, relati o n s between i n divid u als, rel ati on s b etween
”
S et s O f i n dividu al s,et c Th e types are co rrespon din gly sym
.

b olized ,which m akes it po ssible t o di stin gu i sh th em an d th u s

restri ct s t h e p o ssibi lity o f u si n g them in an i m prop er w ay,lead

in g t o c on tradi cti on s an d parad o xes A s w e already kn o w, .

in t h e case O f an i m pro per su b stitu ti on ,a fu n cti on chan ges i n t o

a n o n sen se,th at is,cert ai n su b stitu ti on s are m ean in gless by v ir

t u e O f t h e li n gu i sti c p ro h i b i ti o n s form ul ate d by th e theo ry o f

types .

15 I bid .
,pp . 38- 39 .
 LOGI C 35

mt andits
.
voi
a Th u s,t h e theo ry o f types is a resu lt o f stu dies in t h e lan gu age
o f lo gi cal st at emen t s an d O f det erm i nati o n on that b asi s O f a cer

tain d efin ite hierarchy o f o bj ect s an d thei r nam es That theo ry .

however,w as n o t i n tu itive en o u gh an d m o reo ve r h ad fo r tech n i

cal reason s t o in t ro duce su ch additi onal e lem en ts as t h e axi o m

o f red ucibility It is t h e so -called simplified theory o f types 01

.

Leon Ch w ist ek which m akes it po ssible t o avo id an ti n o m ies

an d at t h e sam e tim e is n at u ral an d i n t u itive I t s fu n d am en t al .

idea is that in l o gic it is po ssible t o speak o nly ab o u t o bj ects

of a strictly d efined type,so th at it is n o t permi ssib le t o speak
“ ”
of a class in general ,bu t o nly Of a c lass o f stri ctly d efin ed Ob
ject s I n co nfo rmi ty with the p rincip le of p urity of typ es,co n
.

nect ed with th at th eo ry , prop ositi on al fu ncti on s (whi ch are equ iv

alen t s o f classes) in whi ch t h ere is at l east o n e v ari abl e ran gi n g

over O bj ect s o f di f feren t types,are meani n gless“ .

That idea appears t o be still m o re n atu ral in S tan i slaw Le s

niew ski s theory O f sem an ti c catego ri e s”, whi ch c o m e s cl o se
’

16 “
In order t
t o elim ina e R u ssell s an tin o m y it su f
’
fi ces t o adop t th e $ 1
1a

fied th eorylogical types Th e th eory Of types h as been form u lated by

of .

Bertrand R u ssell I t is a com pli cated th eory an d cann o t be formulated cle arly
.

in a few w ords Bu t it . can be simplified so th at it really c an be expressed in

a cou ple o f sim ple sen ence s t .

“
I ado p t t h e so -calle d un iv erse o f discour se co n sist in g of Objects w h ich

I call individuals N o properties or con crete exam ples Of in div idu als are giv en
. .

Apart from t h e in div idu als I adopt classes of in dividuals ,classes of

“

classes o f individuals ,etc .

Th at is Obv iou s t
“
all . It is t h at h ere a c o ncep Of class as su ch h as no

sen se One may speak on ly o f classes Of certain definite Obj ects C o nse
. .

quently t h e p ro blem w h eth er a class is its o wn elemen t mu st be rejected as

dev oid o f sense .

Th at fi ed t first tim e
“
sim pli t h eory O f ypes h as been for t h e form ulate d
by me in m y w ork Antyno m ie logiki for malnej,p u b lish ed in 19 21 ( L C h w is
.

tek,Granice na uki,p .

I n 19 22I tlined tio n tic

“
se man
17 ‘
cert a in of cate gories
’
ou a co ncep

w hich w as t o replace for me su ch o r an o th er h ierarch y O f typ es

‘
depriv e d,
’

in my Opinion ,Of an y intu itiv e su bstantiatio n an d w h ich , in m y desire

to speak meanin gfully,I w o u ld h av e t o ado pt ev en if th ere h ad b een n o

30 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OF S EM A NTICS

to di sti ncti o n s in gram m ati cal categories H ere t o o ,as in .

the ory ,st ress is l aid o n the p r incip le of p urity of seman tic ca
gories, a co n fu si on O f whi ch l eads t o m eani n gle ssn e ss .

S i nce Le Sn iew ski expoun ded h is id eas m ain ly by w ord

m ou th ,in lectu re s an d co n versati on s,an d h is wo rks are
techn i cal and fu ll O f sho rt cu t s in t h e co u rse o f reaso
re fer t o t h e ex cellent presen tati o n o f t h e pro blem o f

ca tegor by A l fred Tarski ,fo rm u late d wi th h is u su al

y
lu cidity :
“
For reason s m en ti oned at t h e b eginn i n g o f th i s 5
w e cann o t O f fer here a preci se stru ctu ral d efini ti on o f sem
cat eg o ry an d will co n ten t o u rselv es with t h e fo ll o

im ate fo rm u lati on : tw o expre s

ca tegor
y if ( 1) there is a sent en ti al fu

o n e O f th e se e xpressi on s,an d if (2 ) n o se
c on tai n s one o f the se ex pre ssi on s cease s t o

if thi s expressi o n is replace d in it by th e

thi s th at th e relati on o f b elon gin g to th e sam e
flect iv e, symm et ri cal an d tran sitive B y applyin g th e .

o f ab st racti o n , all t h e exp ressi on s o f t h e l an gu age whi c h

O f sen t en ti al fun cti on s can b e divid ed i n t o m u tu ally

classes,for tw o expre ssi o n s are pu t i n t o o n e

if an d on ly if they b el on g t o th e sam e sem an ti cal c ateg o ry ,

each O f th ese classe s is call ed a sem an ti cal categ o ry Am o n g .

si m plest ex am ple s O f sem an ti cal c at eg o ri e s it su f fi ces t o m en

t h e categ o ry O f th e sent en ti al fun c ti on s,t o g ether with t h e

egorie s whi ch i n clu d e respectively t h e nam es o f in d

O f classes o f i n dividu al s,O f tw o -t erm ed relati o n s be

div idu als,an d S O on V ari able s (o r expressi o n s with

.

‘
an tin o mies ’
t
w h a ev er . My co ncep tio n Of
‘
t
sem an tic c a egories
’
,
in a close formal c on n ec tio n th
wi t h e kn o w n the ories
‘
O f lo gical
‘
as th eoretical co nsequen ces are co ncerned,referred,as for its
it s
asp ect,rath e r t o t h e trad itio n o f A rist o tle s catego ries ,t o
’ ‘ ’ ‘
th e

O f t h e tradit io n al gramm ar,an d t o th e seman tic c atego ries

’ ‘ ’
spee ch

Edmm d Husserl
” “
(S Le sn ie w ski, Gru n dzuge eines n eu en
.
 LOGI C

which t n am es Of t h e given categ o ri es likewi se b elon g

rep resen
”
to t h e sam e c ateg ory 13 .

For techni cal pu rp o ses,t o every categ o ry is assigned a par

t icular natu ral nu m b er call ed the order of th e ca tegory Th e sam e .

order is assign ed t o all expressi on s whi ch b el on g t o t h e given

catego ry It is said o f tw o fun cti o n s th at they are o f t h e sam e

.

sem an ti cal type,if th e nu m b er o f free vari ables o f every seman

tical catego ry in th e tw o fu n cti on s is th e same .

Here t oo ,as in th e ramified and th e sim plified theory o f

types,an tinom ies are avo ided by O b servi n g certain li n gui sti c
prohibiti on s : vari ab les in fu ncti on s canno t ran ge o ve r differen t
types Of expressi o n s o r exp ressi on s b elo n gin g t o di fferen t seman
tical catego ri es Th e o perati o n is practically iden tical with that
.

seen ab o v e,t h e di fference con si sti n g ,apart from t h e t echn ical

aspect , in a greater com prehensibili ty an d n atu rality Of t h e theory
o f sem anti cal categ ori e 9
s 1 .

18 A . Tarski, Th e Concept of Truth in Formalized Langu ages in

A . Tarski L ogic,S emantics,M athematics, Oxford 1956 p 2 16 1 . .

19 Un der t h e im act O f th o se th eo ries

p ,an d especially th e S illl pllfi ed
th eory types,R ussell later ch an ged his argum entation an d actu all y came
Of

clo se t o th e stan dpo in t ch ar acteristic O f t h e simplified th eo ry o f typ es an d th e

th eory Of semantic categories Th e in tro duction t o th e secon d e dition of

.

The Prin cip les f M athemat ics (Lon don 19 37 ,p XIV)

o . reads
“
Th e tech nical th eory of types is merely this : Giv en a prop
essence Of th e

o sitio nal function o f w hich all v alu es are true,th ere are expressio n s
‘ ’
tpx

which it is n o t legitim ate t o su b stitute for x For example : All v al ues o f

‘ ’
.

“x is a man ,x is mortal are true,an d w e can in fer if S ocrates is a man ,

if ’ ‘

Socrates is a m ortal ; bu t w e c ann o t infer if th e law o f contradiction is a

’ ‘

”
man,th e law of con tradiction is a m ortal Th e th eory o f types declares .

this latter set of w ords t o be n onsen se,an d giv es rules as to permissible

In th e detail th ere are dif ficulties,an d complication s,
‘ ‘
values of x in tp
’ ’
.

bu t th e general prin ciple is merely a m ore precise form o f one th at h as

alw ays been reco gnized In t h e Older con v ention al lo gic,it w as cu stom
.

ary to p oint o u t th at such a form o f w ords as v irtu e is triangul ar

‘ ’

is neith er true n or false,bu t n o attempt w as made to arriv e at a definite set

ofrules for deciding w h eth er a giv en series o f w ords w as or w as n o t sign ificant .

This th eory Of types achiev es Th u s,for example,I stated abov e th at classes

‘
.

of thin gs are n o t th ings Th is w ill mean : I f « x is a member of th e class a »

’ ‘
.
38 RESEARCH PROBLEM S OF S EM ANTICS

In any c ase ,it m ay b e

id that t h e i nterest in t h e theory
sa

o f lan g u age (sem an ti c s in t h e bro ad sen se o f t h e t erm ) w as in

semi n ated in l o gi c by t h e an alysi s o f anti n o mi es,an d th at t h e

“
an ti nomi es con n ect ed with t h e u se o f t h e w o rd every (set the o
ret ical antin om i es) c an b e rem o v ed by m ean s o f t hi s o r that fo r m

O f t h e theo ry o f type s Thi s is also adm itt ed by R am sey w h o

.

w as t h e fi rst t o di fferenti ate b etween t h e tw o gro u p s o f ant in o

m i es set theoreti cal an tin o m i es an d sem an ti cal anti n omies .

“
It is n ot su ffici en tly rem arked ,an d t h e fact is en ti rely neg
leCt ed in Princip ia M a them a tica, that t h ese co n t radi cti on s fall
into tw o fu n d amen tally di stinct grou ps,whi ch w e wi ll call A
an d B Th e b est kn o wn o nes are divid ed as fo llo w s :
.

A ( l ) Th e class o f all classes whi ch are n o t m em b ers O f

.

them selves .

(2) Th e relati on b etween tw o relati o n s when o n e d o es

no t h ave itsel f to th e o ther .

-F o rti s con t radi cti on o f t h e

( ) li great est ordin al
’
3 B u ra .

‘
B (4) I am lyi ng
.
’
.

(5) Th e g reatest in teger n ot n am eab le in fewer th an n i n e

teen syll ables .

(6) Th e last indefinable o rdi n al

.
.

(7) Ri chard s con tradi cti on

’
.

‘
(8) Weyl s con tradicti o n ab o u t th e word hetero lo gi sch
’ ’
.

Th e prin ciple acco rdin g t o whi ch I have divid ed them is

o f fu n d am en t al i m po rt ance G rou p A con si st s o f co n t radi cti on s
.

which ,were n o provi si on m ade again st them ,w o u ld o ccu r in

a lo gical o r m ath em ati cal sy st em it se l f Th ey i n v o lve o n ly l o gi c al o r
.

m athem ati cal t erm s such as class an d n u m b er,an d Sh o w th at

there mu st be som ethin g wro n g with ou r lo gi c o r m athem atics .

Bu t t h e co n t radicti on s o f G rou p B are n o t pu rely l o gi cal,and

can n o t b e st at ed in lo gi cal t erm s alo n e ; fo r t h ey all c o n t ai n so m e

referen ce t o th o u ght ,lan g u age , o r sym b o li sm , w h i c h a re n o t

‘

is a pro positio n ,an d ox » is a

«g p rop o sitio n ,t h e n « 99a» is no t a t
pro po si io n ,
”
but a mean ingless co llec t io n O f sym bo ls .
 40 RES EARCH PROB LEMS O F S E M ANTICS

‘
H avin g reg ard t o the m ean in g Of th e ym b ol
s c
’

,w e 0
e st abli sh em pi rically
:

‘
(or)
’
c is no t a true sen ten ce is iden t ical with c .

“
For t h e quo tati o n-m ark n am e o f th e sen t en ce c (or fo r
o th er o f it s nam es) w e set u p an expl anati o n O f type
‘
(B) true sen tence if,and on ly
’
c is no t a true sen ten ce is a

c is no t a true sen ten ce .

“
Th e premi ses (at) and 3) to gether
(1 at on ce give a co n tradic

ti on
”
2
if; y if,c is
c is a t ru e sen tence and on l no t a true sen ten ce 4 .

C om m entin g that an tin omy Tarski rem ark s :

on
“
Th e sou rce o f thi s con tradicti on is easily revealed : in o rd er
t o con stru ct th e asserti o n w e h ave su b stitu ted fo r t h e sym b ol

p in th e sch eme (2
‘ ’

) an expressi o n which it self con tain s

‘
term true sentence Nevertheless,n o rati onal g roun d
’

be given why such su b stitu ti on s sh ou ld be forbidden in pri n

ciple 25
”
.

thi s stan d s o u t in still greater relief in conn ecti on with

All
Weyl s antin omy : is t h e wo rd heterolo gical heterolo gi cal ?
’

Thi s an tin omy con si sti n g in th e fact th at when w e say that

it is hetero lo gical ,then it is n ot hetero lo gical,an d vice versa

is al so clearly lin gu i sti c in n atu re .

” “
For t h e w ay, say s R amsey , in whi ch thi s di stin cti on o f
fu ncti on s in t o o rders o f whi ch n o t o tality is po ssible is u sed t o
escape t h e con t radic ti o n s o f Gro up B ,whi c h are sh own t o resu lt

from th e ambi gu ities of lan guage w hi ch disregard this di stin cti on , /

reference m ay be m ad e t o Prin cip ia M athemat ica (Vo l I ,l st c d , . .

19 10,p Here it m ay be su ffi cien t t o apply t h e meth o d t o a

.

con tradi cti on n ot given in that w ork which is parti cu l arly free

from irrelevant elem en t s : I m ean Weyl s con tradi cti o n concernin g

’

23 Th is refers to an explana tion of t h e sta ement t of th e type “

x is a true
” ”
t
sen en ce ,w hich is : x is a tru e sentence if and
“
on ly if p .

24 A Tarski, Th e Con ce t Of Truth in Formalized Langu ages in

.
p
A . Tarski,Logic,S emant ics,M athemat ics,O xfo rd 19 5 6 p 15 8 . .

25 I bid 158
p . . .
 LO GI C 41

‘
th e word hetero lo gisch (Weyl ,Das Kon tinuum ,p ’
whi ch .

'

mu st n ow be explain ed S om e adj ectives h ave m ean in g s which

.

are predi cates o f th e adj ective wo rd itsel f; thu s t h e wo rd

‘ ‘
is sh o rt , but t h e w ord lon g I s n o t lon g Le t u s
’
sh o rt
’
.

call adj ective s wh o se m ean in g s are predi cat es o f them , like

‘
sh o rt , au t o l o g ical ; o th ers het ero l o gical N ow , i s t h e w o r d
’
.

‘
heterolo gical hetero lo gical ? I f it is,it s m ean in g is n ot a
’

d predicate Of it ; th at is,it is n ot h etero l o gi cal Bu t if it is

'

eacontra .

n o t het ero lo gi cal ,it s m eani n g is a predi cat e o f it ,an d therefore

”
ill 861
11
61
10
6 it is hetero l o gical S O w e h ave a com plete contradi cti on ?6
.

At first ,attemp ts were m ade t o av oid antin o mie s of th at

“

ki n d by resortin g t o t h e O perati o n already d escrib ed ab o ve an d

based on t h e theory o f types (or seman tical categ ori es) It w as .

only l at er th at they cam e t o b e separated i n t o a di sti nct g rou p,

an d att en ti on w as fo cu se d on t h e hi erarchy o f lan gu ag es an d th e

con sequ ences o f di sregardin g th at hierarchy .

T h e startin g po in t o f reason in g is very sim ple : one h as to

b ear is min d t h e di fferen ce b etween t h e lan gu age wh ich is b ei n g
an aly sed (object language) an d t h e l an gu age in wh ich th at an al

ysis is made (m etalanguage) A classi c example here is t h e dis

.

ca ssi on in Po li sh o fgramm ati cal ru les o f e g t h e En gli sh l an guag e . . .

Such a situ ati on m ay,h o wever,o ccu r within one an d th e sam e

l an gu age,if some o f it s expressi on s are di scu ssed in t h e lan guage
t o whi ch they b elo n g Thi s appli es,e g ,t o analy si s o f m ean i n g ,
. . .

deno tati on ,t ru th ,etc We have then t o do ,so t o speak ,w ith

.

differen t layers of th at lan gu age,t h e hierarchy o f su ch layers

“ ”
bei n g fixed by their lesser o r g reater ri chness Of course, .

that can ,in a pu re fo rm ,appear on ly in fo rm aliz ed l an gu ages,

whi ch are co nsci o u sly an d purposefully m ad e t o serve t h e need s
o f d ed uctive sci ences I n t h e ordi n ary l an gu ag e,which is u ni
.

versal in character (i e I nclu des all po ssible expressi o n s) ,con

.

fu si o n co vers n o t o nly expressi on s b elon gin g t o differen t l o gi cal

types,b u t also lin gui stic layers b el on gin g t o difl erent levels O f t h e
'

26 R amse ,O
y p . cit . 6—
,pp 2 27. .
42 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OF S E M ANTI CS

hi erarchy o f lan gu ages Thi s is preci sely t h e sou rce o f difli cu lt

.

an d gives ri se t o t h e d an ger o f an ti n o m i e s re su l tin g fro m

co n fu si on O f expressi o n s o f di f feren t types,an d o f

o f di fferen t hi erarchi es Y et ,if a correct di sti ncti on
.

as b etween O bj ect l an gu age an d m et alan gu

“ ”
b e ri cher ,and O bj ect lan gu age will form a part o f it : m e
lan gu age will in clu de,apart fro m th e sign s an d expressi on s
O bj ec t lan guage,al so their i n dividu al n am es (structural -descr
tive,or o th er) , t h e n am es O f relati o n s b e tween them an d gen e
lo gi cal expressi on s”
I f su c h a di stin cti on b etween lan gu age s o f v ari o u s
is m ade,w e m ay n o lon ger con fu se them I f w e say th at .

”
no t a true sen ten ce an d then ask wh ether th at sen ten ce i

o r n o t ,th en t h e erro r con si st s in t h e o rigi n al st at em en t

is im p o ssible if o bj ect lan gu age an d metalangu age are kept

ly separate Thi s is so b ecau se that st atemen t i nclu des t h e
'

“
tru e which b el on gs t o m etalan gu age : w e h ave thu s su bj
a m etalan gu age categ o ry t o O bj ect l an gu age Th e sam e .

when it com es t o th e antin o my connected with th e wo rd

”
lo gical . Here ,t o o ,t h e con tradi cti on ari ses when w e u se a
c o m prehen sive l an gu ag e That con tradi cti o n can b e av o
.

“ ”
if w e O b serve t h e pro hibiti o n o n u si n g to o ri c h l an gu age,
I S ,l an guage whi c h in it s sy stem i n clu d e s expressi o n s b el o n

t o m etal an gu age (n am es O f expre ssi o n s an d su ch cat eg ori e

“ ” “ ”
as to d en o te , t o b e t ru e ,
It is O bvi ou s that none o f thi s appli e s t o t h e n o rm al u se 0
o rdi n ary l an gu age It is u n iversal an d i n clu d es all p o ssible ex
.

pressi on s Bu t fo r th at very reason it is expo sed t o all so rt s O

.

d an gers,whi ch h ave b een expl o ited since t h e tim e O f t h e S ophi

Y et what in o rdi nary lan gu age is a cu ri o sity an d a li n gu i sti

27 C f A . . Tarski , Th e Con cept of Tru th in Form aliz ed Langu ages

’

in A Tarski,L ogic ,S e man t ic,M ath em atics,pp 16 6 ,17 0

.
— 17 1 173—174
, . 212
214,et p assim ; R .Carnap ,The L ogical S yntax
Introduct ion t o S emant ics,Cambridge ( M ass ),1948,pp . 3-4 .
 LOGI C

trick witho u t an y practical sign ificance ,beco m es a real pro blem

when it comes t o form alized theori es Bu t it is preci sely in tho se
.

th at th e pro blem can be solved ,an d ad equ ate mean s

t o solve it are fou n d the re These mean s are co n n ected with
.

lan gu age an aly si s,an d with t h e di sco very that lan gu age,t oo ,
i s an object o f stu dy .

Th e di stin c ti o n b etween O bj ect lan gu age an d m etalan gu age

pre sse s fo r m o re advanced analy si s with a v iew t o pro vidin g cri

‘

teri afor su ch a di stincti o n ,an d in parti cu lar fo r t h e stu dy O f

such m et alan guage exp ressi o n s as refer t o th e relati o n shi p b etween

obj ect l an gu age expressi o ns an d t h e o bj ect s they d en o te . All

thi s h as given ri se in lo gic t o i n terest in t h e descrip tion O f a giv
en l an gu age , in its syn tax an d in sem an tics in t h e n arro wer sense
o f t h e term .

Let u s n ow t ry t o characteriz e these field s Of research an d

t h e pro blem s with whi ch they are co n cern ed .

Before,h o wever,givin g a gen eral characteri stic Of lo gical

synt ax an d t h e i ssu es it deal s with ,it seem s advi sable t o rem o ve

th e d an ger o f mi su n d erst an di n gs that mi ght arise fro m our ex

po siti on o f t h e su bj ect It mi ght seem that o nly t h e co n cept o f

.

m etalan gu age,whi ch w as a re su lt o f g raspin g th e fact th at o rdi

nar l an gu age is a m u lti - l ayer st ru ctu re,stim ul ated i n t erest in
y
syn tax an d sem an ti cs Su ch is th e logical o rder o f thi n g s,whi ch
.

can be e st ab lish ed ex p os t facto . Actu al chr on ol o gy w as dif

ferent z all these pro blem s an d i n terests were intertwined an d
helped o n e an o ther t o devel o p ,rather than t o appear succes
s i v el A cl ear se q nc in ti m on ly b O b serv e d in t h e c se
y
. u e e e can e a

O f syn t ac ti cal an d sem an ti cal stu di e s . Th e tru e develo pm en t

o f sem an tic s sensu s tr icto b eg an on ly when it w as sh o wn th at

lo gical synt ax d oes n ot in clu d e a n u m b er Of no ti on s in dispen

sable fo r th e d ev el o m en t o f l o i c , an d when T arski h ad d em on
p g
st rated th at it is
po ssibl e t o in tro du ce t h e co ncept o f tru t h i n t o
t h e theo ry o f d edu c ti o n with ou t falli n g i n t o con tradi cti on .

What then is so -called lo gi cal syn tax an d what is its su bj ect

m atter?
44 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OE S E M A NTICS

Accordin g t o Carnap ,it is su c h a field lin gui stic

Of re se

in which w e ab stract from t h e u sers o f l an gu age an d

design ata of lin guisti c expressi on s,

relati on s between expressi ons” Elsewhere, C am ap de
.

l o gi cal syntax as a fo rmal theo ry o f li n gu i sti c form s,that is

a theo ry as is i n tere st ed n o t in th e m eani n g o f expressi on ,

on ly in th e ki n d s an d t h e o rd er o f sym b o l s o f whi c h th
“

p r e ssi on s are b u ilt” .In su ch an in t erpretati on ,l o gical

determ ines t h e ru les accordi n g t o which su ch lin gui sti c
as sen ten ce s are b u ilt o f su ch elem en t s as w ord s Th u s,in su ch .

an i nterpretati o n ,syn t ax in t h e n arro w er sen se O f t h e term l ay s

d o wn formation rules fo r lin gu i sti c en titi es,an d formal lo gic

est abli sh es transform at ion rules fo r them S i n ce b o th can be
.

form u lated in term s Of syn t ax ,C arn ap combin es them i n to a sin

gle sy stem as th e logical syn tax of language (in su ch a case form al
lo gic b ecomes a part o f syn tax an d ac qu ires a pu rely fo rm al
ch aract er) .

C o nceived in thi s w ay, l o gi cal syn tax treat s lan gu age as a spe
cific calcu lu s Expo n en t s o f th at c o n cepti on do n o t cl ai m th at
.

su ch a calcu lu s exh au st s t h e analy si s o f l an gu age,an d do n o t

fail t o appreci ate t h e i m portan ce o f sem asi o lo gi cal,psych o log

i cal ,an d soci o l o gical an aly si s (latterly th e l ast tw o h ave com e
.

to b e repl aced by t h e t erm They divide th e syn

tacti cal stu dy Of lan gu age i n to des crip tive syn tax ,which deals
with t h e em piri cal stu dy O f th e syn tacti cal properti es of given
lan gu age s,and p ure syn tax ,whi ch i n clu d es an alyti cal sen tences
O f m etal an guag e O btai ne d from t h e ad o pted d efiniti on s o f su ch
”
synt acti cal concepts as,e g , sen ten ce
. . in [t h e sy st em ] K ,
“
v bl i K
” “
d iv bl i K
”
30
p ro a e n , er a e n ,e t c . .

If w e n o w ask ,which c on c rete pro blem s are t h e su bj ect m at

t er O f l o gical syn tax ,w e fin d ou rselve s in an em b arrassi n g p o si
ti on ,b ecau se in th e peri o d o f eu ph ori a ,especi ally at t h e tim e
28 R . Carn ap ,I nt roduct io n to S emant ics,p . 9 .

29 R . Carnap ,Th e Logical S yntax of L anguage,p . I .

30 R . Carn ap,I ntroduction to S emantics,p 12 . .

 L OGIC 45

h,
“

a
rc when th e so -
ll d V ien n a Circle saw in lo gical syn tax a specific
ca e
W andfromth
is palmcaea an d hilo sophers st on e logi cal sW t ax w as m ad e
’

life EXCIUSiv p
elyth
h to inclu de n ot only all t h e lo gi cal pro blem s,bu t also all that
Camp defi
n f
w as con sid ered m ean i n g fu l in phil o so phy

$2
1 1 15 “
.

;i?
h Thi s fact gives ri se t o th e di ffi cu lty already m en ti oned at t h e

g
s
begin ni n g Of thi s ch apter,n am ely th e di ffi cu lty o f separatin g
i t hi h
logical pro blem s fro m phi lo soph ical ones I n thi s concrete case , .

they in tertwin e so as t o form a sin gle in divisible wh o le Th e is .

hlmgwsncem ifie. sue of hi lo so hi cal i n ter retati o n will b e treat ed ag ain in th e

p p p
msuch follo wi n g ch a ter Y et h ere I sh all also o i n t t o tw o h ilo so h i
'

, p p p
.
p
“fih‘termin i cal ten d enci es cl o sely c onnected with t h e p ro blem s o f syn tax
“dform al1 0 1 no w bein g di scu ssed
51 .

m e: b oth ca nb e First O f all,there is th e con ven ti on ali st ten den cy lin ked with
‘ 5 lhtmintoasin the
pro blem s of lo gical sy n tax Wh en i nv estig ati n g t h e syn t ac
.

s uchaca sef onna l tical as ect o f lan gu age,C arn a an d o thers assu m ed th at t h e
p p
sa p urelyf orm t! adopti on Of thi s or that lan gu age an d t h e law s by which it is
a

govern ed that is,con sequ en tly ,th e ad opti on O f thi s o r that

lang uag ea sasp n lo ic
g is an arbitrary m atter, a m atter o f co n ven ti on Th at .

1 0not claimthat idea w as explicitly fo rm u lat ed by C arn ap in t h e form of t h e

u ag c, andd o1 101 so-called
p rin c i p le o f t o l er an ce 3 1 an d t h e principl e O f a free

i l h0 0
1 h i f l ” He held t h e sam e o pi n i on al so in a later
n g ,
ca py g
s c c o c e o ru e s .

s t twohavecom es peri o d wh en fro m reco gn izi n g syn tax al on e , h e passed t o a b ro ad

n divid ethes yn er theo ry o f sem an ti cs . At th at peri o d ,t h e b asin g o f syn t ax
n n w hi
ch d a
e ls and sem an tics o n t h e c on ven ti o n ali st
prin ci pl es is t o b e fo u n d
nop enf ts o f i
g !ven in hi s I n tr o d uc t ion to S em a n t ic s 33 Th e sam e at titu de is n o le ss
.

n l
v i
tc nl s
enten ces sh ar ly m ark ed in Carn a
p p s
’
ar ti c l e o f 1 95 0,
“
Em p i ri c i sm ,S e

h
”
efi ition s of suc h ! m a n t ics an d O n t o l o g y 34
, in wh i ch h e t o a l arge ext en t pu rsue s

calle d We lt
"
the s t m
e ]
. K hi s id ea c o n c e rn i n g t h e free d o m o f ch o i c e O f t h e so -

p ersp ek tive,an i dea th at is an elem en t o f K azi m ierz Ajdu kiew icz s

’

31 R . Carn ap ,The Logical S yntax o f Language,pp XV. an d 2

9 .

3 2 Ibid .
,p . 52
.

33 C f pp 13 and 2
. . 4 .

34 Revue I nt ernat iona le de Ph ilosop h ie ,19 50,NO . 11(reprin ted in

L. Lin sky S emant ics and t he Ph ilosop hy of Lang uag e ,U rb ana 195 2 ,
pp . 210
—212
, 2
23-22
4,et passim) .
46 RE SEARCH PROBLEMS OF S EM ANTICS

radical con ven t iona lism 35It mu st,ho wever,be stated

.

in thi s con n ecti on th at there is n o n ecessary j un cti on

these i ssues : th e pro blems of syntax do n ot i n evitably lead
c onv en ti o n ali sm ,n or d o they l o se th ei r m ean i n g if separat

fro m th at phil o sophi cal b ackgro u n d .

Th e sam e al so appli es t o th e clearly phi lo so phical

t o im part t o l o gical syn t ax a un iversal ch aracter : en deav o

m ade t o con tain within it n o t o n ly all t h e pro blem s of th e

o f d ed u cti on ,con st ruc tive in th e field o f syn t ax , b ut all
and even all phi l o so ph i cal pro blem s in general S u ch a te .

t o let l o gical syn tax em b race all t h e phil o sophi cal

freed from t h e so -called p s
w as at that tim e represen te d

philo so phy w as left co i ncided

gu age,i e ,w ith l o gical syn tax36 H ere
. . .

sized th at there is n o n ecessary j uncti on b etween

syn tax an d su ch m axim ali st t en den ci e s Fur ther,there is .

n o su ch j u ncti on b etween syn t acti cal an aly si s an d neo

t iv ist phil o sophy .

While rej ectin g these ten d enci es, ari sin g o u t o f qui te
in it e , id eali stic tren d s in phi lo so phy , it m u st b e said that
th o se researches which are conn ected with th e descrip tion
lin gu i sti c sign s an d expressi o n s,with t h e stu dy o f t h e rules '

formation o f su ch expre ssi on s fro m m ore elem en t ary si

t h e an aly si s o f rela tionsh ip s b etween th o se sign s, an d o f

of transforma tion o f expre ssi o n s do deal with

i cal syn tax Thu s research problem s o f 1

.

c l o se to t h e p ro blem s o f syn t ax in it s g ram m ati cal i n terpret ati o n .

Thi s h o ld s,ab o ve all,fo r t h e i ssu e of wh at is called d escri ptiv e (de

35 Cf K. Ajduki ew icz , S prach e un d S inn

. in E rken nt nis,1934,Vo l .

Weltbild un d die Begrifi sapparatur ,in E rkenn tms,19 34,V ol 4 :

” ’

4; D as
'

N auk o w a perspektyw a sw iata

”
[A S cientifi c Perspect iv e of the W orld] .

in Prz eglqd Filozoficzny ,V ol . 37 ,19 34,p t . 4 .

36 Cf . e .
g R . . Carnap , Th e L ogical S ynt ax of Language ,pp . XI II ,
321-323 .
48 R ES EAR CH PROBLEMS OF S E M ANTICS

and li ti on s,it w ou ld be diflicu lt to decl are with

app ca

ti on that research Of an y ki n d is u seless j u st becau se

fo r th e tim e b ein g ,to see it s practical signi ficance an d
bility In that respect I fu lly agree with th e i nt erestin g an
.

rect formu l ati on o f t h e pro blem by Tarski .

I do n o t W i sh t o den y that th e valu e of a m an s ’

m ay b e in creased by its implicati on s for t h e research of

an d for practi ce Bu t I b eli ev e ,n evertheless,
.

t o t h e pro g ress o f scien ce t o m easu re t h e i m po rt ance O f any

search ex clu siv ely o r chi efly in t erm s o f it s usefu ln ess and

plicability We kn o w from t h e hi st o ry O f sci en ce th at m any

.

port an t resu lt s and di sco veries h ave h ad t o wait centuri es

fore they were appli ed in any field An d,in .

are al so o th er i mpo rt an t fact o rs

in det erm in in g t h e v alu e of sci entific w o rk

th e qu esti o n o f t h e valu e o f any research 0
answered with ou t t aki n g i nt o acco un t t h e in tell ectu al s

ti on whi ch t h e results O f that researc h b rin g t o th ose w h o

”
st an d it and care fo r it 37 .

I thin k that w e shou ld en d o rse that O pin i o n when

t o an an alysi s o f r esearc h pro blems o f sem anti cs sensu

Th e peri o d o f synt actic eu ph ori a passed u nd er t h e in

o f tw o
fact o rs .

First ,it so on became apparent that l o gical syntax alone

is n ot su fficien t ,th at it d o es n ot in clu d e a nu mb er Of n o ti ons
that are i n di spen sable fo r l o gi cal ,and t h e m o re so for phi lo
sophi cal ,pu rsu its S u ch sci entificall y imp ortant sem an tic con
.

cepts as t ru th ,d eno t ati o n et c cann o t be fo rm u l ated in t erms

.

o f synt ax al o n e 38 This explains why at l east a cert ain bran ch

.

o f n eo- positivists t ried t o do away with them .

37 A . Tarski ,Th e S emant ic Concep t ion f

o Truth qu ote d after L
.

L insky S emant ics and th e Philosop hy f Language,pp

o . 41—42
.

38 M K o koszynska, L o giczna skladn ia jezyka,seman tyka i logika

.

[Th e L o gical S yn tax o f Lan guage,S emantics and th e Lo gic of

”
w iedzy
Know ledge] ,in : Przeglqd Filozoficzny,V o l . 39 ,19 36,pt . 1
.
 LOGI C 49

S econdly ,T arski h as h w n that one can use th e concept

s o

of tru th (in acc ord ance with it s cl assical d efiniti o n) with out

being inv olved in con tradi cti ons ; thi s h as b ro ken t h e resist ance
of t h e pro ou n d ers o f l o gical syn t ax t o sem anti c c on cept s Tarski
p .

distingui shed in m etatheoretical research t h e m orp h ology o f

langu age,o ver whic h h e h as then placed o ther parts o f syntax
an d sem an tics sensu stric to t h e pro blem s o f tru th , m eani n g ,
den otin g ,satisfyin g ,et c ) .

That opened t h e peri o d o f sem an t ics which drove lo gical

synt ax from it s m o n o po ly p o siti o n Sem antics also t o o k over
.

th e respo nsibility for c o nstructin g t h e the o ry O f dedu cti on in

a form aliz e d w ay Th e i ntro ducti on o f th at theory h as gre atly
.

w idene d t h e sco pe o f i nterest in l o gic ,fo rmerly co n fined t o syn

t ax,an d h as rem o ve d from m an y i ssu es t h e b ran d o f pseu d o

problems In any case,there cam e a fu ll dev el opm en t o f t h e

stu dy Of pro blem s o f tru th ,den o t ati o n and m ean i n g C arnap .

intro du ced correct i ons t o hi s fo rm er ideas expressed in Th e

Logical Syn tax of L anguage : in an annex t o I n troduct ion to S em an
“
tics h e ren ou nce d hi s cl ai m th at a logic of m ean ing is sup er
”
39 Thi s led t o a ch an ge in hi s attitu d e t o w ard s t h e ex
flu o us .

tensi onal character o f l o gi c and t o en deav o u rs t o fo rmu l ate

a m o d al l o gi c“,an d fu rther t o a cert ai n m o di ficati o n o f t h e

nomi n a s li t th si d
e s pr op ou n e d by hi m an d hi s f o ll o w ers“ .

M ore d et ailed an alysis of these issu es will co nstitu te t h e

su bj ect m atter Of t h e sec on d part Of thi s b o o k , w hi ch wi ll di scu ss

such pro blems as th o se o f c o mmu n i cati on ,S ign ,me an in g an d

den otati o n ,an d perm issibili ty o f gen eral terms in view o f thei r
am bigu ity an d t h e d an ger o f hyp o st ases As re g ard s t h e t echn i cal
"

aspect Of t h e pro blem ,i e ,t h e b u ildi n g o f t h e v ari o u s calcu li

. .

and a d ed u ctive system in sem an ti cs,this is neither t h e t ask

of thi s b oo k n o r t h e su bj ects m att er o f o u r an aly si s Th e read er .

39 R . Carn ap ,I ntroduct ion t o S emant ics,13 2 249

40 R . Carn ap,M eaning and N ecessity,Ch icago 1947 .

41 Cf E mp iricism ,S emant ics

. and Ont o logy .
50 RES EA RCH PROB LEMS OF S E MANTI CS

w h o is i n terested in su ch m atters is referred t o t h e li

o f t h e su bj ect ,ab o ve all t o t h e t w o w o rks by C am ap

qu oted ab ove : I n troduct ion t o S em an t ics and M ean ing

s il
y .

Th e th eory
f m o dels,very i nterestin g fro
o

po in t of Vi ew,h as devel oped in sem antics .

lo gi cal synt ax ,c on fined t o t h e

ti es and t o t h e stu dy Of fo rm al relati o n s b etween them ,
h as m ade a step forw ard t oward s reco gnizin g t h e
c h aract er o f researc h on t h e relati o n b etween li n gu i st
'

si o n an d th at whi c h is ex pressed by th em .

“ ”
d ecree o n t h e elim i n ati on o f apparen t pro blems
blem e) ten d ed t o disqu ali fy research o f th at kin d b
Wittgenstei n s Vi ew that t h e lim it s o f o n e s lan guage
’ ’

it s of one s world Th e tu rn t o wards sem antics

’
.

a b re ach in th at li n gu i sti c m oni sm an d b ro u ght t o t

qu esti on o f t h e O bj ect spo ken ab ou t in a given lan gu a

qu esti on Of som ethi n g whi ch exists ou tside lan gu age Th e .

o f m o del s is a fu rth er st ep in th e sam e directi o n ,a st ep

phi l o sophi cally i m p ort an t sin ce it raises th e pro blem

o bj ect sp o ken ab ou t ,t h e O bj ect whi ch exi sts n ot on ly

lan gu age,bu t also indep enden tly o f lan gu age Th e c on .

”
apparatu s o f l an gu age is, as it were , add ed t
is so at least in cert ain form u lati o ns
Th e theo ry o f m o dels is a p ro du ct o f
A s i n di cat ed ab o ve ,I sh all n ot d eal with t h e t echn i
of t h e pro bl em ,bu t ,as in o th er si mi lar cases,shall only refer

t h e read er t o t h e literatu re“ Th e p hil o so phi cal asp ect wi ll b e

.

4? J . G K emen y, M o dels
. o f L o gical S ystems in Th e J ourna l of S ymbolic
N O 1; J L OS, Th e Algebraic Treatment o f the
“
L og ic ,M arch 1948 ,V ol 13, . . .

M eth o do lo gy Of E lementary D edu ctiv e Systems in S t udia L ogica,19 5 5 ,

Vol . 2; by th e same au th or, On“
t
th e E x en ding o f M o dels
”
(I) ,in Fundament a
42 M o sto w ski , O n M o dels Axio matic
“
M ath emat icae , 19 5 5 ,V o l .
; A . Of

,in Funda men ta M ath e mat icae,19 5 2

S ystem s
” “
,Vo l 39 ; H R asio w a, Ai . .

gebraic M o dels O f Axio m atic Th e ories ,in Fu nda m enta M ah temat icae,195 5 ,
”
 LOG i c 51

to theli
tera
t xt chapter ; here,I shall con fin e m yself t o
in th e
e,di scu sse d ne
M yCam ali
mt
p en , a few rem ark s in t en d ed t o pro vid e gen eral i n fo rm ati on I n di o n g .

“
SO I b ase my sel f o n R om an S u szko s L o gika fo rm alna a n iekt Ore
'
’
.

za gadnienia teo rii pozn ania (Fo rm al Lo gic an d S o m e Pro blems

t

[
M the hflOS
p OP hitei ofEpi stem olo gy), av aili n g my selfOfh is att em pt t o po pu larize p ro b
a A s t mer d
e
"
p we it lems Of t h e the o ry Of m o dels,pro blem s whi c h are difiicu lt in
”mmy isfit wit their mathem ati cal f o rmulati on and n ot in t h e least i ntu itive
h .

mm W 1
11,Sem tie
an Th e startin g po i n t is t h e fo ll owi n g st atem en t by S u szko :
“
M h
t e legitimn
“
b Th e oppo siti on o f a fo rm alized lan guage t o it s m o del s is an
men huguistie“in extrem ely ab stract form u lati o o f t h e co g itive relati on b etween
pe n n
m T he neo- positiit th e su bj ect an d t h e o bj ect ,t h e relati on b etween thin kin g an d that
”
whi ch is t h e su bj ec t m att er Of thi n ki n g .

Th e con cept O f a m o del Of lan gu age is m ean in g fu l with ref

erence t o form aliz ed lan gu ages Every en tity ab ou t whi c h o n e .

may speak in a given lan g uag e,is a m o del o f that lan gu ag e In .

th e case o f sim pl er lan guages,every m o d el con si st s ot t w o part s :

th e un iverse of th e m o d el ,i e ,a set Of i n divid u al s whi ch m ay
. .

be obj ect s of an arbitrary type,an d t h e ch aracteris tic o f th e

nution as tep model,i e ,a set t h e elem en t s o f which are properti es,relati on s
. .

in p roblem an d o ther aspect s Of th e in dividu al s o f t h e m o del Th e relati o n .

mu not only between a lan gu age and it s m o del is su ch that an elem en t o f th e

m e T.he c on éh aract eristic o f th e m o d el c o rrespon d s t o every con st an t ex

pressi on o f th at lan g uage as th e v alu e o f th at expressi o n ,an d

every elem en t o f t h e ch aracteri sti c is repre sen t ed by a c o n stan t

expressi o n b el on gin g t o th at lan guag e

“

A lan gu age h as a n u m b er O f m o del s wh i ch b elon g t o t h e

sam e type an d ab o u t whi ch on e can sp eak in t h e giv e n lan gu age .

But ,as 8 118s p oin ts o u t ,t h e pro b lem Sh o u ld be vi ewed fro m

an o ther an gle as well : the re is a fam ily o f l an g u age s o f a giv en

l h Vol 41; R S u szk o , S yntactic Stru ctu re an d Sem an tic al Re ference in

inam to tt
M
n
e
. .

S tudia L ogica,19 5 8 ,Vo l 8 ; by th e same au th or, Lo gika formaln a a n iekt é re

.

zagadnien ia t eorii p ozn an ia [Form al L o gic an d S o me Pr o blem s of Ep iste

kls
‘ m
,
mOlOgY] ,in M ysl Filozoficzna, 19 5 7 ,N o 2 3 ; A Tarski, O p ojec iu w y
'

. .
“

r ttodels
mikania logicznego [O n t h e C on cep t Of L o gical Co nsequ en ce] ,in Przeglqd
”

Filozoficzny,Vo l . 39 , 19 36 ,pt . I .
52 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OF S EMA NTICS

m o d el,c on nected with th at m o del ; th ese lan gu ages can be

t o speak ab o u t that m o d el an d all have t h e same syn tactic S
ture Am on g them w e di sti n gui sh meaningful l an gu ages,
.

is su ch whi ch u n der given circu m stan ces (refere

group an d its activity) perfo rm th e fu ncti on of
“ ”
S u ch lan gu ages are O bt ain ed by j o in in g appropri ate co
“ ”
apparatu s t o t h e giv en m o d el Th at . j o in in g o f a lan
a d efin ite social acti on .

“
We shall say that th e lan gu age J ,m eaningfu l un d er
st an c es t ,is a con cep tual app aratus jo ined t o m o d el s b

t o th e fam ily RM A, ( )
J t o a n o n -em ty subfam
p
fam ily o f m o del s Of a lan guag e that is m ean in gfu l
given circum stan ces A . We assu m e that every I
(m eanin gful u n der cert ain ci rcu m stan ces t) h as co me
as a re su lt o f t h e o perati on ,perform e d in a hu m an g ro u p,

j o in in g con ceptu al apparatu s t o certain mo d els o f t h e lan guage

which inclu de th e proper m o del M , (J )
“
S u szko say s further that th e jo in i n g Of co ncep

paratu s t o a m o del can t ake pl ace in a so ci al grou p o nly

“
it s di rect con tact with that m o del that is throu gh
percepti on and practical acti on A s th e m o .

u n d erst o o d ,t h e lan gu age in qu e sti o n

Th i s is a popu lar expo siti on o f th e in tu itive ideas
with th e theo ry o f m o del s These ideas are clo sely con n e
.

th e phil o sophi cal i n terpret ati o n o f sem an ti cs,t o be di scu sse

in th e followin g ch apter .
 RESEAR CH PROBLEMS OE S E MANTI CS

In discu ssi ons with representatives o f t h e Lwow-Warsaw

Sch o o l ,t h e asserti on w as O ften heard that su ch an O bj ecti on
is a wron g one ,since n o o ne h as ever fo rmu lat e d suc h a thesis .

I shall do my b est t o dem onstrate that n ot o nl y h as such a thesi s

been formu lated by vari ou s propou n ders of sem an ti cs,but m ore
“

o ver,that it constitu t es th e sen se o f sem antic phi l o sophy in it s

vari ou s shades I adm it that I derived c onsiderable satisfacti on

.

in o penin g t h e present chapter with Ru ssell s wo rds whi ch were

’

so m u ch in agreem en t w ith my o w n appraisal o f sem an ti c phi l o s

o ph y M y thesis is thu s support ed n o t by j u st a som eb o dy ,bu t

.

by Ru ssell ,n ot o n ly an emi nent philo sopher bu t one Of t h e Spir

itu al fathers Of that t ren d in research whi ch h as given ri se t o
c ontem porary sem antics His u n derst an din g o f su ch m atters
.

is thu s excepti onall y keen ,an d hi s appraisal,excepti o nally sig

nificant .

Th e foreb ears ofthat vari ati o n o f idealistic phil osophy whi ch ,

in reco gni zing lan gu age t o b e t h e so le O bj ect o f research wants
t o eli mi n ate t h e i ssu e of reality an d t o regard t h e confli ct between

m ateri ali sm and ideali sm as a pseu d o-problem ,h ad appeared

in science l on g b efore Ru ssell Th e sam e appli es t o t h e in ter
.

pret at ion o f t h e rOle Of lan gu age in t h e pro cess Of c o gniti on .

It is n ecessary t o go back t o t h e n omi nalist traditi on ,ab ove all

t o it s En gli sh versi on in t h e 17th and 18t h cen turies I shall n ot , .

h owever,enter int o those m atters,since it is n ot m y i nten ti on

t o writ e a stu dy o f t h e hi st o ry o f phil o sophy I n thi s b oo k w e
.

m ay spare ou rselves hist ori cal analysis,but mu st dwell o n th o se

elem ent s in t h e phi l o sophi c al i nterpret ati o n o f sem an ti cs whi ch

are connect ed w ith m od ern philo sophi cal t ren d s , fi rst O f all

with conventi onali sm an d neo-positivi sm .

But even th at I do n ot w an t t o di scu ss in t o o m u ch d etail ,

t h e m ore so as I have already h ad an O pp o rtu ni ty t o pre sen t

at o n ce fact s an d my opin i o ns ab ou t t h em l I n ou r st o rm y tim es,

.

1 I principally m ean th e ch apters dealin g w ith a criticism Of co n v em

tion ali sm an d neo -p o sitiv ism in my w ork Z zagadnien marks is t o wskiej t eorii
p ra wdy [S o m e Pro blem s of th e M arxist Th eory of Truth ] ,Warszaw a 19 5 1,
56 RESEARCH PROBLEMS O F S E MA NTICS

o v erh elm ed It is e q u ally O bvi o u s that ,especi ally in philoso ph y ,

.

there is n o di fficu lty in thu s pro cessin g an o pponent : fo r a m a

t erialis t h e pri nci pl es o f id eali sm are as ab surd as for an id ealist
é
are t h e pri nci ples o f m ateri ali sm Thu s,if t h e oppon ent s posi
’
.

ti on is redu ced t o su ch ab surd (from our po i nt of Vi ew) princi

ple s and t hi s can always be d o n e then w e can sco re an
easy t riu m ph It is d ou btfu l ,o f c ou rse,whether such criti ci sm
.

will c on vince anyb o dy except tho se w h o are already convi nced

an d sh are t h e c ritic s vi ew Then ,t h e q ue sti on ari ses as t o h o w
’
.

lo n g su ch a g am e can contin u e , if it is rem em b ere d th at t h e op

pon ent can in t h e sam e manner an d with e qu al ease o verwhelm

hi s critic All this h as very little in comm on with scien ce an d
.

sc i en t ific phil oso phy ,bu t assi sts an u n derst an din g o f t h e d u ra

ti on ,ho pelessn ess,and sterility o f m any ph ilo sophi cal di spu tes .

Th e i ssue wo u ld be c lear en ou gh ,an d a rem edy fo r t h e disease

o f critic i sm by d eni al n ot d if ficu lt t o fin d,were it n o t b ased o n
a mi sun d erst an din g , which go es m uc h deeper an d is m uch m ore
o f t h e essence Th e con vi cti o n th at t h e falsity Of so m e o pin i o ns
.

exp oun d e d in a w o rk can cels t h e co rrect ness o f all o ther t h ese s

o f it s au th o r arises fro m a specifi c i nt erpret ati on o f t h e d ev el

o pm ent o f sci ence as fo ll o win g a st raight-li ne c ourse in whi ch

so m e theoreti cal sy st em s represent pure t ru th ,whereas others

represen t pu re u n tru th Thi s is n onsense,and can be refu ted

.

by any con front ati on with facts Thu s,myths can pl ay a certai n
.

rOle even in t h e hi st ory o f sci en ce .

In t h e hi st o ry o f scien ce,pro gress is n ot a m atter sim ply o f

wh ite again st black Th e n o ti on that cert ai n tren d s have a m o
.

n opoly o f t ruth,an d o thers a m o n opo ly o f un t ru th is S imply n o t

accept able It w o u ld be o nl y t oo easy t o be a sage an d t o h o ld

.

o nly tru e o pin i o n s in a w o rld where t h e i nt erpret ati o n O f t h e

pro gress o f science w as thu s u to pi an Bu t in re ality ,m atters

.

are m uc h m o re co m pli cat ed Tru ths,even th o se o f great signifi

.

c ance,can be fou n d in system s th at are o therw i se in erro r and

ev en an ti- scient ifi c (an ex am pl e n ear an d d ear t o t h e h eart o f

every M arxi st : t h e di ale ctic m eth o d an d t h e H ege li an syst em ) .

 S EM ANTI C PHI LOSOPHY 57

Falseho o ds,even very seri ou s ones,can appear in system s th at

are o therwi se highly co rrect .

All this h old s a fortiori if w e con sider n ot o nly t h e resu lts

o f research ,bu t also new id eas and researc h pro bl ems p o sed

t o sci en ce It is well kn own th at in sci ence t h e placi n g a fin ger

.

on t h e pro blem itsel f is o ften n o less i m port an t th an it s po sitive

so lu ti on An d in th at field there c an be n o m o n o po ly at all,es

.

pecially in phi l o so phy ,where con fli ctin g tren ds t hr ive o n t h e

erro rs o f O pponents . This is h ow n ew pro blems,stimu latin g
t h e pro gress o fth o u ght , are b o rn In that respect ,
. ideali sm cert ain
ly h as a g reat deal t o it s credit .

D o es it fo ll o w that t h e criticism o f ideali sm is t o be weakened ,

and th at t h e id e ol o gical en g agem ent o f phi l o so phy is t o be ab an

doned ? N o t in t h e least Th e poi n t is th at that postu l ate sh o u ld

.

be u n derst o o d pro perly : adherence t o ideo lo gical pri n ciples

sh ou ld n ot be identified with c l am o ro u s w ords,and id eo l o gi cal

en g agement wi th criti c ism by ann ihilati o n ,m erely in t h e i nterest

of t h e ideo l o gical en g agem en t an d,ab o ve all,t h e ef fectiveness

o f critic ism I f criti cism is n o t t o be a rite fo r t h e i n iti ated ,but
.

is t o perform it s proper task ,i e ,t o co nvince those w h o are

.
. .

n ot yet convi nced ,then it m ay n ot be co nfine d t o d en i al T O .

“
say n o , espec i ally in phi l o so phi cal m atters where a di rect

and fin al verific ati o n o f th eses is u su all y im p o ssible , means very

“ ”
little,since t h e O pponen t can reply with an an al o go u s n o an d
sti c k t o h is o w n vi ew s Ef
. fective critici sm sh ou ld con si st ,ab ove
all ,in t ak ing up th e given issue ,ex lai nin g it s sen se an d it s place
p
in t h e system Of o u r kn o wledge,an d when rej ecti n g a c ert ai n
so lu ti o n a s in erro r it S h o u ld su ggest an o ther,true ,o n e . S u ch
” “ ”
an attitu de h as n o thi n g t o do with O bj ectivism an d academi sm
it is sim ply scien tific criticism properly u n derst o o d Th e in
.

abi lity t o ad o pt su c h an attit u de with res ect t o b ourg e o i s id eo l o gy

p
h as b een ,in my o pi n i o n ,t h e greatest defect o f M arxi st crit i
cism ,and there fo re also o f m
y ow n i n terpret ati on o f c o nv en
t ion ali sm an d neo -po sitivi sm .

But let u s com e b ack t o t h e poin t .

 RESEAR CH PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

I have st ressed m any a tim e th at when w e speak ab ou t sem an

tics w e cann ot separate it s lin gu i sti c o r l o gi cal aspect from t h e
u n d erlyi n g ph il o sophy whi ch in thi s case is n ot o n ly a shell o r

a co nnective tissu e o f given re search pro bl em s,b u t O ft en th e

very bl oo d an d b one Y et effo rts can be m ade,as in t h e precedin g

.

chapters, t o b ri n g o u t th o se speci al re search pro bl em s o f sem anti cs

an d t ake them u p reg ardless o f phil o so phi cal attitu d e We might
.

also t ry t o p roclai m an d appraise criti cally th o se elem en ts Of

philosophi cal in terpretati on whi ch h ave m ani fest ed them selves

thu s far in t h e d evelo pmen t o f sem an ti cs I shall attem pt t o do
.

th at now .

Wh at I call sem an ti c phil o sophy ,that is,all tho se philoso ph

i cal vi ews whi ch see in lan guage t h e only ,o r at least t h e pri nci pal
an d t h e m o st i m po rt ant ,O bj ec t o f co gn iti on an d phi l o so phi cal

an alysi s,i nclu d es id eas li n ked with t h e v ari ou s t ren d s o f c on

tem porary phil o so phy ,from whi ch sem antic phi lo so phy d re w
it s i n spirati on an d stim u li C o nv enti o nali sm acco u nt s fo r t h e
.

thesi s that lan gu age an d it s m o rph ol o gy,th e sy stem o f l o gic ,

an d u ltim ately thi s o r th at perspective O f t h e w orld ,m ay be

ch o sen in an arbit rary fashi on Thi s is con si stently com plem en t ed

.

in t h e id ea,ari si n g from n eO -p o sitivism , th at lan gu age is t h e

only O bj ect o f phil o so phi cal an aly si s Fi n ally ,t h e m arri age o f
.

neo -po sitivi sm with pragm ati sm g ave bi rth t o t h e b eli ef th at

sem an ti cs can be a specific pan acea in so ci al m att ers .

I n an aly si n g these three po i n t s whi ch ,in my o pin i on ,are t h e

m ost im po rtant in sem anti c phil o sophy I do n o t i n t en d ,as I h ave
al ready said ,t o give a fu ll analysi s an d a co m pl et e ev alu ati o n

o f co nven ti o nali sm , neo -po sitivi sm an d pragm ati sm (which

are m ad e u p o f di f ferent ,alth ou gh i n tercon n ect ed ,ideas an d
re searc h pro blem s) . I am i nterested here in t h e concept O f t h e
rOle o f l an g u age in t h e c o g n itiv e syst em , an d I sh all con fin e

m y an aly si s t o th at i ssu e Att enti o n wi ll be focu se d o n n eo

.

p o sitivi sm , si nce it s i nfluen ce , especi ally th at o f t h e V i enn a

Ci rcle ,w as t h e greate st as regard s t h e p ro blem s in whi ch w e are
i nterested I will al so con cen trate on th e peri o d m ore or less
.
60 RESEAR CH PROBLEMS OF S EMANTICS

Carn ap ,as well as other fo ll owers Of neo -po sitivi sm ,w as

co nsi st en t in carryi n g o u t th at pro g ramm e A few y ears after .

t h e p hil oso phical m ani fest o o f t h e E rkenn tn is grou p,m enti on ed

ab o ve,C arn ap w rot e in hi s fun d am ent al w o rk o n t h e l o gical

syn t ax O f l an gu age :

“
Philo so phy is t o be l
rep ace d by t h e l o gic O f science th at
is t o say ,by t h e l o gi cal an aly si s o f t h e c oncepts an d sentences
of th e sci ence s,fo r the logic of scien ce is no th ing o th er th an the
”4
logical syn tax of the language of sc ience .

“
Let us ex amin e th at turnin g po in t in philo sophy m ore
l
c o se ly .

I shall b egin with a co u ple O f t rivi al rem arks,whi ch are h ow

ev er n ecessary fo r fu t ur e c on sid erati o ns .

There b asi c types of idealism : obj ective an d su bj ective

are tw o .

Th e form er reco gn izes t h e existence O f O bj ective reality ,whi ch

“ ”
is ideal by n ature (t h e un derst an din g o f t h e t erm ideal v ari es
acc ordin g t o t h e v ari ou s syst em s o f O bj ective ideali sm) Th e .

l att er sees in so-call ed reat o nly a Co n st ru cti o n o f t h e min d .

A ccordi n g t o one o f its vari ati on s,reality is t ant am oun t t o com

binati o ns o f inner experi en ce (t h e vari ou s versi o ns o f i mm anent
em piri ci sm ,t h e cl assical represent ativ e Of whi ch w as B erkel ey) .

That attitu de leads,in it s l o gical c onsequ en ces,t o so lipsi sm .

Accordi n g t o t h e o ther vari ati on ,wh at is given in co gniti on

is a con st ru cti on o f t h e m in d ,an d t h e pro blem of reality is disre
gard ed as t ranscen din g experi en ce (H u m e s v ersi o n o f agn osti c
’

ism) .

S O muc h for t h e k sa e o f rec o

llecti on .

N ow ,there is n o d ou bt that a theo ry whic h limits on e s

’

”
wo rld t o lan gu age ,t o lin gu i stic entiti es that are an extern al
expressi on o f on e s i nn er experi en ce ,m u st b e cl assed as a fo rm
’

O f su bj ectiv e id eali sm It is n o t i m p o rt an t whi ch O f t h e t w o v ari a

.

ti o n s o f that t ren d co m es in q u esti o n in th i s case Th e poin t .

4 R . Carnap,The Logical S yntax o f Language,L o n don 19 37,p . XIII .

 S E M ANTIC PHILOSOPHY

o f co nse uence
q that this form o f su bj ective id eali sm ,also ,
is
leads t o so li psi sm ,an d that a m an w as fou n d w h o h ad en ou gh
courage t o d raw su ch a c o n clu si on and t o formu lat e it in an

expli cit w ay . That m an w as Lu dwig Wittgenstein ,on e o f t h e

spi ritu al fathers Of n eo - p ositivism .

Ab ro gatin g my u n d ert aki n g ,I mu st n o w for t h e tim e b ein g

set asid e t h e purely li n gu i sti c i ssues o f sem an ti c phi l o so phy an d

deal ,in a few words at least ,with its other aspect whi ch w as
particul arly m arked in t h e V i enn a Circle an d whi ch accou nts
for t h e wh ole tren d b ein g called logical emp ir ic ism I m ean here
.

t h e emp iricism o f sem anti c phi l o sophy , st ri ctly speakin g t h e

charact er o f it s em piri ci sm .A m ost general expl an ati o n o f th at
issu e is in dispensable for a proper u n derstan din g o f t h e co ncept
o f l an guage in sem anti c phi l o sophy .

Em piri cism , in particu lar in its radical form ,appears in a cl o se

conn ecti o n with su bj ective ideali sm fro m t h e m om ent when ,

ad o ptin g t h e fo rm o f imm anen t phi l o sophy ,it i n terpret s experi

ence as in n er ex peri ence . Th e cl assi cal represent atives o f th at

interpretati on of em piri cism were Hu m e an d B erkeley It is .

obvi ou s that c o n t em p orary i mm an ent empiri ci sm cl aims t o co n

“ ”
t inue their id eas Th e l att er tren d i nclu d es n o t o nly
.
pu re
imm anen tists,w h o O ften en d in plain soli psism (e g ,S chu ppe, . .

“ ”
-
Rehm ke, Schu b ert S oldern ,an d o thers) , bu t al so t h e sh y

forms o f i mm an entism , su ch as em pirio crit icism an d, l ately ,

neO- p osi tivism Th e l ast n am e d d irectly refers t o em piriocrit
.

icism , in particu l ar t o M ach s d o ct rin e o f elem ents, i e ,

’
. .

impressi ons su ppo sed t o be phi l o sophi cally n eu tral ,t h e subjec

tive or O bj ective character o f whi ch d epen ds o n t h e c O-o rdin a
”
ti o n o rd er (Ko ordination sreih e) (Av en ariu s) Th e pro gramm e
.

of t h e V i enn a Ci rcle 5 ,t h e su btitle o f t h e peri o di cal E rkenn tn is ,

th e retro spective vi ews o f t h e o rigi n O f n eO-p o siti v ism as

held by it s fo u n ders and o u tst an din g represent ati v es all

5 Wissenschaft liche Weltauffassung . D er Wiene r Kreis,Vienna 19 2

9 .
62 RES EAR CH PROBLEMS OF S E MA NTICS

these i ndi cate connecti ons with M achism 6 N eo -positivi sm also .

lo o ked still further b ack, t o Hume an d B erkeley , althou gh

Ru ssell criticized it s exponents for d o i n g so in su fli cient ly Be .

that as it m ay,t h e n eo-po sitivist d octrine o f pro tocol sen

teh ees, t o which all our kn owledge is redu cible ,a d octri ne b asin g
t h e edifice O f k nowledge o n pro t oco ls O f certain element ary

experi ences an d impressi ons Of t h e su bj ect as t h e only cont en t

o f c ogni ti on ,is a new ,alth ou gh v ery radi cal , form o f immanen t

em piri cism .

F rom t h e psycho l o gical po int of View ,it mi ght by in ter

esti n g t o an alyse t h e stran ge fact th at peo ple w h o fo r t h e m o st

part represented exact and n atu ral sci ences,people w h o wanted

t o elimin ate all m etaphysi cs in fav ou r o f exact an d reli able kn o wl

edge ,fin ally en ded in wh at is, in m y o pini o n ,radical m etaphysi cs

b ord erin g on solipsi sm .

Em pi ri ci sm ,whi ch refers t o t h e p ositi on s o f cl ock han ds an d

rec ordin g s o f m easu rin g i n stru m en t s, t o con tro llability an d
v erifiabili ty O f hu m an percepti on an d t h e kn o wledge th at is

based o n it ,mu st b e attractive an d allu ri n g t o represen t atv ies

o f t h e natu ral sci ence Th e m ore so if it m ake s it po ssible t o be
.

rid Of t h e m y sti ci sm O f t h e v ari o u s i rrati onali sm s th at h au n ted

th e philo so phy O f t h e 19 2 0 3 an d whi c h ,b egi nn i n g with phen om

.

en ol o gy an d n eO-H egeli an i sm an d en di n g in exi st en ti ali sm ,

m ad e all philo so phy by thei r concept s o f Wesen sch au ,

“ ”

“ ” “ ”
e ssence an d exi stence , das Ni cht s ,et c repu l sive t o every
.

m an w h o thi nk s in a so b er and prec i se m ann er An d yet Engels .

at on e ti m e warned th e n atu rali st s th at co n t em pt fo r phi l o sophy

m o st o ften l ead s t o t h e w o rst phil o sophy po ssible It tu rn s o ut .

th at even t h e b ou n dless c on fid ence in clo ck han d s and scales

o f m easu ri n g i n st ru m en t s can lead t o m ysti ci sm an d m etaphy si c s

6 See for instance : Ph . Fran k,M odern S cience and I ts Ph ilosop h y,

Cambridge 19 5 0 (in particu lar Introdu ction : Historical
“

R . v on M ises,Posit ivism A S t udy in Human Understanding,Cam bridge 19 5 1;

.

H R eich en bach ,The Rise of S cient ific Ph ilos ophy ,U n iv ersity

. of California
Press,19 5 6 .
64 RES EARCH PROBLEMS OR SEMANTI CS

idealism which O ffered them t h e appearan ces O f preci si on an d

reli able kn o wledge .S in ce h e saw salvati on in t h e repl acem ent
o f phil o so phy by t h e l o gi cal syn t ax o f l an gu ag e,th at is in fact
‘

by an an aly si s O f th e synt ax o f t h e lan gu age o f sci en ce,C am ap

“
wro te : Th e step from t h e m o rass o f su bj ectivi st philo sophi cal
pro blem s on t o t h e firm g rou n d o f ex act syntactical problem s
”
m u st be t aken 3 Y et ,in fact ,
. thi s w as again an o ffer o f su bj ective
id eali sm di sgu i sed as lan gu age analy si s,a new versi on o f ideali sm
p p
re ar e d by c on v en ti ona li sm (t h e r Ole o f l an gu a g e in sc i en t ifi c

con ven ti o ns) an d by logis tic (in parti cu l ar t h e di sc o very o f t h e

’
r Ole O f l an gu age as an o bj ect o f stu dy an d R u ssell s d oct rine o f

at om i c an d m o l ecu l ar p ropo siti on s) Thu s t h e co mbinati on Of

.

imm anen t empi ri ci sm with a n ew concept o f lan gu age an d o f

it s rOle in phil o sophi cal research g ave ri se t o sem an tic philo sophy .

Th at m arri age w as also reflected in th e ori gin al n am e O f t h e

n ew t ren d : l o gi c al empi ri c ism .

Thu s sem anti c phi lo sophy is n ot a philo sophy that o ver

estim at e s t h e rOle o f l anguage an d it s place in t h e process o f

c o gn iti o n ,
is n ot j u st a philo so phy o flan gu age, bu t is su ch a philos
o ph y o f lan gu age whi ch is genetically an d o rganically c on
n ect ed with imm anen t em piri c ism As such it h as devel oped
.

as a v ari ati o n o f su bj ective idealism .

As m enti on ed ab ove,t h e neo-positivi st co n cept o f lan gu age

and it s r Ole an d pl ace in t h e process o f co gni ti o n h ad b een pre

pare d by c o nven ti on ali sm ,an d also by t h e develo pm en t o f lin

gu ist ic research Of a speci al type,co nn ected with l o gi sti c .

In thei r Pr incip ia M athema tica,Ru ssell an d Whitehead dealt

not onl y with t h e pro blem o f antin om i es and t h e rel ated pro blem

Of lev el s o f l an gu age ,b u t also with t h e an alysi s O f t h e st ru cture

o f l an gu age in whi c h they di sti n gu i shed elem en t ar (a t o mi c

y
an d m o lecu l ar) pro positi on s as t h e c at ego ry o f pro p o siti o ns

O f p arti cul ar i m p ort ,pro p o siti on s that are t h e fo un d ati on o f

8 R . Carnap,Th e Logical S y ntax f Language,p

o . 332
.
 SEMANTIC PHILOSOPHY

kn o wledg Lu dwig Wittgenstein , Ru ssell s di sciple,

e9
’
all ou r .

p ur sue d t h e id ea s O f l o gi ca l a t o m i sm and,by impartin g t o them ,

as already m enti on ed ,a clear form o f epi st emo l o gical so lipsi sm

(w e m i ght s p ea k h e re o
.
f li n g u i s ti c s o li p si sm ) ,b ridg e d t h e ga p
between En gli sh logistic an d continent al neO -positivism o f whi ch
h e w as t h e spir itu al
B y c om i n g thu s t o Wittgenstei n ,w e h ave reached t h e essenti al
p o i n t o f o u r re m a r k s o n se m a n ti c p hil o s o p hy H i s Tr a
. c ta tus

is certainly o ne o f t h e stran gest phi lo sophi cal b o o ks,b oth in

view o f t h e style an d in Vi ew o f t h e m et aphorical an d i n tu itive
m ann er o f expositi on , acco m pani ed by claim s t o precisi o n .

It is in deed a parado x that t h e work whi ch represents t h e trend

whose i ntenti on is t o eli m i nate all m et aphysi cs is in fact t h e
twin brother o f B ergsoni an intu iti on ism an d his met aphysical
con cepti on s I n Wittgenstei n s Tracta tus w e fin d t h e fu nd amen t al
’
.

ideas of semantic phi losophy : that l an gu age is t h e only o bj ect

of stu dy ; th at t h e t ask Of phil o so phy re du ces t o expl aini n g t h e

meani n g Of t h e lan gu age o f sc ien ce ; an d th at everyt hi n g whi ch

ex ceeds th at t ask is m e ani n gless m et aphy sics M any y ears later , .

C arn ap ,in his fund am ent al w o rk ,confirm ed th at de pen d ence

o f n eo - p o sitivi s ts o n Wittg e n s t e i n an d e x p r e sse d fu ll so lid arity

with his b asic ideas except for tw o : that it is n o t po ssible t o fo rm u

late senten ces ab ou t syn t ax , an d th at it is n o t p o ssible t o form u l ate

sen t ences ab o u t t h e l o gi c O f sci en ce “ .

Witt genstein wrote in his Tractatus :

Em piri cal reality is limited by t h e t ot ality o f O bj ect s .

Th e b o u n dary appears again in t h e t o t ality o f el ement ary pro po si

ti on s .

Th e lim its of my language m ean t h e lim its O f m y w o rld .

9 A . N . Wh iteh e ad & B R u ssell Princip ia M a t h e mat ica,Vo l

. . . 1,Cam
bridge 1925 ,pp . XVI if .

10 Comp are th e remin iscence s of Ph . Frank in h is M odern S c ience

and I ts Ph ilosop hy ,pp . 3 1 if .

11 R . Carnap ,Th e L ogical S yn tax o f Language,pp . 282

—284 .
66 RESEARCH PROBLEMS O F S E MANTICS

Lo gic fills th e w orld : t h e li mi ts of th e world are a so l

it s limits
What we t thi n k ,that w e cann o t thi n k : w e cann ot
cann o

therefo re say what w e cann o t thi n k 12 ”

.

Wittgen stein s po siti o n is in n o w ay u niv o cal I h ave delib

’
.

erat ely b egun with hi s st at em ent s on em piri cal reality as t h e

t o tality o f O bj ects Bu t it is well kn o wn that su ch a st atement

.

“ ”
ac qu i res a d efinit e m ean i n g o nly when wh at is m ean t by an o bj ec t

is explain ed Bu t furth er paragraph s tell u s th at my l an guage

.

'

is t h e lim it o f my world,sin ce w e can say onl y th at whi ch w e can .

thi nk (in paragraph 4 Wittgenstei n says that t h e thou ght is

a m eani n gfu l sen t en ce,an d in paragraph that t h e thou ght
is an applied S ign o f a senten ce,ab o u t whi ch w e h ave th ou ght) .

In o rder t o disperse any d ou bts as t o hi s int erpret ati on o f t h e

enigm ati c st at em en t ab o u t l an gu age an d t h e limi t s o f my w o rld ,

Wittgen stein exposes his View o n solipsism .

Thi s rem ark provides a key t o t h e questi on ,t o what

ext en t so li psi sm is a tru th .

I n fact wh at solipsism means,is qu ite co rrect ,o nly it cann o t

b e sa id,bu t it sh ows it self .

That t h e world is my world ,sh o ws itsel f in t h e fact that t h e

limits o f t h e l an gu age (th e lan gu age whi ch I un derst and) m ean
t h e lim it s O f my wo rld .

Th e w o rld an d li fe are o ne .

I am m y w orld (Th e M i crocosm)

H ere w e see that so lipsi sm stri ctly carri ed ou t co incides
w ith pure reali sm Th e I in soli psi sm shr i n ks t o an exten si o nl ess
.

p o i n t an d th ere rem ai n s t h e reality c o -o rdi n at ed with it .

There is therefore really a sen se in whi ch in ph il o soph y

w e can t alk o f a n o n -p sy ch o l o gi cal I .

‘
Th e I occu rs in ph il o so phy th rou gh t h e fact that t h e world
is m y w orld
’
.

Th e philo soph i cal I is n o t t h e m an ,n ot t h e hu m an b o dy

12 L . Wittgenstein ,Tract at us Logico -

Ph ilosop h icus ,Lo n don 19 33 .
 SEMANTI C PHIL OSOPHY

or th ehum an sou l Ofwhi ch psyc ho l o gy treats,bu t t h e metaphysical

”
su bj ect ,t h e limi t n o t a part o f t h e w o rld 13

I s that n o t a classical illu strati o n o f En gel s st at ement ab o u t

’

th e fate of th ose w h o d are t o treat phil oso phy there

a wor se an d m ore self-ann ihi lati n g phi l o so phy than so lipsism ?

It is b oth am u sin g an d piqu an t t o see an autho r w h o in t h e n ame

o f co m b atin g met aphy si cs an d v agu en ess (Wittgen st ei n say s

in p . that everythi n g that can be expressed can be express

ed c learly) i n tro duces in a v ery O b scu re m an ner cert ai n m et a

physi cal O bj ect s whi ch m o reo ver are n ot elem ents bu t lim its
o f th e w o rld .

On t h e o ther han d ,Wittgenstei n cann o t be den i ed m o ral

cour age : few people in t h e histo ry O f p hil osophy h av e n ot b een

frightened by t h e spectre o f soli psi sm Even B erkeley sou ght

.

refu ge in O bj ective id eali sm .Fo r t o arrive at so lipsi sm m ean s

to reach philo sophi cal sel f- ann ihil ati on ,e speci ally n o w ,in t h e

epo ch o f b rilli an t d evel opm en t in n atu ral sci en ce Tru e ,t h e neo

.

po sitivi st s did n o t repeat Wittgen st ein s thesis (C arn ap w as t h e

’

only one t o speak o f m eth o d o l o gi cal soli psi sm in h is D er logisch e

Aufbau der Welt),bu t th at part o f Witt gen st ein s heritage whi ch

’

they contin u ed to develop w as m ost closely li n ke d wi th so lipsi sm .

In contin ui n g Ru ssell s theory o f elemen t ary pro po siti o n s

’

Wittgenstein arrived at li n guistic solipsism Th e essenti al sense

.

“
of th at solip si sm is fo rm u l at ed in t h e sen t en ce sayin g that the
limits o f my lan guage are th e lim it s o f m y wo rld Th e con clu si ons
”
.

drawn by Wittgen stein from that form u l ati on came t o play

a significan t r Ole in t h e further d evel o pm en t o f neO - p o sitivi sm.

Fi rst o f all,Wittgen stei n assigned t o phi lo sophy t h e t ask

of l o gi cally explaini n g (lo gi cally analysi n g) th ou ght ,whi ch in
“ ”
his eyes is t ant am ou n t t o a criti ci sm O f lan gu age
Th e o bj ec t Of phi lo sophy is t h e lo gic al clarificati o n
of th o u ghts .

Phi l osophy is n o t a t h eo ry bu t an ac tiv ity .

13 Ibid .
68 RESEARCH PR OBLEMS OF S EMANTICS

A phi loso phi cal w ork con si st s

.
essen ti ally o f elucidati on s
.

‘
Th e resu lt o f philo sophy is n ot a num b er o f phil o so phi cal

propo siti o n s ,but t o m ake propositi on s clear

’
.

Phi lo sophy sh ou ld m ake clear an d delimit sharply t h e th ou gh ts

”1
whi ch o therwi se are,as it were,opaque an d blurred 4
He also say s
A ll phi lo sophy is critiqu e o f lan guage (bu t n o t at
‘ ’

all in M au th n er s sen se) Ru ssell s m erit is t o h ave sh o wn th at

’ ’
.

t h e apparen t l o gi cal form o f t h e propo siti o n n eed n o t be its

”
real form 15 .

Next ,Wittgen stein redu ced th at explan ati on t o th e form al

syn t acti cal aspect O f l an gu age ,c o m plet ely di sso ci ati n g it fro m

t h e sem an ti c aspect .

In l o gi cal syn t ax th e mean in g o f a Sign ou ght n ever

t o pl ay a r Ole ; it m u st adm it o f b ein g est abli shed with ou t m en ti on

bein g thereby mad e Of t h e m ean ing o f a Sign ; it ou ght t o presu p

”
o s l t h d s i ti o n O f t h e ex essi on s 16
p e on
y e e cr p p r .

Fi nally,everythin g what tran scen d s tho se limits w as con sid

ered by him t o be u n sen se,an d con sequ en tly a p seu d o - prob
lem .

M o st propositi on s an d qu esti on s, th at have b een

written ab ou t phil o so phi c al m att ers,are n o t fal se,bu t sen seless .

We t ,therefore,an swer qu esti on s o f thi s kin d at all,bu t

cann o

o n ly st at e thei r sen selessness M o st q u e sti on s an d propo siti on s

.

o f t h e phil oso phers resu lt from t h e fact th at w e do n o t u nd er

st an d t h e l o gi c O f o u r lan gu ag e
.

(Th ey are O f t h e sam e kin d as t h e qu esti on whether t h e G o od

is m o re o r less iden ti cal with t h e B eau tifu l ) .

An d so it is n ot t o be w on dered at that t h e deepest pro blem s

”
are really n o pro blem s 17

In t h e conclu si o n o f t he Treat ise Wittgenst ein writes

 S E M A NTIC PHI LOSOPHY 69

There is i n deed th e i nexpressi ble Thi s sho ws itself; .

it is t h e mystical .

Th e right m etho d o f philo sophy w o u ld be thi s To say .

no thi n g except wh at can be said , i e ,t h e propositi o n s o f n atu ral

. .

scien ce ,i e ,som ethin g th at h as no thi n g t o do with phi l o sophy

. .

an d then alw ays,when so m eone el se wi shed t o say so methi n g

m etaphysical , t o d em o n strat e t o h im that h e h ad given n o m eani ng

to certai n sign s in h is pro p o siti on s Thi s m eth o d wou ld be nu .

sati sfyi n g t o t h e o ther h e wo u ld no t h ave th e feeli n g th at w e

were teachin g him philosophy bu t it w ou ld be t h e on ly st rictly
”1
co rrect m eth o d 8 .

S o m u ch for Wittgenstein s philosophy Th e nu mer ou s qu o

’
.

t at ion s given ab o ve co rrespon d t o t h e i mport ance o f his phi

losoph y in t h e developm en t o f neo-positivi sm .

N ow let u s see h ow hi s id eas h ave b een t aken over,adapted

an d devel o ped by n eO- po sitivists I shall confin e myself t o au th or
.

it at iv e illu strati o n s given by w ay o f exam ple ,with o u t d elvi n g

i nt o eru dite d etails” .

In continu in g t h e ideas o f Ru ssell an d Wittgenstein ,neo

po sitivists bro u ght t o a radical fo rmu lati on t h e pri nciple th at

lan guage is t h e sole su bj ect m atter o f philo sophy An d in ex .

plicitly combin in g th at concept Of l an guage with imm anent

(lo gical) em piricism they brou ght sem antic philo sophy to per
fect ion .

What are th e ar um en s
g t in favo u r
i nt erpretati o n o f su c h an

Of neO -
po sitivism ? M ost varied b o th direct an d i n direct .

They can be drawn from w orks O f all represent atives of that

18 Ibid .

19 Ap art from th e remin iscen ces referred to ab ov e th ose of Fran k

an d v on M ises an d th e w ork of Reich en bach ,th e follo w in g b oo ks pertain
“
to th e issu e n ow un der discussion : J JOrgensen Th e Dev elopmen t o f Lo g
. .

”
ical Emp iricism ,in f Un ified S cience,Vo l
I nt erna tional E ncyclop edia o .

2 ,N o 9 ,Univ ersity Of Ch icago Press,195 1; V Kraft,D er Wiener Kreis

. . .

D er Ursp rung des N eop osit ivismus,Vienna 195 0; J R Weinberg,An Exam . .

inatian of Logical Posit ivism ,Lon don 19 36 .

70 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

tren d S canty exem plificat io n is n ecessitat ed o nly by t h e co n sid

.

crati on explai ned ab o ve .

Even in t h e early peri o d o f t h e V i en n a Ci rcle,C a m ap fo rm u

lat ed ,in D er logisch e Aufbau der Welt ,t h e t h eo ry o f cons t it u tion
an d t h e theo ry o f m eth odo logical so lip s ism B asi n g hi mself o n
.

Ru ssell s the o ry Of at o mic p ropo siti ons an d hi s the ory O f t h e

’

wo rld as a lo gi cal con stru cti on co nsi stin g o f m any aspects,an d

o n Wittgen st ei n s radi c al fo rm u l ati on o f R u ssell s t h eo ry ,C a rn ap
’ ’

in fact t o o k t h e stan d o f a specific lin gu istic so lipsi sm Th e the o ry .

o f c on stitu ti o n whi ch lay at t h e fo un d ati o n o f C arn ap s id eas

’

at th at tim e,aflE irms th at c ompo un d id eas are d e du cib le fro m

b asi c ideas Th e latter (an d in thi s poi n t t h e lo gi cal an d li n gu isti c
.

c o n c epti on is j o i ne d by i mm an en t em pi ri ci sm ) are id en ti ca l
“ “
with th at whi ch is given C arn ap p o stu lates a red ucti on o f
‘ ‘
reality t o th at whi c h is giv en (das Gegebene) ,an d wh at h as
’ ’

been postulated ,an d partly carri ed ou t by Av enariu s,M ach ,

Poi ncar é ,Kiilpe,and ab o ve all Ziehen an d D riesch 2
”
0 Carn a
p .

m ain tains that his co ncepti on is neu t ral in t h e m at eri alism

”
versu s idealism c on tro versy , that that cont ro v ersy is pu rely
li n gu i stic in n atu re an d depen d s o n th e cho i ce O f fu n d am en tal
c on cept s,th at is,on t h e ch o i ce o f lan g uage ; b u t at t h e sam e

ti m e h e u rges t h e followi n g :
Th e the ory O f c on stitu ti on an d su bj ectiv e idealism agree
th at all statemen t s ab o u t t h e O bj ects o f co gniti on can in p ri n
ciple be t ran sfo rm ed i n t o st at em en t s ab ou t st ru ct u ral relati o n

shi ps Th e View that wh ich is given ,is m y experien ce ,is comm on

t o s o li psi sm an d t h e theo ry o f c o n stitu ti o n Th e the o ri es o f c o n sti
.

t u t ion an d tran scen den tal id eali sm ag ree in d efen din g t h e vi ew

that all t h e O bj ects O f co gniti o n are co n stru cted (in t h e id eali st

‘
langu age : c reated in that is,t h e con stitu ted O bj ect s
are an O bj ect o f co n cept ual c o gniti on o n ly a s l o gi c al fo rm s b u i lt

in a defin ite m ann er In t h e last an aly si s,t h e sam e appli e s t o t h e

.

b asi c elem en ts O f t h e c o n stitu ti o n sy st em 21

”
.

20 R . Carn ap ,D er logisch e A ufbau der Welt ,Berlin 19 28 ,p . 3 .

21 I b id .
,p 2
49
. .
72 R ESEARCH PROBLEMS O F SEMA NTICS

qu otati on s since t h e m o st characteri sti c fo rm u lati on s h ave al

ready b een cited ab o v e Th ese id eas h av e b een repeated h u nd red s
.

o f ti m es in n eO - p o sitivi st li teratu re,as h as also th e related con

cep t th at what in phi lo sophy cann o t b e fo rmu lat ed in t h e lan

guage o f lo gical syn tax ,is m ere m etaphy si cs,an d co n seq uen tly
a p seu d o - pro blem ,an d un sense .

Th e latter Vi ew w as st ressed I n particu lar by C am ap He .

divided all theoreti cal pro blem s i n to o bject ive an d logical Th e .

fo rm er pertain t o t h e O bj ects o f t h e field u n d er i n v estigati o n

an d are t h e exclu sive d o m ain o f em pi ri cal di sci plin es T h e latt er .

pertain t o th e fo rm o f expressi on s (th ei r syn tax) an d are t h e

proper con ten t o f sci en tifi c ph ilo so phy Th e o bj ective pro blem s
.

traditi onally co vered by phil oso phy either are pseu d o -o bj ective
pro blem s, an d as su ch are t ran slat able i n t o t h e lan gu age o f syn t ax ,

o r are j u st p seu d o - prob lem s,th at is a m etaphy sical un sen se

(Carn ap also worked ou t a complete theo ry o f t h e tran slatabil ity
o f sen t ence s fro m a m at eri al i n t o a fo rm al m o d e,i e,a th eo ry
'

. .

which m akes it possible t o u se sent ences ab ou t sen tences in o rd er

t o e li mi n ate sen tences ab ou t thin gs ,an d whi ch co n sequ en tly

pro v okes t h e i m pressi on that lan gu age,in fact ,is t h e o nly O bj ect
o f hu m an stu dy) .

“
Th e m ateri al m o de o f speech is a tran spo sed m o de o f speech .

In u si n g it ,in o rd er t o say somethin g ab ou t a word (or a senten c e)

w e say i n stead so m ethi n g parallel ab ou t t h e o bj ect d esign at ed

respectiv ely) 2
”
by t h e word (o r t h e fact describ ed by t h e sen t en ce, 3 .

N o w on d er,th en ,that C am ap d rew t h e fol lo win g c o n clu si o n

with respect t o phi lo sophy :
Translatability in to th e form al m ode
f sp eech constitu tes
o

th e touchs tone for all p h ilosop h ical sen tences ,o r m o re gen erally ,

for all sent en ces which do n ot b elo n g t o th e lan gu age o f an y

o n e Of t h e em pi ri cal sc ien ces 2
” 4
.

Everythin g else is m eani n gl ess .

23 R Carnap ,Th e L ogical S nt ax

.
y o f Lang uage ,p . 309 .

24 Ibid ,p 3 13
. . .
 SE M ANTIC PHI LOSOPHY 73

In th e field of metap hysics

(in clu din g t h e philo so phy o f
l
v a ue an d t h e n orm ative sc i en ce) l o gi cal an aly si s lead s t o a neg

ative resu lt ,n am ely th at th e alleged theorems in that field a re

evo id of m ean ing 2

”
comp letel d 5
y
It will be clearly seen h ow th e c i rcle c l o ses : w e began with

t h e thesi s th at l an gu age is t h e o n ly su bj ect m atter o f stu dy in

th e fi eld o f phil o sophy ,an d w e en d with t h e thesi s th at every

thin g which tran scen d s that sco pe o f research is S imply mean in g

less Th e n egative m eth o d h as thu s confirmed th e asserti on
.

that n oth in g beyond l an gu age c an be stu died in phi lo sophy .

I do n ot en gage here in th e apprai sal an d refu tati on o f ideal

ist ic theses,S in ce it is not w orth whi le repeatin g trivi al st atem en t s
resu lti n g o bvi ou sly fro m t h e O ppo siti on b etween m ateri ali sm

an d id eali sm (an d argu m en t s pert ain i n g t o c ertain select ed is

sues will be fo u n d in t h e secon d part o f thi s b oo k) I d elib erately

.

confine m ysel f t o st ati n g certain fac ts Th e essen ti al fact bears o u t

.

th e id eali stic ch aracter o f t h e phil o sophy wh i ch redu ce s th e O bj ect

of co gn iti on t o i nn er experi en ce in t h e case Of empi ri cal sci en ces

(th e theo ry Of pro toc ol sen tences ; th e m eani n gfu lness O f state
m en ts is t o d epen d on their redu cibility t o su ch sen ten ces) ,
an d t o t h e an aly si s o f th e l an gu age o f th o se statem en t s in t h e

case o f p hil o sophy It is o n t h e establi shm en t O f th at fact th at

.

t h e apprai sal o f t h e sc ien tifi c si gni fican ce O f sem an tic ph il o sophy

depen ds .

It is O bvi ous th at t h e dem o nstrati on of t h e id eali sti c char

acter o f a cert ain vi ew d o es n o t in t h e l east di squ alify that Vi ew

in th e eyes o f an idealist On t h e contrary ,it is at th at p o int that

.

t h e c o n fli ct b etween t h e m at eri ali st an d t h e ideali st b egin s Bu t

.

when it co m es t o a situ ati on in which ackn o wledgm en t is denied

t o id eali st vi ews,su ch a st at em ent c onclu d es t h e i n iti al st age

o f t h e co nfli ct S u c h
.
precisely is t h e situ ati o n in t h e case o f sem an
t ic phi lo so phy ,an d in parti cu lar in t h e case O f n eO -po sitivi sm

(lo gical empiri ci sm ) That tren d ,like M achism befo re it ,pro

.

25 R . Carnap , Uberw indu n g der M etaph ysik durch lo gisch e An alyse

”
der S prach e, in Erkenntnis ,193 1,V ol 1,p 2
. 20 . .
 RESEARCH PROBLEM S OF S EMA NTICS

l im s
c a it s t li ty in t h e confli ct b etween m ateri alism an d ideal
neu ra

ism ,an d attem pts t o dem o nstrat e it s alleg ed sci en tific su peri o r
ity by writi n g o ff that co n flict as a pseu d o -pro blem an d m eta
phy si c al u nsen se N o w these cl aim s are co m plet ely groun dl ess
. .

S O -calle d sem antic phil osophy ,whi le an ath em atizi n g m et aphysi cs

whi ch is t o i n clu de t h e wh ole O f classi cal philo so phi cal problem s,
itsel f si n ks int o traditi o n al m etaphysics,an d o f a very m edi o cre
so rt at th at Why m ake w ry fac es at B erkeley s su bj ective ideali sm
’
.

(Russell w as m u ch m o re consisten t in that respect Si n ce h e w as

n o t ash am ed O f t h e rel ati o nshi p) ,whi le c opyi n g it s id e as v ia

t h e c o n cept O f pro t o co l sent en ces? Why thu n der agai n st m et a

physi cs,when o ne s ow n phil o so phical attitu de is b ased o n t h e

’

co m pletely m et aphysi cal (in t h e t raditi o n al sen se O f t h e w ord)

thesi s th at l an gu age is t h e o nly O bj ect O f phil o so phi cal an aly si s?

N O le ss m et aphy si cal than t h e thesi s ab ou t t h e ex clu sive exi stence
o f t h e p ro du ct s o f t h e in divid u al min d is t h e th esi s ab o u t t h e

exclu sive e xi stence o f li n gu i sti c en titi es whi ch are pro du ct s o f

t h e i n dividu al m i n d A n d su c h is t h e the si s t o whi ch ,in t h e last

.

an alysi s ,i mm an en t em piri c i sm l ead s,c o m bi ned with a specifi c

philo sophy o f l an gu age an d with agn osti ci sm Li n gui sti c so li psi sm

.

is as m et aphy si cal as all o ther vari ati on s o f soli p si sm .

AS i n dicated ab o v e,t h e dem on strati on Of t h e ideali sti c char

'

acter o f t h e b asi c these s O f sem an ti c phi lo so p hy d oes n o t m e an

th at t h e h o ld ers O f su ch theses will be c o nvi n ced o f error I do .

n ot thi n k th at that co u ld b e achi eved a t o nce,e ven sh o u ld w e

bri n g i n t o pl ay t h e en tire arsen al o f m at eri ali stic argu m ent ati on

.

These m atters are m u ch t o o co m pli cated an d i n clu d e t o o m an y

elem en ts o f v ari o u s kin d s t o allo w t h e c o n t r o versy t o b e so lved

so easily an d S i m ply Bu t t h e refu t ati on o f t h e m yt h ab ou t th e

.

an ti -m et aphy si c al c h aract e r o f sem an ti c phi lo so phy an d t h e

brin gi n g t o light O f it s open ly m etaphy si cal an d id eali stic as
su m pt ion s is m u ch e asi er an d at t h e sam e ti m e d eci si v e in o u r

case . Th e te stim ony O f su ch a thi n k er as B ertran d R u ssell wi ll

be fo r u s Of excepti on al i m p ort ance in th at re sp ect Th e sam e
.
.

reaso n s whic h u rge d m e t o ch o o se R u ssell s w o rd s as t h e t ext fo r

’
 S EMANTI C PHI LOSOPHY 75

this chapter,pro m pt my qu o tin g h im at the en d o f t h e p re sen t

sec ti o n .

In his An I nquiry in to M ean ing an d Truth Ru ssell gave a de

tailed analy si s Of th e n eO -po sitivi st theory o f pro to co l sen ten ces .

He appra se i d n egatively b o th t h e empi ri ci st an d t h e lin gu i stic

aspect o f th at theory ,an d wro t e in co n clu si o n ,in t h e ch apt er

en titled B asi c Propositi on s

“ ‘
When I say t h e su n is shin in g ,I do n ot m ean that thi s ’

is o n e Of a nu m ber o f sen tences b etween whi ch there is n o c on

t radiction ; I m ean som ethi n g whi ch is n o t v erb al ,an d fo r t h e
‘ ‘
sake o f whi ch su c h w o rd s as su n an d shin in g were i n ven ted
’ ’
.

Th e pu rp ose O f wo rds,tho u gh phi lo sophers seem t o fo rget thi s

simple fact , is t o d eal with m atters o ther th an word s I f I go in t o .

a re st au ran t and o rder m y din ner,I do n o t wan t m y w o rd s t o

fit i n t o a system with o ther wo rd s,bu t t o brin g ab ou t t h e pres

ence o f foo d I c ou ld h av e.

m an aged witho u t wo rd s,by takin g

what I wan t , bu t thi s w ou ld h ave b een less conven ient Th e v er .

balist theories O f som e m o dern philosophers fo rget t h e hom ely

practical purp o ses o f everyday w o rd s,an d lo se them selve s in
n eO -Pl at on ic m ysti ci sm I S eem t o hear them sayi n g
‘
a n eO - . in
t h e beginnin g w as t h e W o rd ,
‘
n o t in t h e b eginn in g w as wh at t h e
’

w o rd m ean s I t is remarkable that th is re vers io n to anc ien t me ta

’
.

phys ics shou ld ha ve o ccurred in the a t temp t to be u ltra-emp ir

ical 2
”
6

I have no thin g to add to thi s appra sa i l .

t:
a

We have so far been t akin g for grant ed that there exi sts a lan
gu age whi ch w e an aly se Bu t t h e pro blem o fth e origin Of that lan
.

gu age an d O f it s rel ati on t o reali ty h as b een rather left in t h e

d ark Y et precisely in t h e sy stem o f sem an tic phi losophy that
.

pro blem is o f ext rem e i m po rt an ce Th e lac k o f a clear an swer .

26 B R u ssell,An I nqu iry

. int o M ean ing and Tru th ,L on don 195 1,pp .

148—149 (italics A .
76 RESEARCH PROBLEMS O F S EMANTICS

to that qu esti on always leaves roo m for a reali sti c i nterpretati on

which might be as fo llows : l an gu age o u ght t o be analysed becau se
through that an aly si s w e may learn som ethi n g ab o u t actu al real

ity that is m apped by that lan gu age I have said explicitly that
.

th e i n terpretati on m igh t be su ch h ad w e n ot d o tted t h e i s an d

’

cro ssed t h e i s in expl ai nin g t h e o rigin O f l an gu age an d it s po s

’

sible co nnecti on s with reality in t h e li ght O f sem anti c phil o so phy .

I therefore hasten t o add that all t h e i S h ave b een d o tted an d all

’

t h e t s cro sse d by t h e fo u n ders O f that phi l o so phy in a m anner

’

that frees us from all d ou bts M ore over,only t h e i ntro ducti on

.

o f that i ssu e enables u s fu lly t o u n derst an d th e n at ure o f sem an ti c

phil o sophy For wh oever procl ai m s n o t on ly that lan gu age is

.

th e o n ly O bj ect o f phi lo sophical an alysi s,bu t also that that lan gu age
is cho sen o r created by u s in an arbitrary manner ,that it is
a resu lt o f an arbit rary con ven tion with t h e c han ge o f whi ch t h e

pictu re Of th e on ly reality that is accessible t o u s is also ch an ged ,

in fact proclaim s a radical vari ati on Of ideali stic phi losophy .

As w e sh all see,su ch reaso ni n g leads di rectly t o epi stem o l o gical

so lipsi sm (st atin g th at ev ery in divid u al c an b ecom e aware o n ly

o f h is ow n id eas),wh i ch S im ply b ord ers on on t o l o gi cal so li p

S ism .

2. LAN G UA GE A S A PR O D U CT O F A R BI TR AR Y CO N VE N TI O N

One of t h e fu n d ament al ti on s o f seman tic phil osophy

asser

is th at lan gu age is a pro du ct Of arbitrary conv en ti on and that ,

con sequ en tly ,when ch o osi n g t hi s o r th at l an guage , w e m ay ,

arbitrarily chan ge ou r i m age o f t h e w o rld Thi s sou nd s stran ge

.

(t o say t h e least) ,especi ally when accom pan ied by its se quel ,
fo rm u lated by S O -calle d radical con venti on ali sm an d affir min g .

that tho se l an gu ages,fo rm ed in an arbitrary m ann er,are cl o sed

with respect t o o ne an other and m u tu ally u n tran slatable Th e .

resu lti n g co nclu si o n is n o t o nly th at w e can ch an g e ou r i mage

an d n o t o nly th at there are difl eren t i m ages of t h e

'

of t h e w o rld ,
 S E M A NTIC PHILOSOPHY

world ,bu t also that there can be di fferen t an d clo sed i m ages
o f th e w o rld b etween whi c h there is n o c onn ecti o n Wh at ev er .

B efo re proceedin g t o a philo sophi cal appraisal o f su ch af

firmation s, let u s ex ami ne wh at is their origin ,wh at are t h e sou rces
o f th at st ran ge form o f li n gu i sti c id eali sm
. Fo r th e clai m
that what is concerned here,is a c on sci ou s cam o u flage o f ideali sm ,
is n aive an d t rivi al ,an d d o es n ot bear in vestigati on With ou t
.

havin g recou rse t o other argumen t s,it is refu ted by what w e

kn o w ab ou t t h e au thors o f tho se vi ews .

A s h as b een said ab o ve,t h e au th o rs o f th o se concepti on s

were m o stly (especi ally as far as regard s t h e n eo-po sitivi sts)
people co nnected with t h e exact sc iences,people fo r wh o m th e
theory O f d edu cti on w as t h e symb ol o f perfecti on An d it is very
.

well kn own wha t ,in t h e theory o f dedu cti o n ,is m ean t by t o “

” “ ”
build a l an guage or t o choo se a lan gu age ; it is well kn o wn
what is m ean t by th e statemen t that differen t lan gu ages can exi st
an d th at th e ch o i ce Of l an gu age is d eci siv e for perspectives o f
”
t h e world in t h e sen se o f t h e formu l ati o n an d reso lu ti o n o f
cert ai n pro bl e m s It is also well kn own what is m ean t by t h e
.

“ ” “ ”
st at em en t th at th ere are rich er an d poorer lan gu ag es,etc .

Was th e temptati on t o treat n atural lan gu ages an d their pro b

lem s in a sim i lar w ay no t du e t o th e th eo ry o f d edu cti on ? I n
my opin i o n su ch w as th e case preci sely .

M oreover,t h e t emptati on t o con sid er n atu ral lan gu age s

t o be arbitrary pro du ct s o f con ven ti o n mi ght al so h av e h ad o ther
“ ”
sources . There exi st lan gu ages whi ch in fact are pro du ct s
of m o re o r less arbit rary c o n ven ti on ,su c h as certai n sign al co d es
“ ”
(th e langu age of flags u sed by shi ps),ci phers,t h e gesture
“ ”
lan guage of deaf-mu tes,th e l o vers lan gu age o f flowers ,etc
’
.

If w e di sregard t h e su btle di stincti o n b etween lan gu age an d

Speech , w e can d efine lan gu age as a sy stem O f sign s u sed in hu m an
c o mm un i cati on I n thi s sen se,
. each o f t h e ex am ples qu o t ed ab o ve
“ ”
rep resen t s a lan g uage which is a p ro du c t Of an arbitrary co n
v en t io n
. D o es th at n o t i n crea se t h e t em pt ati on t o t reat t h e nat
 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OE S EM A Nr iC S

u ral lan gu age s in a si m ilar w ay,t h e m o re so i t

s n ce n a u ra l lan
gu ages h ave m u c h in c omm on with artifi ci al ones?
It is n o t m y i n tenti o n t o o ffer here an an aly si s o f th e an alo gies
an d di f ference s b etween natu ral an d artifici al l an gu ages S u ch .

an an alysi s w o u ld i m ply an i nvesti gati on O f t h e relati on shi p

between langu age o n t h e o n e han d an d th ou ght an d reality o n

t h e o ther Thi s is an i m m en se pro blem in it self,so m e aspect s
.

o f whi ch wi ll be de alt with in t h e seco n d p art O f thi s b o o k There .

is,h owev er,on e po i n t t o whi ch I m u st d raw att en ti on here and

n o w , si nc e in m y o pi n i o n it p u t s a spo t - light o n t h e enti re
i ssue .

I n all t h e c om pari son s and an al o gie s b etween art ifici al an d

n atu ral l an g u ages ,o ne e ssen ti al p o i n t m u st n o t b e l o st sight o f:

artifici al lan gu ages are alway s b u ilt o n t h e b asi s o f n atu ral o n es,

a n d it is on ly o n su c h a b asi s th at they are p o ssibl e an d c o m

preh en sible Thi s also re fers t o t h ei r arb it rarily c o n ven ti on a l

.

n ature : t h e c o n ven ti on s u se d in b u i ldi n g t h e vari o u s l an guages

(th e lan gu ages alike o f d edu ctive theo ries,O f co d es,ciphers,etc ) .

are b ased o n exis t ing n atu ral l an gu ages an d w ou ld n o t b e p o ssib le

witho u t them This is why ,fo r all t h e an alo gies an d si milarities

.

between t h e vari o u s system s o f si gn s u sed in hu m an c omm un i

cati o n ,t h e att em pt t o ext en d t o n atu ral l an gu ages t h e conclu

si on s d rawn fro m t h e an aly si s O f artifici al l an guage s is b asi cally

in erro r, preci sely b ecau se n atu ral l an gu ages can perfectly

well exi st with ou t artifici al ones,where as t h e l atter mu st be
b ased on t h e fo rm er an d as such shi ne with reflected li ght only .

We n eed n o t ,therefo re,stu dy t h e relati on t o reality o f e g ,th e . .

lan gu age o f dedu ctiv e theo ries o r t h e l an gu age o f t h e flag c o de

(alth ou gh they t o o refer t o th e real wo rld) b ecau se these lan gu ages

are so me h o w or o ther t ran sl ated i n to n atu ral lan gu ages We .

m ay ag ree th at in th o se cases w e h ave t o do with p ro duct s o f

c o n v en ti o n s an d leave it at th at We m ay n o t ,h o w ev er,
. conclu d e

that in t h e case O f t h e n atu ral lan guages also w e may abstract

from th e i ssu e o f their relati o n t o th o u gh t an d reali ty S u ch .

a c onclu si on , h o wever, is su ggested by n eo - p o sitivi st s (Witt

 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OF S EM A NTICS

m u st t t h is m ethod s clearly,an d give syn tactical ru les instead

s a e

Of phil osophi cal argum en t s 2

”
9 .

That pri nciple o f arbitrarily selectin g one s l an gu age (with ’

all t h e con sequ ences fo r t h e creat ion by th e su bj ect o f his o w n

im age of t h e wo rld t h e perspective o f t h e w o rld) w as b ro u ght

t o it s m o st sweepi n g co nclu si on in Ajdu kiew icz s radi cal co n
’

v en t ionalism His co n c ep ti o n is related t o th at held by n eo -

.
po si
t iv ist s,bu t withou t thei r the o ry O f pro to co l sentence s,an d car
ri es t h e these s o f sem an ti c phi l o sophy t o t h e ext rem e I mean .

here t h e theory o f clo sed an d u n tran slat able l an guages,cho sen

in an arbitrary m ann er on t h e st ren gth o f a con ven ti o n I n .

radi cal co n ven ti o nali sm ,su ch a theo ry t ran sfo rm s t h e su bj ect

int o a m on ad withou t win d o ws,whi ch n ot only is in a sense

t h e m aker o f reality ,but also is in accessible t o any argum en t
b ey ond t h e scope of its o wn lan gu age .

AS Ajdu kiew icz says :

“
Th e fu n damen t al thesis o f o rdin ary c o n ven ti on ali sm , rep
resent ed fo r i n st an ce by Po in care,st at es th at there are pro bl em s

whi ch cann o t be so lved by appeal t o experi ence un less one i ntro

duce s a certain conven ti on ,since on ly su ch a conventi on ,t o
gether with experim ental d at a,m akes it possible t o solve t h e
pro blem in qu esti on Th e j u dgem en t s which co m bin e t o m ake u p
.

suc h a solu ti on are thu s n o t forced o n u s by em pi ri cal d at a

al on e,b u t thei r ad opti on d epen ds partly on ou r reco gni ti on ,

si nce t h e said con v en ti on whi ch co - determi nes t h e so lu ti on o f

t h e pro blem can be arbit rarily ch an ged by u s S O that as a re su lt

w e o btai n di f feren t j u dg emen t s .

“
I n t h e presen t paper it is m y i n ten ti o n t o m ake that thesi s
o f o rdi n ary con ven ti on ali sm m o re g eneral an d m o re radi cal .

Name ly ,w e want t o formu l ate an d t o pro ve t h e the orem that

n o t o nly som e , bu t all th e judgemen ts wh ich w e accep t and wh ich
co mbine t o m ake up o ur image f
o th e w orld are no t un ivo ca lly

de term in ed by emp ir ical data ,bu t dep end on t h e ch o ice of th e

29 R . Carnap ,The Logical S ynt ax f L anguage ,p

o . 52; see also pp . XV
and 2
9 .
82 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OF S EM A NTICS

H ence thei r ten den cy t o t ran sform phi lo sophy after t h e patte rn
o f t h e ex act sci ences, h ence,t o o ,thei r liki n g fo r phy si cs an d it s
lan gu age,a liki n g th at o ft en t o o k a v u lgarized form o f beha v
tour ism34 (cf Carn ap s Vi ew o n psych olo gy ,o r Neu rath s vi ew s
’ ’
.

o n soci o l o gy as a b ranch o f phy si c s) There is n o d o u bt th at p hy s .

icali sm w as a m anifest ati on Of th e yearn in g s Of n atu rali st s .

Bu t thi s cann o t chan ge t h e o bvi ou s and i rrefu tabl e fact that t h e

very id ea Of phy si cali sm is con ven ti on alist from it s i n cepti o n ,
that it w as b o rn from t h e con cept of lan gu age as an arbitrary
c o n v en ti o n ,an d th at it is c o n ceived as a co n v en i en t w ay o f m aki n g

sci en c e u ni fi ed an d n o t as a con ce ssi on t o so m e fo rm o f

epi st em o l o gi cal re ali sm .

C on ven ti on al i sm can clearly b e fou n d in m an y st atem en t s

o f t h e foun ders O f ph y si cali sm M y pro o f o f th at st atem ent w ill.

be confin ed t o a mini m u m o f ex am ples .

34 For in stan ce ,in hi s ar ticle Psych o lo gie in ph ysikali sch er S pr ach e

C am ap S ays th at “
Th e th esis w ill b e explain ed an d su bs an t tiated belo w ,
st atin g th at e very t heore m of p sycho logy can be form ulat e d in th e language
of p hysics t hat all th e t h eo rems of p sy cho logy sp eak of p hysica l e vents ,

n amely of a p hys ical beh avi our of m an and o th er an ima ls . This is a partial
th esis o f th e t
gen eral h esis ofp hysicalism h a th e language t t fp hysics
o is a uni

versal language,i . e a l an gu age into w h ich ev er y th eorem can be tran sla

”
t ed .

In an o th er of h is ar ticles D ie p h ys ikalisch e S prach e als U n iv ersal

S prach e der Wissen sch aft ) ”
Carnap gen eralized h is th esis : O u r formul ation
“

Of th e problem h as Often been calle d p os itiv ist

‘ ’
: S h o u ld an y o ne be w illin g
m igh t also call it
‘
m aterialist Objectio n s may be raised
’
t o d o so ,h e . NO
again st su ch a term ,if o ne does no t lo se sigh t o f th e differencebetw een early
m aterialism an d m eth o do lo gical materiali sm as a p u rifie d form O f th e fo rmer
”
.

Bu t som ew h at earlier h e explain s t h e m e anin g o f h is m eth o do lo gical

“

”
m aterialism in a clearly co n v en tio n ali st spirit : I n an an alo go us m an ner
“

o n e m ay define t h e th esis o n th e un iv ersal ch aract er O f t h e lan gu age o f ph ysics

as meth o do lo gical m aterialism Th e app o sitio n m et h o do lo gical emph asizes

‘ ’ ‘ ’
.

t h at w e h av e h ere t o d o w ith th eses w h ich exclu siv e ly re fe r t o a l o gical p os

sibility O f perfo rm in g c ertain lin gu istic tra n sform at io ns an d O f ded ucin g

deriv ativ e t h eses , an d n o t to so me re ality o r n on -reality ( existence o r

‘ ’ ‘ ’ ‘ ’

no n -existen ce ) giv e n ,w h at is psych ic ,w h at is ph ysical

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
o f w h at is
’ ’ ’
84 R ESEARCH PROBLEMS O F S EM A NTICS

theses of that i
sc en ce t o c o nsi st ? In t h e coh er en ce Of it s sen encest
as bet ween themselves .

“
S cience as a s s em
y t Of s a em en s
t t t is ways
al an O bj ect Of

di scu ssi on S tatemen ts are to be comp ared with s tatemen ts,and

.

‘ ‘
experi ence ,or with t h e w orld ,or with som ethi n g
’ ’

n ot with

else A ll th at m eani n gless doubling b el o n gs t o m ore o r less su btle

.

m etaphysics an d as su ch m u st be rej ected Every new st atem ent .

is t o b e confron ted with exi stin g ones,already brou ght t o a st ate

o f h arm o ny b etween th emselves A s ta tem en t w ill be cons idered .

”
corr ec t if it can be join ed to th em 37 .

In th elight o f t h e pri n ci ple o f t oleranc e,radi c al

con v enti o n

ali sm an d physi cali sm ,t h e co nven ti on ali st ch aracter o f so

c alle d sem an ti c phil osophy st an d s b ey o n d all d ou bt P hilo so ph .

i cal analy sis is co nfin ed t o t h e analysi s o f l an guage,and l angu age

is ch o sen o n t h e stren gth of arbitrary con ven ti o n these are
it s m ain theses AS I h ave in dicated al ready ,I do n ot i nten d
.

t o di scu ss th o se these s h ere S in ce that w o u ld ab o ve all re qu i re

t h e so lu ti on o f t h e pro blem Of t h e rel ati on : l an gu age-thi nkin g

reality It serves o u r pu rpose here t o d em o nstrate t h e ideali stic

.

c haract er o f sem anti c phi lo sophy , which is in n o wise an ti-meta

phy sical Every o bj ective reader m u st admit th at thi s h as b een
.

d on e .

A w ord by w ay o f co nclusi o n M y sh arp opp ositi on t o th e .

c o nven ti onali st thesi s o n t h e arbit rary ch aracter Of natu ral lan

guages,treated in ab stracti o n from reality an d fro m thin ki n g

th at reflect s that reality ,d oes n ot in t h e least m ean that I n egate
all t h e fo rm u l ati on s O f t h e id ea o f t h e ac t ive r é le o f lan gu age

in th e pro cess o f co gni ti on , t o be foun d in th ose theses (especi ally

in t h e case o f K Ajdu kiew icz) C o m parative lin gu istic and anthr o
. .

p olo gical stu dies (S apir, Wh o rf, an d others) leave n o d ou bt

in th at respect ,and a m o d erat e fo rm ulati on o f that id ea ev o kes
n o phil o so phi cal re serv ati o n s Bu t these are di fferen t matters,
.

t o b e di scu ssed agai n in t h e secon d part o f thi s b o o k (Chapter

IV .

37 N eurath ,Op . cit .

,p 403
. .
 S EM A NTI C PHILOSOPH Y

A few m ore rem ar ks,as a po stscri pt o n t h e presen t d evelop

ment Of Sem anti c phil o so phy .

On e o f t h e weak p o in ts t o thi s day in M arxi st criticism is

th e n eglect O f an aly sis O f ch an ges an d tran sfo rm ati o n s O f t h e
opin i o n s u n d er di scu ssi o n I f su ch n eo - po sitivi sts as C arn ap or
“

Ayer at o ne tim e expou n de d cert ain views

~
e g ,t h e theo ry
. .

Of pro t o co l sen ten ces o r t h e red u cibility o f ph ilo sophy t o t h e

“

o s f
l gical ynt ax o l n gu gea a 4 su ch vi ew s are co n si dered as pet ri

h ed opin i o n s either O f all neO-positivi sts o r o f so m e o f them An d.

'

yet people are free t o m o di fy thei r vi ew s an d willin gly m ake

use o f th at right A s a resu lt it O ften h appen s th at w e criti cize
.

t h e one- time views o f Carnap or Ayer,but do n o t kn o w their

t-da O in
p res en y p i on s .

It is O bvi ou s that a criti c m ay t ake i n t o c on siderati on an d

an aly se a cert ai n peri o d o r st age in t h e d evel o pm en t O f a giv

en d o ctri n e o f theo ry S crip ta manen t,an d hence even th o se

'

t ren ds an d vi ew s whi ch have l on g sin ce b een ab an d on ed ret ain

their hi sto ri cal significance Th e lo gical em pir i ci sm O f th e V i en na
.

Circle is an O bj ective ideol o gi cal phen o m en on t o be dealt with

by every one w h o stu di es n eO -positivi sm ,n otwithstan din g th at ,
as far as I kn ow ,n o ne o f t he fo rm er expou n d ers o f t h e the ory
'

of pro t o c ol sen t ences (al re ady m u ch di f ferenti ated at that tim e)

ho ld s it t o-day,at least in its o riginal form Th e researcher w h o
.

investigates a phen omenon that b el on gs t o t h e past is un der

oblig ati o n t o p o i nt o u t th at h e is i n t ereste d o n ly in a definite

stage in t h e d evel o pm en t o f t h e given the o ry ,an d n o t in th at

theory in gen eral It is al so desirable,in su ch a connecti o n ,t o

.

men ti o n what w as t h e fu rther evo lu ti on o f th e theory in qu esti o n .

Thi s is j u st what I i nt en d t o do n ow .

In t h e case o f sem an ti c ph il osophy I sh ould ,in a m ost general

w ay,describ e t h e chan ge s as a tran siti on fro m su bj ectivi sm t o
more reali st view s .
 RESEAR CH PROBLEMS OP SEMANTICS

A t i
cer a ndu ality an d vaci ll ati o n w as inh eren t in th e theory
o f phy si cali sm ,alth o u gh C arn ap s phi lo so ph i cal po siti o n in t h e
’

peri o d Of D er logisch e Aufbau der Welt o r Of hi s lat er w ork D ie

logisch e Syntax der Sp rach e w as qu ite u ni v oc al It w as a p o siti on .

typical o f sem antic philosophy ,as I have described it ab o ve .

Bu t if w e com pare it with C arn ap s views in t h e peri o d o f Tes t

’

abilit
y and M ean ing,an d even m ore so t h e peri o d o f I ntroduction
to S eman tics o r E mp iricism , S em an t ics and On tology,then ,while
n o tici n g all t h e S imilariti es an d t h e con ti nu ity o f cert ain c o n cepts

o f sem anti c phi lo sophy , w e sh all n o t fail t o see th at his po siti o n

h as u n derg o ne a considerable m o dificati on .

Th e same appli es t o t h e En gli sh expo u n der o f neo -posi

tiv ism ,A J A yer,if w e compare hi s early wo rks,
. . su c h as L an

guage ,Tru th and L ogic ( 19 36) an d Th e Fo un dat ions f Emp irical

o

Kno wledge ( 1940 ) with Th e Problem of Knowledge

Amon g t h e many ch anges t akin g pl ace in th e views o f t h e
exp o u n d ers Of sem an ti c phil osophy ,w e are here i nt erest ed ab o ve
all in t h e han ges connected with t h e concept of lan gu age and
c

its an alysi s Ext ernally ,this is m an ifest ed as a transiti on from

.

an ex clu sive reco gniti o n o f l o gical synt ax t o t h e reco gniti o n

o f sem anti cs sensu stric to as well Th e cau ses o f th at process

.

were explained in t h e precedin g chapter From t h e philosoph ical .

po in t of vi ew that transiti on m eans t h e intro du cti on oft h e problem

o f t h e rel ati on O f expressi on s t o t h e objects d e n o t ed by them

and therefore t o t h e pro bl em o f mean ing I n spite o f lack o f co n .

sist en cy in t h e ad o pti on o f t h e cl assi cal definiti on o f t ru th an d t h e

point of view o f sem anti cs sensu s tric to,t h e pro blem Of an objec
t ive c o u nt erpart O f lan gu age h as n evertheless penetrated sem anti c

phi l o sophy O f co urse,t h e issu e can be m ade O b scure and t an gled

.

if o ne d oes n ot t ake a consistently realist ,th at is m at eri ali sti c,

st an d in epi st em o l o gy Thi s is preci sely t h e case o f th o se sem an
.

t icist s Bu t t h e m ost i m port ant poi n t is that these i ssu es have

.

en t ered t h e field o f vi si o n o f sem an ti c phi lo sophy , that seman tic

phi lo so phy h as withdrawn from t h e m agi c circle o f fo rm al lin
88 R ESEARCH PRO BLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

by e xpon en ts o f m athem atical lo gic an d ne o -po s-it iv ism Th e .

t ren d s O f reaso n i n g whi ch start ed fro m sem an ti c phil o sophy

an d con se qu en t ly con sid ered lan gu age t o be t h e on ly ,o r at least

t h e p ri nci pal , O bj ect O f p hi lo sophi cal analy si s,h ad t o en ga ge

in an all-rou n d an aly si s Of si gn s in vi ew o f thei r rOle in t h e pro b
lem s o f l an gu age .

S u ch a gen eral theo ry o f sign s n ece ssitated t akin g i nt o c on

siderati o n t h e relati o n shi p b etween si gn s an d t h e hu m an b ei n g s

w h o p ro d uce an d perceive them Th at aspect O f t h e i ssu e,in

.

pri nciple alien t o l o gi cal research ,w as an aly sed by pragm ati sm

an d b eh avi ou ri sti c psy ch o l o gy ,th at is by typi cally Am eri can

tren d s in philo sophy It is,therefore ,n o t asto n i shi n g that a n ew

.

versi on Of sem i o ti c cam e t o b e repre sen ted by a m an w h o in his

u n iv ersity stu di es w as i nfluen ced at h o m e by pragm ati sm ,an d

d u rin g h is po st-g rad u ate research in Eu rope,by n eo-po sitivi st

ideas Ch arles M o rri s is n ow t h e b est kn o wn represent ative o f
.

sem i o ti c w hi ch , by di sti n gu i shin g b etween th e syn t acti c, t h e

sem an tic an d t h e pragm ati c a spect O f semi o si s (th at is, t h e p roce ss

in whi c h t h e sem an ti c fu ncti on o f sign s is rev ealed) h as in fact
ab so rb ed l o gi cal syn t ax an d sem an ti c s a s it s c om p o nen t part s .

A s a result ,sem i oti c aspi red t o t h e rOle o f Phi l osophy with a

capit al P . M orri s wro te
“
S emi oti c pro vid es a b asi s fo r u n derstan di n g t h e m ai n fo rms
O f hu m an activity an d thei r i nt errelati o n shi p , si n ce all these

activiti es an d rel ati on s are refl ect ed in t h e S ign s whi c h medi at e

t h e activiti es I n givin g su ch u n derstan di n g,semi oti c prom ises

t o fu lfil one o f t h e t asks whi ch t raditi on ally h as b een called phi lo

sophi cal . P hil o sophy h as O ft en si nned in con fu sin g in it s o w n

lan guage th e v ari ou s fu n cti on s whi ch S ign s perfo rm Bu t it is
.

an o ld t raditi o n th at phi lo so ph y sh ou ld aim t o give i nsight i nt o

t h e ch aracteri sti c fo rm s O f h u m an activity an d t o strive fo r t h e

m o st general an d t h e m o st syst em ati c kn o wledge possibl e Thi s .

traditi on appears in a m o dern form in t h e id en tificati o n o f ph i

lo soph y with t h e theo ry o f sign s an d t h e u nificati o n o f science,
 SE M A NTIC PHI LOSOPHY 89

im ositi
p hs ,
m that is,with t h e m o re gen eral an d system ati c aspec ts o f pu re
”
an d descri ptive semi o ti c 39 .

that t h e represent ati v es o f sem i o tic

pro cl aim it s phil o so phi cal n eu trali ty :
“
Semi o ti c itsel f neither rests on n o r n ecessarily i m plies a par
ticu lar phil o sophy A sci ence o f S igns n o m ore d ecid es b etween
.

n on —
‘ ‘
an em pi ri cal an d a em piri cal phil o so phy than it d ecid es
’ ’

‘ ’ ‘ ’
b etween a n atu rali stic an d a su pern atu ralistic religi on I n .

itself it can n o t fo rce one t o b eli eve o nly scientifically verified

st at em en t s, n or t o u se o nly sci en ti fic di sc o u rse, n or t o fo rm o ne s
’

appraisals an d prescri pti o n s in t h e light o fsci ence It will n ev er .

t h eless h ave a pro fo u n d i n fluence on t h e c o u rse o f phi l o so phy ,

si nce it deals with t o pics pecu li arly relev an t t o phil o so phi c sys

tem at izat ion I n thi s sense,t h e philo sophy Of t h e fu ture wi ll

be sem i o ti cally ori ented Bu t t h e n atu re Of this in flu ence wi ll
.

n o t always be t h e sam e,an d will d epen d u po n t h e rOle whi ch

g Iv en I n divid u al s an d s i ti
oc e e s assi g n to sc i en ti fic k n o wl edg e
”
40 .

Th i s is tru e in so far as fo rm al,classificat o ry an d t erm in ol

o gical con si derati o ns (an d th at is t h e principal su bj ect m att er

o f sem i o ti c) can be co m bined with di f feren t syst em s o f Weltan

Schauung Another p oin t is that M orri s O ften ad o pts a m u ch
.

m ore reali st attitu de,com in g clo se t o m ateri ali sm ,th an do hi s

co lleague s en g aged in t h e n eo - po sitivi st analysis Of l an gu age .

Reference m ight be m ade in thi s connecti o n t o t h e paragraphs

devo ted t o t h e i ssue O f m eani n g and o f t h e u n iversals in M o r
ris s arti cle in Th e I n t ern a t ional En c clop edia H
’
is attitu d e is
y .

still cl earer when it co m es t o his an alysis o f t h e soci al aspect

of t h e pro cess o f semi o si s .

last-n amed i ssu e is o f especi al interest Y et M orri s s

’
Th e .

vi ews on t h e essen ce o f si gn s an d o n sem i o sis will n o t b e present

ed here ,S i nce they are di scu ssed in great er d et ail in t h e seco n d

part O f thi s b oo k ,where t h e p rocess o f hu m an comm u ni cati o n

and t h e r Ole o f S ig ns in that
proce ss com e t o t h e forefro nt .

39 Ch W M orris ”
. .
, Fo u n datio ns of th e Th eo ry o f S igns ,in I nt erna
t iona l E ncyclop edia f Unified S cience,Vo l 1,N o 2
o ,pp
. . . 5 8-59 .

40 Ch . W . M orris,S igns,Language and Behavior,p . 238 .

 CHA PTE R FOUR

GENERAL S E M ANTI CS

I N h is did expo siti on o f t h e fou n d ati on of sem anti cs in t h e

sp en l
“
arti cle Th e S eman ti c C on cepti on of Tru th an d t h e F o u n d ati o ns
o f S em an ti cs Alfred T arski w ro te :
It is perhaps w orth while sayin g that semantics as co nceived
in thi s paper (an d in fo rmer papers o f t h e au th or) is a sob er and
m o dest di scipline whi ch h as n o preten si o ns t o b ei n g a u n iversal
t en t -
m edi cin e fo r all t h e ills an d diseases o f m an kin d ,whether
p a

im agi nary o r real Y ou will not fin d in sem antics any rem edy fo r
.

d ecayed teeth or illu si ons o f g ran d eu r o r class conflict s N o r .

is sem anti cs a d evi ce fo r establi shin g th at every o n e except t h e

”
speaker an d h is frien d s is speaki n g n o n sense 1
-

It is n ot di fficu lt t o gu ess w h o is t h e addressee o f that p i

'

qu ant rem ark in t h e spirit o f t h e n ew spaper ann ou ncem ent

“
I repu di ate responsibility for t h e d ebts an d acti on s Of my h u s
b an d it is necessary o nly t o read ,for i nstan ce,th e fo ll o wi n g
passage from a b o o k by Alfred K orzyb ski , m u ch qu ot ed in
literature abro ad ,bu t practi cally unkno wn in P o lan d :
“
Th e n ew m etho ds elimi n ate or allevi at e di fferen t sem ant o
‘
gen i c bl o ckages ; many em o ti on al di stu rb an ces , in clu ding ’

ev en so m e n eu ro ses an d psy ch oses ; v arI o u s learn i n ,readi n g ,

g
o r speech di ffi cu lti es ,et c ; an d gen eral m al adj u stm en t s in pro
.

fession al an d/or perso n al lives These diflicult ies resu lt t o a large

.

‘
ext en t fro m t h e failu re t o u se i nt elligen ce ad e qu at ely so as t o
’

bri n g ab ou t pro per evalu ati on .

1 A . Tarski, Th e S emantic , Conception Of Tru th t

reprin ed in
L . Linsky S emant ics and t he Ph ilosop hy of Languag e ,Urbana 19 5 2
;
p . 17 .
 RESEARCH PROBLEMS O F S EM ANTI CS

i l
c rc es an d am on g t h e follo wers of Korzybski g i
a a ns t l
c ass n i g
sem an tics an d Ko rzybski s S O-called general sem antics in th e
’

sam e i nt ellect u al c urren t I n any case ,

. w e cann o t id en ti fy sem an
tics,whi ch is conn ecte d with l o gic an d epistem o l o gy,with gen .

eral sem an ti c s whi ch in t h e i nt erpret ati o n o f it s m o st r adical

represen t atives is a psych o therapeu ti c tec hn iqu e .

I n cert ain m atters there are geneti c connecti on s b etween se

m anties an d general sem anti cs,bu t they are su perfici al an d c on
fin ed rather t o poi nt s o f form al i n flu en ce In fact ,w e h ave t o
.

do with tren ds an d O pin i ons that are n ot only di fferent on e from

an o ther bu t O ft en o pposi n g o n e an o ther ,especi ally if t h e at t i
'

tu des o f thei r exp on ents are t aken i nt o c onsiderati o n That is .

why t h e confu si on Of ideas on th at poi n t ,prevaili n g so far in

M arxist literatu re,a co n fu si on t o whi ch even so reli able an au
thor as M au ri ce C o rnforth h as fallen a victim (in his S cience
Versus I dealism) ,is extremely em b arrassin g .

There is n o d ou bt that thi s state Of affairs is due t o t h e search

for easy tri u m phs in t h e critici sm o f b ou rgeo i s ideo l o gy ; thi s in
tu rn resu lts in t h e ten dency t o stress whatever in t h e wo rks un der
revi ew is in erro r,ridi cu l ou s an d weak ,an d t o di sreg ar d wh at

is correct an d intellectu ally stim u latin g ,sin ce th at d o es n ot fit

“
i nt o t h e black-an d-whi te pattern That w ay,on e c an pickle
.

any o ppon en t , n o t t o m enti o n th o se wh o se vi ews are su ch a co m

bi n ati on o f stran ge and O ften contradict o ry st atements as is t h e

c ase O f g eneral sem anti ci sts Bu t what is g ai ned fro m suc h an
.

easy triu m ph o v er so m i shan dled an o pponen t ? I n m y o pin i on ,

n o thi n g whatever . For in su ch cases t h e stren gthen in g of o ur

n eg ative a ttitu d e t ow ards t h e vi ews which w e criti cize is o n ly

apparen t Ign oran ce is n o t a g o o d advi ser o n id eo lo gical i ssu e s,

.

an d as a preventive m easu re again st t h e i n flu ence o f ali en ideo l o gy ,

it fails c om pletely at c ritical m om en ts O n t h e o ther han d ,t h e

.

l osses w e su ffer as a resu lt o f su ch m an ipu lati o ns are O bvi o u s

man t ics General S emantics

. an d R elated D isciplines and Wh at I S M eant
by A ristotelian Struc ture of Langu age
 GENERAL S EMAN rIc s
'

an d pa n fi
u :l we l ose a cert ain amou n t Of kn o wledge ac qu ired
by m an ki nd and,som eti m es still m ore import ant ,v alu able stim
u li t o creative analyses B oo ks can be read in t w o way s First
. .

“ ”
in searc h of wh at is wro n g an d stu pid in t hem , prey for crit
icism thi s is t h e manner o f readi n g typi cal Of those w h o
do n ot kn ow h ow t o av ail them selves o f t h e ac hi evem en ts o f
science Bu t o ne can also read them in a qu it e difl erent m ann er,
.
,

lo okin g for what is n ew ,stimu l atin g an d calcul ated t o prom ote .

sci ence,d espit e all t h e erro rs an d falseh o o d s,whi ch m ay be

.

qu ite nu merou s in given cases Th is w ay Of readin g b oo ks is

.
.

characteri st ic o f people w h o kn ow h o w t o m ake u se Of sci ence .

I f a sci entific w ork i nclu des even a sin gle n ew an d creative th ou ght
t o stimu l ate sci entific in ven tiveness, then it m u st n ot b e lost ,it must
n ot be all owed t o be dro wn e d i n t h e ocean o f erro rs .

That postu l ate m u st cau se u s firm ly t o rej ect ou r practices,

Of m an y years st an di n g , in t h e m atter o f criticism o f non-M arxist
views in philo so phy I have referred t o that m atter ab o ve,bu t
.

those reflecti o ns return with red ou bled force when w e di scuss

general seman ti cs,precisely becau se in this conn ecti on w e see
with particu lar cl arity all ou r mist akes an d sh ortcom in gs in crit
.

icism , an d som etim es cann ot o vercom e an em barrassin g su s

picio n that in m any cases th at C riti ci sm h as b een m arked by

ordin ary ignoran ce . After all,o nly ignorance can explain t h e

id entifi cati o n ,o ver m any years,Of sem an ti cs with general seman
'

tics,t h e identificati on Of t h e yiew s o f Stuart Chase (w h o is onl y

’

a p opu l ariz er o f Korzb ki s id eas) with t h e O

’

pi ni ons of C arn ap
o r Tars i
k Fu rther,only ignorance can explain th e failure t o
.

noti ce t h e real pro blem s th at aft er all u n derlie gen eral sem antics
‘

l
.

It is difli cu lt t o escape t h e i mpressi o n that pro b ably n o n e o f

th ose w h o in ou r literatu re have written ab ou t K orzyb ski h as
read hi s b o o k th orou ghl y : Thi s is n o
_
t said in d efence o f that
b o o k whi ch ,o n t h e contrary ,I h old t o be,apart from all it s
o ther d efects,m o rbid and m arke d by m o n o m an i a Bu t th e crit
.

icism Of it in Our lit eratu re h as b een at fau lt : it h as n ot pu rsu ed :

it s essen tial errors an d h as failed to discern t h e real pro blem s

94 RE SEAR CH PROBLEMS OE S EMANTI CS

it di scu sses It. is eas y d em onstrate that Korzybski s S cience

to
’

and S anit is an O bscu re wo rk o f a dilett ant e, ecle t i cally am assi n g

y c
vastly di fferent concepts an d u ncerem oniou sly assimi lati n g

,
o ther people s id eas : that it is a b oo k ab o u t whi ch it h as b een
’

said j u stly th at wh at is co rrect in it is O ld an d what is ne w in it .

is in error Y et at t h e sam e tim e it might be S h own h ow t h e b oo k

.

takes u p Pavlo v s ideas,an d that in some o f its concepts it co mes

’

clo se t o epi st em o lo gical reali sm an d t o t h e di alecti cs O f t h e co gni

tive pro cess To say that it com es cl ose t o M arx-ism would prove
.

ign orance,bu t what h as thus far been said ab ou t that b o o k in

o ur lit eratu re p ro v es i gn oranc e in n o l ess d egree : An d wh at S hall

be said ab ou t w orks by som e auth o rs b el on gi n g t o t h e sch ool

o f general sem anti cs,su ch as A R apop ort an d S I H ay ak awa,
. . .

already q uo ted ab o ve,o r I rvin g J Lee ,Wen d ell J o hnson and

.

o thers?

There is n o d ou bt th at gen eral sem anti cs is very rem o te from

t h e u su al sci en tific st an d ard s When stu dyi n g that stran ge mix
.

tu re p f D ich tung und Wahrhe it ,it shou ld be b orne in m in d that

th at is a specifically Americ an pro du ct ,a sect rather than a school .

This is clearly realized by so b er o b servers and; even by t h?

‘

m o re so b er am on g th o se w h o them selves are follo wers an d cel

ebrant s o f gen eral sem anti cs I n h is article already cited ,A R a
. .

popo rt writes o n that su bj ect

“
Th e accu sati o ns o f cu ltism leveled ag ainst Korzybski s
’

foll o wers are not alt o gether un fou n ded I n t h e Un ited S tates .

‘
there is a large fl oatin g popu l ati on o f t ru t h seekers M any Of ’
.

them l ack t h e capacity o f strenu ou s intellectu al effort re qui red

in a fru it fu l pu rsu it o f kn o wledge and wi sd om ; o thers lack t h e

power Of critical evalu ati o n ,whic h wo u ld en able them t o tell

t h e gen u i ne fro m t h e false S till o thers cann o t b e co m fortable
.

u n til they fin d a panacea t o b eli eve in These peo ple suppo rt

.

‘ ‘
m o vem en ts an d cu lts They are as likely t o go for Christi an
’ ’
.

Sci en ce as fo r tec hn ocracy ,fo r psych o an aly sis as fof theoso phy,
fo r t h e Great B ooks pro gramm e as fo r di anetics And so in .

ev it ably on e fin d s so m e o f themam on g t h e adheren ts o f general

96 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OE S EMAN TI CS

'

an d that o f at least so m e o f hi s co n
tinu at ors Th e latter I n o t o n ly .

valu e m ore,but also appraise them in qu ite di fferent term s .

Their o pi ni on s and activity acc ou nt for t h e fact that gen eral

sem an ti cs m ay n o t be treated as m ere b lu f f and S ham anism : whi le
criti c izi n g in with fu ll fo rce,o ne h as yet t o see an d ex amine t h e

re al pro b lem s whi ch it h as rai sed .

I shall n ow t ry t o i n fo rm t h e read er very bri efly ab ou t t h e

fu n d am en tal c oncept s o f K o rzyb ski .

He him sel f d efined general sem an tics as t h e sci ence o f n eu ro

sem an ti c and n euro -li n g ui sti c reacti o n s o f h u m an i n divid u als
”
t o sem an ti c en vi ro nm en t (see ab o ve) Rapoport d efined it .

“
in a m ore com prehen sible m an ner as t he sci ence o f h ow people
”
u se w o rd s an d h o w w o rd s af fect th ose w h o u se them 7 In thi s .

can c le arly b e seen th at p art o f seman ti cs which M o rri s calls

pragm atics .

Fo r K orzyb ski ,general sem i oti cs is ab o ve all a p sych o thera

p eu t ie techn ique co veri n g ,as w e h ave seen ab o ve,alm o st every
thin g ,from s tom ach ache and dental cari es t o So ci al con fli cts .

I n hi s aspirati on s,K orzyb ski w as gui ded by Freu di an p attern s

'

Th e th eoreti cal assu m pti on s o n whi c h h e b ased hi s id eas

were as fo ll ows .

Th e st artin g po int O f Ko rzybski s in terest an d an aly si s w as

’

a g en eral theo ry o f m an an d cu lture,t h e su bj ect m att er O f hi s

'

first b o o k 8 From that po int o f view h e approached t h e rOle o f

.

sym b o ls in m an s so ci al l i fe ,or,st rict ly,t h e i ssu e o f t h e p ath ol

’

o gy o f S ign s .

U n fo rtu n ately ,t o t these m atters in abbrevi ate d fo rm

recoun

m akes them lo o k m uch m o re rati o n al an d seri ou s than they

were in fact Ko rzybski s concepti o n is a stran ge con glo mera
.
’

ti on o f v ari ou s theo ri es d rawn from t h e m o st di verse d i sci

plines An d t h e m ai n idea,t o b e O b serve d in all h is explan a
.

ti o n s,is q u ite striki n g : all o rgan ic an d social patholo gy is sem an to

“ ”
geni c . Li sten to m e, an d you will b e saved '

7 I bid .
,p . 4
.

8 A . K orzybski,M anh oo d of Huma n ity,N e w Yo rk 19 21

.
 GENERAL S EMANTI CS

Th e rec ipe t o be u sed is o nly t o o sim ple : on e m u st rej ect

th e o b so lete A ri st o t eli an (tw o-v alu ed) sy st em o f l an gu age in

fav our o f a n on -Ari st o teli an sy stem i e ,a sy stem whi ch re

. .

h -valu e ri nci le o f traditi on al l o gic an d t h e sem an

je ct s t e t w o p p
t ic bl ockage ,t h e cau se o f all evil ,will di sappear at o nce Of . -

co urse; his id ea ,as fo rm u lat ed here,is so m ewhat ex aggerated .

Th e problem o f t h e rOle o f sym b o l in so ci al li fe w as drawn

by Ko rzyb ski fro m m any sour ces,ab ove all from b ehavi ou ri sm
and t h e Pavl o vi antheo ry (K orzyb ski co nsid ered his theo ry t o be

a d ev elo pm ent o f t h e the o ry o f con diti oned respo n ses) . Freu d

ianism serv ed hi m as in spi rati o n fo r a specific concepti on o f t h e
patho l o gy Of sym b ols This w as t h e p oi n t where t h e theo ry o f
.

a n on -Ari st o teli an l an gu age an d t h e relat ed psych o therapeu tic

technique set in .

That concepti o n is Ko rzybski s t heo retical contribu ti on But

’
.

is m u st be asserted th at it is in n o w ay o rigi nal B irth certificates

.

o f all it s elem ents can easily be pro du ced ,althou gh t h e o rigin al

id eas are O ften comp letely mystified .

Let u s b egin with t h e gen eral c o ncept O f a n on-Arist o teli an

language system Th e existingsystem o f lan gu age which Korzyb
.

ski calls A rist oteli an (hi s m ore reasonable fo llo wers,e g ,S . . I . .

Hayakawa, speak Of an Ind o-Euro pean system o f l an gu age) '

is allege d t o i mpose a tw o -valu e d system o f appraisals

“
Y o u either are a c omm u nist ,o r yo u are n ot wh ich is said
to ev o ke cert ai n neu ro ti c ailmen ts O n t h e c o ntrary ,
. a n o n-A ri st o t

eli an system ,su pp o se dly c o nn ecte d with contem po rary sci en ce

(in hi s argu men ts K orzybski O ften flin gs ab out such terms as

“ ” “ ” "

co ll oid al , qu an tum , withou t m akin g them fit into any system

whatev er),is said t o h ave an i nfinite scale o f appraisals Th e .

ideas t aken from Lu kasi ewicz and h is theory o f many-valu ed

lo gi c can clearly be traced (Lu k asiewicz is me n ti o n ed in t h e bib

lio graph y),bu these id eas are u sed in a m ann er that h as n o thin g
t
in co mm o n with t h e o riginal co ncept and witho u t any j u sti
ficat io n fo r their new appli cati on s .
 RESEARCH PROBLEMS OE S EMA NTI CS

But this is only t h e b eginni n g o f t h e i ssue ,S i nce here w e learn

new d etails ab o u t that n o n-A ri st o teli an system O f l an gu age .

F irst O f all,t h e u se Of t h e co pula is fo r id entificati o n is pro

“
hibit ed .Th e w o rd is not t h e thi n g it d eno tes say s Korzyb ski .

”
O n t h e n on-verb al level w e can only in dicat e thin g s,an d when
“ ”
w e say This is a t abl e w e are said t o iden t if y t h e wo rd with
t h e O bj ect ,wh ic h gives ri se t o seri o u s sem ant o genic path o l o gy .

“
Here ag ain w e reco g nize t h e sou rce from which t h e n on-verbal
”
level w as b orrowed : credit fo r that concept belon gs to t h e neo ”

po sitivists But with Korzyb ski it b ecom es a c ari cature N o

. .

n orm al m an identifies t h e w o rd with t h e t h in g in t h e m anner h e

'

“
su ggests,an d the cure, co n si st i n g in repeati n g : Thi s is no t a t a
” “
ble Or t h e appropri ate m echani cal operati o ns of t h e stru ctural
”
differen ti al in ven ted by K o rzyb ski ,savo urs o f sh am anism ik
“ ”
Th e seco nd princi ple affirm s that a m ap is n ot a territ o ry , ’

whi ch i m plies that a S ig n canno t aspire t o be fu lly representa

“
tive Th e Arist oteli an system o f language is said t o be elemental
.

istie t o b reak co gniti o n i nt o elem ent s which preten d t o be com

“
plete and ab so lute An d t h e n on Arist o teli an sy stem is n on
.
-

elem
”
en t alisti c ,reco gn izi n g t h e n ecessity fo r g raspin g t h e wh ole

Of t h e p rocess o f co gniti on Thi s o bvi o u sly g o es b ack t o Gestalt

.
;

p sych ologie .

Fi n ally , t h e third princi ple affirms t h e mu lti-ordin ality

of sym b o ls N ot on ly is a m ap n o t a t errit o ry ,
. but also t h e m ap
o f t h e m ap l is n o t t h e m ap 1 I n o ther w o rds,t h e l an gu age in
.

which w e speak ab ou t ano ther lan gu age is not that O bj ect lan guage .

Con seqtiently,w e m u st t ake n o te o f t h e hi erarc hy o f lan guages

an d av o i d am biguity by pl aci n g w o rd s in clear context s so th at

w e m ay kn o w o n what level o f ab stracti o n w e are We fin d no

\
.

’
difli cu lty in identi fyi n g here t h e idea su ggested by Ru ssell s t h e
c ry o f type s an d t h e related c o ncept o f t h e hi erarchy o f lan gu ages .

9 A penetrating critic ism o f th ose v iew s is giv en by M ax Black in th e

article “
K orzybski s Ge neral S em an tics
’ ”
inc lu de d in h is b o ok Language
.

and Ph ilosop hy,N ew York 1949 .

100 RESE ARC H PROBLEM S OE S EMA NTI CS

fh ese exerci ses d t o m ake t h e pati ent realize,fi rSt ,

“

are su ppose

that t h e word is n ot t h e thin g t o whi ch it refers,an d,secon dly ,

th at word s o ccupy di fferent levels o f abstracti on .

D o es this b ri ef su mma ry co nfirm t h e thesis th at whatever

in K o rzybski s theo ry is correct ,is O ld and well kn own ; an d
’

what is n ew ,is in erro r ?

I do no t comm ent on t h e therapeu ti c aspect o f t h e sem antic
m easu res P sych o gen i e ai lments un d ou bt edly are an extrem ely
.

import ant d om ain o f m edi ci ne and it m ay be t hat in som e c ases

pu ttin g ro ds i nt o t h e appropri at e h o les of t h e stru ctural dif
ferent ial may h elp Bu t that is a separate i ssu e
. .

I s K orzyb ski s general sem antics,then ,j u st m o n stro u s n on

’

sense t o b e thro wn in t h e d u stbi n ? I S it onl a d elib erat e id eali sti c

y
m ystification di ct ated by cl ass con siderati on s,as w ou ld appear
from many M arxi st pu bli cati o n s? I am n ot at all su re .

For all it s o ddity an d its S im ply m ani acal traits,Ko rzyb ski s
’

c o ncepti o n i n clu d es so methi n g w hi ch can n o t b e dim issed li ght

ly It m ay be that th at c om es from t h e b orro wi n gs whi ch in

“

“ ”
K orzyb ski s case are i nn u m erable Bu t preci sely that som ethin g
’
.

has m ad e it p ossible t o e st ablish an influenti al scho o l o f general

sem an ti cs, whi ch ,apart fro m sectari an s,i n clu d es peo pl e w h o are
“ ”
vo i ces in S ci ence,especi ally in lin gu i sti cs That so methin g ,t o o ,
.

in d u ced cert ain o u t stan di n g sci en ti sts,am o n g them B roni slaw

M alino wski ,P W B ri dgman ,B ert ran d R u ssell an d others,t o
. .

en d o rse K o rzyb ski s b o o k with th ei r appro v al o f his id eas an d

’
.

with a fav ou rable apprai sal of wh at h e h ad d on e Let m e also .

po i n t it ou t t o th o se with a liki n g for easy t ri u m phs,that from

t h e p h ilosop h ical po i n t Of Vi ew K o rzyb ski is so m eti m e s a h ard

nu t t o crack p reci sely fo r a M arxi st criti c .

There is n o d ou bt that all h is id eas are m arked by ascribin g

an ab so lu t e v alu e t o t h e fu nc ti on o f lan g age ThiS in parti cu lar
u p

st ands ou t in reli ef wh en it C o m e s t o soci al issu es whi ch Ko rzyb

ski w o u ld also like t o red u ce t o sem an t o genic pert u rb ances For .

in st ance,h e q u ite seri o u sly tri ed t o treat t h e pro blem s o f C o m

munism and Fascism in term s Of n euro -sem an tic re acti ons t o
 RESEARC H PROB LEM S O F S E MA NTICS

Are these ideas co rrect o r n o t ? Person ally I thi nk t

n o t o nly co rrect (their formu l ati o n here is o f seco n d ary i m por

tance) ,bu t even O f great S ignificance for a critici sm o f ideali sm

'

and o f sem anti c philo sop hy C onsequ en tly ,they are so m ethin g
.

which d oes n ot fit well in t o traditi on al patterns and hackneyed

fo rmu lati ons Th e m ore S O since with K orzyb ski these are n o t
.

cert ain ac ciden t al id eas,bu t t h e ideas t o whi ch h e d ev o t ed m any

d ozen s o f pages and whi ch h e placed at t h e v ery ro o t Of hi s

Th e m ore so ,fu rther,si n ce these ideas hav e b een
"

co ncepti o n .

taken u p by hi s co n tinu at ors o f t h e scho ol o f general sem an tics .

S ays Wen dell J o hn son

Th e cru ci al po int t o be c o n sidered in a st u dy o f lan g u age
b eh avi o u r is t h e relati on ship between lan gu age an d reality ,be
tween words an d n ot -w ords Except as w e u n derst an d thi s relati on
.

shi p ,w e run t h e g rave ri sk O f st rai ni n g t h e deli cate co nnecti on

between words an d fact s,o f perm itti n g o u r w ords t o go wild ,

an d s o o f c reati n g fo r o u rselves fab ric ati on s o f fant asy an d d elu
”
S i on 13 .

Why ,even S tuart Ch ase ,c learly ben t o n pro d u ci n g a best

”
seller ,says t h e same :
“
What t h e sem anti c disci plin e d o es is t o b lo w gho sts o u t Of
t h e pi ctu re an d create a n ew pic tu re as cl ose t o re ality as o ne

c an get O ne is n o l on ger d o gm atic ,em o ti o n al,b u rsti n g with t h e

.

right s an d w ro n gs O f it ,bu t hu m b le ,carefu l ,aware Of t h e v ery

con siderabl e n u m b er o f thin gs h e d o es n o t kn o w His n ew m ap .

m ay be wron g ; his j u dgments m ay err Bu t t h e pr o b abi lity Of

’

b etter j u dgm en ts is greatly im pro ved ,fo r h e is n o w swayed m o re ~

by h appen in gs in t h e o u tsid e w o rld than by rev erberati o ns in

”
hi s sku ll 14 .

“
G o o d lan gu age alon e wi ll n ot save m an ki n d Bu t seei n g t h e .

thin gs b ehin d t h e n am es will help u s t o u n derstan d t h e stru cture

O f t h e w o rld w e liv e in G o od lan gu age w i ll help u s t o co m m u n i
.

13 W John son ,Peop le

. in Q uandaries ,N ew Yo r k 1946 ,p . 113 .

14 S . Ch ase,The Tyranny o 0
f Words ,p 26
. .
10
4 R ESEARCH PROBLEM S O F S EM A NTICS

My lin gu i stic,structu ral,n on-el ,th eore t ical re vis ion leads
.

t o a n ew and i mp o rt an t enl argemen t o f t h e appli cati o n t o man

‘
o f th e Pavl o v exp erimen tal theory o f c on diti o ned
’
refl exes Th e .

fact that these in d ependen t disco veri es rein force an d su pp ort

each o ther is a st rikin g i nst ance o f t h e u sefu lness O f theo re ti cal
”1
researches 8 .

I do n ot kn o w whether K o rzybski knew t h e Pavl o vi an theo ry

of t h e seco n d system o f si gnals, bu t what h e writes o n t h e su bj ect
( g , n pp
e
. . o 3 31 — 2 ) resem bles that theory even by t h e ter
.

m in ology h e u ses I f th at is really con geni ality ,then t h e fact

.

is st riki n g in itsel f Bu t even if K o rzyb ski wro te u n der Pavlov s

’
.

i nfluence ,t h e pro blem rem ai ns intri cate Th e p o i nt is that t h e .

.

c o nc ept Of sem an t o genic b lo ckag es in hu m an b eh avi o ur per

fec tly well fit s i nt o t h e theory o f con diti on e d resp onse s,an d t h e

m ore so i nt o t h e theory o f th e secon d system of sign als Th e .

explan ati on o f n eu ro ses by t h e m ech ani sm o f t h e co nfli c t b etween

stim u lati on and in hi biti o n comes precisely from Pavlo v Wh at .

is at stake there,is n ot only t h e signals whi ch cau se c on diti o ned

resp on ses,bu t also t h e sign als O f sign als,th at is w o rd s I f w e .

rej ect t h e o dd form o f t h e p ath o l o gy o f signs in K orzyb ski s

’

w o rk t h e real problem o f sem an t o genic distu rb ances rem ains .

M ore over,th at pr oblem appli es n ot onl y t o t h e psychi atric level ;

there is t h e i ssu e form u l ated ,as men ti on ed ab ove,by R ap opo rt
“
in t h e foll owin g w ay : How people u se w or ds and h ow w ord s
”
afl ect th ose w h o u se them ( S I H ay akawa,on t h e o u t er O f hi s
'

. .

“
b o o k ,pu t it in S l o gan fo rm : How m en u se wo rd s an d words
u se Thu s, K o rzyb ski s idea is co n cern ed with m any
’

real researc h i ssu es .

Thi s is still m o re true with referen ce t o so m e o f K o rzyb ski s ’

fo ll o wers in t h e sc h o o l o f gen eral sem antic s .

Their u n d o u btedly rati on al idea is t h e pro gram m e o f a p rag

m a tic stu dy o f lan gu age,t h at is t h e stu dy o f l an gu age from t h e

p o i n t O f vi ew o f t h e p roducers O f lan gu ag e si gn s R apop o rt fo rm u

.

18 Ib id .
,p . 326 .
 GENERAL S EMANTI CS

lates t h e questi on in t h e foll owi ng m anner : gramm ar i nvestigates

relati o n s b etween w ord s ; l o gi c stu di es relati on s b etween pro p

osit ions ; sem antics stu di es t h e rel ati on between w o rd s an d pro p

osit io ns and thei r referen t s,and o n th at basi s est ablishe s thei r

mean in g an d t ru th ; and general sem anti cs g oes fu rthest o f all

S ince it also i nvestig at es t h e i n fluen ce o f w o rd s an d pro po si

ti on s o n hu m an b ehavi our
“
For a general sem anticist , c o mm u ni cati on is n ot m erely
word s in proper o rder properly inflected (as for t h e grammari an)
o r asserti o ns in pro per relati on t o each o ther (as fo r t h e l o gi ci an)

or asserti ons in pro per rel ation t o referents (as for t h e sem an

t icist) ,bu t all these t o gether,with t h e chain Of fact t o nerv ou s

‘

system t o l an gu age t o n erv o u s system t o acti on 19

’

Thi s clearly reveals t h e in flu en ce Of pragmatism ,worki n g

prin cipally thr ou gh semi otic Certainl y ,bu t it is n o coi ncidence
.

th at general semantics h as d eveloped in t h e home Of pragm atism .

This is t h e same tren d o f influ ence as in t h e ease o f M orri s s ’

sem i o tic , alth ou gh here t h e research pro gramm e is di f ferent ,

m u ch broader,an d g o in g bey on d t h e general theory Of signs .

In its rati onal form , general sem antics refers t o i ncreased

interest revea led by su ch disciplines as psycholo gy ,psychi atry ,
“ ”
an d ab o ve all cu ltu ral anthro pol o gy , in neurO- lin gu istic
fact o rs Of hu m an b ehavi ou r A dherents of gen eral sem anti cs
.

claim that precisely these di sci plin es pro vid e pro o f O f t h e fact

that hu m an experi ence consi sts in selectin g am on g t h e stimu li

co mi n g fro m t h e en viro nm en t , an d hu m an b eh avi our ,in o rgan

izin g experience in con formity with defini te pattern s B o th .

these fu ncti ons depen d in a definite w ay o n l an gu age,on it s strue

ture,and on lin gui stic habits Hence t h e impo rtance of con crete
.

researc h o n l an gu age and t h e pro g ramm e o f su ch research .

It wou ld be impossible t o deny t h e im portance o f thi s re

search , regardless o f o ur attit u d e t o w ard t hi s o r th at j u stificati o n
-

Of it s pro gramm e An d here is a b ri ef sp eci ficati on o f pro blem s .

19 A R apop or t ,
. Wh at I s S emantics ? p . 14 .
 RE SEARCH PROBLEMS O F SEMANTI CS

Fi rst co m e issu es co nnected wi th hu m an co mm uni ca

the

ti on As w e already kn o w ,t h e o rigin al su ccess o f general sem an

.

tics w as du e t o it s i nterest in t h e rapid pro gress O f Nazism in t h e

19 30 s . Thi s gave rise t o an i nterpret ati on Of soci al confli cts
in term s of sem anti c perturb ati ons That tren d w as i n iti ated
.

by K orzyb ski ,w h o w as fo llo wed by Stu art Chase ,S I H aya

”
’
. .

kawa,Wen dell J o hn son ,an d o thers It m ust be said that as early

.

a s 19 49 S I H ay akaw a,in t h e preface t o t h e new editi o n o f his

. .

Language in Though t an d Act ion,confirm e d t h e failu re o f such

ef fo rts,whi ch were co rrectly treated by M arxists as enem y N u m
b er On e Bu t there remained o ther questi ons,m o re m o d erate in
.

thei r cl aim s bu t very i m po rt an t in practice : t h e c on diti ons O f

su cce ss in di scu ssi on ; bl ock ages an d fac ilities in hu m an co m m u ni

c ati on ; et c These i ssues h ave given ri se t o a ri c h literatu re ,

. b ased
o n t h e pri n ci ples o f g eneral sem an tics an d c o nn ected with t h e

i n flu ence Of lan gu age on co rrect thinkin g an d o n hu m an behav

io u r , b o th soc i al and in dividu al A speci al fi eld is c onstitu ted
.

by pro blems o f edu cati on and psychi atry ,where Ko rzybski s ’

o rigin al i nterest in t h e patho l o gy O f l an gu age S ign s c om es t o

t h e fore .

This som ewhat practical pro blem is c onn ected with t h e m ore
theoretical i ssues o f general sem anti cs,n am ely t h e rOle O f Sign
an d sym b o l , t h e rel ati o n between l an gu age an d th ou ght ,an d t h e
v ari o u s questi on s whi ch I S h o u l d c all a
pplied sem an tics,con
cern ed with v agu en ess and am bigu ity O f expressi o n s .

Fi n ally ,general sem antics d eals with t h e in flu ence o f lan

gu age on t h e shapi n g O fcu ltu re in t h e sense Ofcu ltural anthr opolo gy .

Thi s c o vers c omparative stu di es in cu lture as rel at ed t o t h e devel

opm ent of l an g u age ,fo r i nst an ce B M alin ow ski s Th e Problem
’
.

of M ean ing in Prim it ive L anguages an d B L Wh o rf s Th e Re

’
. .

la t ion of Habitual Th o ugh t and Beha v ior to Language (a stu dy

o f t h e H opi l an gu ag e) .

Th e aspirati o n s O f gen eral seman ti c s go m u ch fu rther I do .

n o t m ean here su c h e xtrav ag an t fo rm u l ati o n s as sem an tic s and

”
dental su rgery ,bu t m o re m o derate claim s t o i n fl u en c e u p o n
 108 RESEARCH PR OBLEMS OE SEMANTICS

fro m philoso phy sensuthan t h e sem an tic pro blem s co n

s tr ict o

n ect ed with l o gi c and epi stem o l o gy Neve rtheless ,gen eral sem an
.

tics h as certain phi lo sophical implicati o ns There are cert ainly .

idealisti c i mpli cati ons,lou dly b andied ab ou t in M arxi st eriti

cism Bu t there are also o ther i m pli cati o ns passed o ver in silen ce
.

by that criticism ,since they spo il t h e schem atic pattern an d blu r

”
ideali sm Th e passing o v er in silence is,
“
t h e pictu re o f pu re .

si n ce e verythin g th at dist orts t h e t ru th is h arm fu l ,u sel ess an d

harm fu l Th e m ore so si nce that O bj ecti o n can be raised n ot

.

o nl y ag ain st fo rm er pu blic ati o ns ,su ch as Bykh o v sky s arti cle

’

o n C orn fo rt h s b oo k , bu t also ag ainst m ore recen t pu bli cati on s”

’
.

Su ch criticism is harmfu l also b ecau se,contrary t o t h e int en

ti ons o f t h e aut h ors,it un dermines t h e prestige Of M arxi sm Th e .

n o t o ri ou s arti cle by B Bykh ov sky o n sem an ti c s (pu blishe d in t h e

.

Bolshe vik in Au gu st 1947) w as repri nted witho u t any co mm en t

in t h e E TC (in t h e Au tu mn Of an d t h e it em S em anti c
”
Phi lo sophy fro m t h e Con cise Ph ilosop h ical D ic t ion ary (in Ru s
si an ,ed R o zent al an d Yu din ,M o sco w ,19 5 1) w as al so reprin t
.

ed with ou t c o m men t as an ann ex t o L anguage ,M ean ing and

M a tur ity I n thi s w ay,t h e critical di scu ssi ons Of seman ti c s cam e
.

t o share t h e fate o f m any o ther item s fro m t h e Con cise Ph ilo

“

s op h ical D ict ionar w hi c h w e i n t d with ou t c omm en t

y er re pr e

as a separate pu bli cati o n a n d ci rcu l ated by th e an ti- co m m u n i st

peri o di cal Preuves Thu s o u r ide o lo gical opp on en ts c o n sider

'

“ ”
statem ent s whi c h were i n ten d ed as an n ihil ati n g critici sm o f

b o urgeo i s id eali stic ideo lo gy ,t o be th e b est counter-propagan d a,

t h e b est weap on agai n st M arxi sm an d C o m mu n i sm C an there .

be a sh arper co n d em nati on o f su ch form s Of ideol o gical eriti

cism ?

2
2 I mean h ere t h e w ork Of I
‘

. A p
.
-
TflI I
“
I/Ineann cr m ecxaa CYII IHOCTI:
”
ceman r mrec xo fi ( l/IJI OCO I dealist E ssence
"

b QWIH [Th e of S em an tic Phi losoph y] ,

in th e coll ec tion Coep e/uenn bt ii [ Contemporary S u b
'

cybaetcmuen b i u naeanus w

jec tiv e Idealism],M o c a 1957 ,

 GENERAL S E M A NTIC S

This conclu de s t h e first part o f my b o ok It no t on ly pro

.

vides inform ati on ab ou t sem antic s an d t h e su bj ect m atter o f it s

hinv est igat io ns in t h e v ari o u s fi eld s,b u t h as also enabl ed u s t o

rem o ve a n u m b er o f m isu nd er st an d in gs an d erro n eo u s apprais

ials accu mu lat e d in M arxi st lit eratu re ,m o stly as a resu lt O f an

i nsufficient kn o wledge o f t h e su bj ect It h as fu rther given a review

.

o f a wide ran ge o f pr o blem s,o ft en qu ite u nt o u ched by M arxist

an aly sis an d crit ici sm. C ertain i ssu es b elon ging t o sem anti cs,
m ai nl y th ose related t o t h e theory Of com m un icati on ,signs
and m eanin g ,will b e t aken u p in t h e su b sequent ch apt ers .
 CH APTER O NE

THE P H I L O S O PH I CAL A SPE CT

O F THE C O MM U N I CATI ON PR O C E S S

A n d t h e wh o l e e art h l g g, d
w as Of one an ua e an o f on e S p eech .

A n d it cam e t o p ,as th y j urn y d f m t h

as s e o e e ro e east ,t h at th e y
fo u n d a pl ain in t h e l d f S hi
an ; d t h y dw l t t h
o n ar an e e e re .

A n d th e
'

y sai d o n e t o an o t h er ,G O t o ,le t us ma ke b ick,an dr

b urn t h em th o ro u h l g y . A nd t h e yh ad bikf
r c or st on e ,an d slime h ad
th e y fo r m o rt ar .

A n d th e y said ,G O to ,let us build us a cit y an d a

_
t o w e r,w h o s e
t op m ay reach un t o h ea v
en an d l et us m k a e us a n am e , est l
w e b e scatte red a ro ad u b p on th e face of t h e w h o e earthl .

A n d th e L ord cam e do w n t o see th e cit y an d t h e t o w er,w hi ch

t h e ch ildren o f m en build ed .

An d t h e L ord said ,B eh o l d,th e p pl

eo e is o n e,an d t h e y
v ha e

l an guag ; y b gi thin g w ill

'

all o ne e an d t hi s t h e e n t o do : an d n ow no

be restr ained f o m r t h em ,w hich th e y ha v e g

im a in e d t o d o .

GO t o ,le t us go d o w n , an d t h ere c o nfo un d t h e ir l g g

an ua e ,
t h at th e y m ay n o t un der st an d o n e ano t h e r s
’
p
s eec h .

S o th e Lo rd sc at t ere d t h em a b ro ad fro m th en ce u p on th e face

o f all th e e art h : an d th e yl eft off to l
b u i d th e cit y
( Genesis , X1, 1-
8)

E rro r is v
n e er so difi c ul t to b e d estro yd e as w h en i t h as its
ro o t s in L an g g
ua e
”
.

( B en th am )

EVEN in their pre fl ti on s o n reality ,peo ple cam e

-scient ific re ec

t o realize ,t o a c ert ain ext ent ,t h e so ci al fu n cti o n an d t h e so ci al

power o f lan gu age Lu ci an o f S am o sat a relates that t h e G au ls

.

represen t ed H ercu l es,t h e sym b o l Of st ren gth ,as a pat ri arch ,

drawin g men after hi m ,their ears fasten ed t o h is t on gue with

golden chains Th ose people, says Luci an , fo ll ow thei r su b
.

jugat or willin gly and j oyfu lly ,alth o u gh they might easily free
them selves Fro m that extraordin ary pi ctu re it seems that to
.

th e Gau l s that physi cal stren gth w as n o thi n g as co m pared with

 S ELECTE D PR OB LE M S OF S EM A NTICS

t h e p o wer o f t h e word . An d t h e c hain s whic h tied peo ple t o Her

cu le s
’
t on gu e were b u t t h e w o rds whi ch fl o wed from h is li ps
t o their m in d sl .

Th ese problem s h ave m an y a tim e b een t aken u p in lit erature ,

prin ci pally phil o sophical ,b oth ancien t (c hi efly Gree k) an d m o d
ern (chi efly En gli sh) Bu t fo a pro fou n d ,t ru ly sc i entific ,an d
.
r
at t h e sam e ti me m any—sided and bro ad an aly si s o f t h e probl em

o f t h e so ci al role o f l an g u age,an d in parti cu l ar t h e pr o blem o f

t h e p h ilosop h ical sign ificanc e o f l an g uage ,w e h ad t o wait u n ti l

t h e m o st recent ti m es I n t h e 2 . 0 th cen tu ry , t h e pro blem o f lan

guage h as beco me th e d om inant phil osophi cal issu e .

Hen ce an emb arrassi n g sit u ati on for on e w h o h as resolved

t o give a M arxi st analysi s o f t h e pro bl em Em b arrassi n g fo r v ar
.

i o us reason s .

Fi rst of all ,t h e wealth o f literatu re In t h e latest peri o d al o n e ,

.

an o cean o f in k h as b een pou red ou t in di sc u ssi o n s on t h e su bj ect .

Next ,t h e i mm ensity o f t h e problem itself Th e issu e o f t h e .

so ci al role an d t h e s oci al sign ifi can ce o f l an gu age (t h e q u esti o n

o f t h e r ole o f l an g u ag e in sci en ce an d phil o so phy is bu t a sm all

part o f t h e wid er pro blem ) is so b road th at it is ab solu t ely im

p ossible t o exhau st it in a si n gle b o o k Thu s,t h e n ecessity t o
.

b e selective bu t t o select wh at ?
Fin ally , there is an additi o n al di fficu lty ari sin g fro m t h e
fact that ,whi le M arxist literature h as fo r m an y y ears n eglect ed
tho se m att ers,t h e freq u ent an alysi s m ade o f th em h as o ften been
fro m c learly id eali sti c po siti on s A M arxi st au th or w h o t akes
.

u p t h e di scu ssi o n o f these i ssu es an d au t o m ati cally al so a dis

cu ssio n i nv o lvi n g t h e so lu ti o n s su g ge st ed thu s far is in so m e

sen se a pi o n eer . Th e c h o i ce of pro blem s,therefo re ,m u st b e ex
t rem ely cau ti o u s an d som ewh at re st ri ct ed , especi ally at first .

S u ch b ein g t h e situ ati o n I thi n k th at ch o ice sh o u ld c o ver focal

i ssues,th e so lu ti on o f whi ch is t h e startin g po i nt fo r fu rther,
1 Described by Stefan C zarno w ski in h is w ork Herkules G alijski
‘

[G allic Hercul es] ,in clu de d in Vo l I I I o f h is D ziela [ C o llecte d W o rks] ,War

.

ere nce is m ade th ere t o Lu c ian s Heracles

’
szaw a 19 5 6 ; re f .
 S ELECTED PR OB LE M S OF S E M A NTIC S

ur al lan gu age s Thi s is by no m e an s inc iden t al Th e limi tati o n s

. .

o f l o gi cal sem anti cs were a resu lt o f t h e p h ilosop h icall li m ited

y
po i nt o f Vi ew o f its fou n ders,b oth adherents o f an alytical ph i
lo so phy,and th o se o f l o gical em piri cism Attem pts t o rem o ve .

those lim itati ons were m ade even b efo re 1939 ,alth ou gh they
go t int o full swin g o nl y after 1945 Th e dev el opm en t h as o c .

cu rred o ft h e gen eral theo ry o f si gns, i e semi o ti cs, whi ch ,althou gh

. .

b o rn o f t h e m arri age o f neo -po sitivism with pragm ati sm ,g oes

bey on d t h e n arro w fo rm al treatmen t o f l an gu age by t h e neo
p o sitivists Th e ten den ci es o f gen eral sem an ti cs t o analyse t h e
.

s o ci al infl u e nce an d t h e so ci al po wer o f l an gu age go still fu rth er .

At t h e sam e tim e ,a criti cal situ ati on af fectin g t h e fou n dati ons
o f an alytical phi lo so phy h as b een reveale d2 an d cert ai n fo rm al

an alyses whi c h are o f n o u se in t h e st u dy o f t h e n atural l an gu age

h av e been su bj ected t o criticism 3 L o gical sem antics,an d t h e .

m eth o d o f su c h ,have also b een criticiz ed severely by t h e li n gu i sts,

w h o att ac k its pu rely fo rm al an d con se quen tly ahist o ri cal an d

aso ci al an alysi s o f lin gu isti c phen o m en a .

For all t h e achievements an d su ccesses o f l o gical sem antics,

it s restricted c haracter is obvi ou s Obvi o u s,t o o ,is t h e n eed o f
.

n ew researches : n arro w fo rm ali sm m u st b e ab an d o ned ; t h e

s o cial aspect o f t h e pr o blem mu st be t aken in t o acco u nt ; id eal

'

ist ic m et aphy si cs m u st be rej ecte d (thi s w as c onn ecte d with

lo gi cal at om ism an d l o gi cal empiri cism ,an d i n clu ded elem ent s
o f P l at o ni sm o n t h e one h and and tho se o f epistem olo gical so lips
ism on t h e o ther) ; an d su ch phi lo sophi cal po siti on s m u st be
ad o pte d as w o u ld m ake po ssible a pro fou n d an aly si s o f t h e rel a

ti on o f l an gu age t o th ou ght and reality (Tarski s semantics,a ’

do pt ed by t h e neo -po sitivi sts,d oes n o t so lve t h e pro blem ,if only
”
becau se o f t h e philo so phi cal neu trali ty o f his co ncepti o n ,de
clared by Tarski him self,i e ,n eu t rality in t h e face o f t h e i ssu e
. .

as t o what is t h e n at u re o f referen ts o f si gn s) .

2 Cf . J . O . Urm son , Ph ilosop h ical Analys is , O xford 19 56 .

3 C f M ax Black
.
’
s critical ,extre mely importan t in
essays th is respec t ,
in clu ded in h is L anguage and Ph ilosop hy .
 THE PHIL OSOPHI CAL A SPECT OF THE COMM UN I CATI ON PROCESS 117

It is by no m ean s
idental th at t h e difli cu lt ies h ave b een
acc

felt for a fairly lo n g tim e ,th at their b ei n g reso lved is still a m atter
o f t h e fu t u re,that c riti c ism is g ro wi n g ev en am o n g t h e sem an

t icist s them selve s,and that n ew ten d en ci es are clearly gai n in g

in stren gth Thi s is.b ecau e at t h e ro o t o f t h e cri i s lie erroneou s

s s -

philo sophi cal assu m pti on s typi cal o f t h e t raditi o n al sem anti ci st
tren d It is preci sely this whi ch o ffers great oppo rtu nities t o t h e
.

theoreti cal rOle o f M arxist phil o so phy B y organi cally c om .

bin in g gno seolo gical an d so ci o l o gical p ro blem s,materi alism in

theoreti cal interpret ati ons with hist ori cism in metho d ol o gy ,
M arxist phi losophy is as it were predesti n ed t o rem ovi n g th o se
difficu lti es and sym pt om s o f cri si s wh i ch are n ow observed in
sem anti cs (in t h e b road sense o f t h e t erm ) .

I f w e n o w ask What is t h e fo cal theoretical problem whi ch

fro m that po i nt o f view sh o u ld b e inv estigated first t h e answer
must be,b ey on d all d ou bt th e th eory of comm un ica t ion4 .

S eman ti c s certainly i n clu des cert ain detailed qu esti o ns whi ch

are in n o w ay c on nected with p hilo so phi cal i ssu es for i nst an ce
certai n sp ecific pro blem s o f l o gi cal syn t ax Far be it fro m me
.
‘

t o d en y t h e sci en tific i m po rtance o f su ch pro bl em s,bu t when

w e i mm edi ately face t h e para

w e l eave t h e purely t echn i cal g ro un d ,
m ou n t qu esti on ,a qu esti o n on t h e so lu ti on o f whi ch d epen ds
thi s o r that solu ti o n o f a nu m b er o f probl em s that are u su ally
term ed sem an ti c That qu esti on is what is t h e pro cess o f hu m an
.

c o mm u ni cati o n (t h e pro cess t h e m o st i m p o rt an t p art o f whi ch

is hum an co mm u nicati o n by m eans o f a p h o n i c lan gu age) and

what are th e co n diti on s o f that process?

Let u s n ot Shi rk t h e issue,bu t b egin by analy sin g that prob
lem first .

R eference is m ade h ere t o t he p h ilosoph ical aspec t o f th e th eory of

4

co mm u nication , w h ich also h as oth er aspects : p sych olo gical, lingu istic ,

and tech nical,th e last-n amed being n ow t

ex en siv el y develo ped
.
 SELECTE D PROBLEMS OF S EM ANTICS

1 THE E SS EN CE O F T HE PR O B LE M OF
. CO M M U N IC A TI O N

0s,O gden
I n t h e 19 2 and Ri chards,au th ors w h o
have ren
d ered great service t o t h e developm en t o f sem antics,thu s ou tlin ed
t h e pro gramm e o f th at disci pli n e in t h e stu dy o f t h e theo ry o f

c o mm u ni cati on
“
I n yet an other respect all these speci alists fail t o reali ze
“

t h e defici enc i es o f curren t li n gu i sti c theo ry Pre o ccu pi e d as they

.

are ethn o l o gist with rec o rdi n g t h e d et ails o f fast v an i shi n g

lan gu ages ; phi lo l o gi st with an elab o rate t echn iqu e o f ph on etic

‘
laws an d pri nciples o f deriv ati o n ; philo sophers with ph i
all h ave o verl oo ked t h e pressi n g n ee d for a better
’
lo soph y
u n d erst an din g o f what actu ally occu rs in di scu ssi on Th e an aly sis .

o f t h e pro cess o f commu n i cati o n is partly psy ch ol o gi cal ,an d

psy ch ol o gy h as n ow reach ed a st age at whi ch t hi s part m ay be

su ccesfu lly u n dert aken Until this h ad happen ed th e sci ence o f
.

S ymb o li sm necessarily remai n ed in ab eyance,bu t there is n o

lo n ger any excu se fo r vagu e talk ab ou t M eanin g ,an d ign orance
”
o f t h e w ay s in whi c h w o rds d eceiv e u s 5

In wh at ho wever,d oes t h e pro blem o f in terhu m an c ommun i

cati on consi st ?

It oft en h appens that a phi losophi cal pro b lem begi n s at t h e

po i nt where comm on sense st ops sh o rt Ju st at that p o i nt where
.

co mm o n s en se seem s sati sfied , st ati n g plai nl y th at pe o ple speak to

o n e ano th er an d in thi s w ay con vey m u tu ally all ki n ds o f in fo rm a

ti on ,an d in thi s sense comm u ni cate with o n e an other,t h e phil o s

oph er st art s aski n g qu esti on s : bu t h o w d o they do that ? an d

why ? an d what d o es it all m ean ? He o ften questi on s in a w ay

inv o lvin g ri sk t o h is repu tati o n ,a w ay whi ch lead s laym en t o
“
im part t o t h e term phil o sopher a d ero gat ory shade S o it .

mu st also be c on ceded th at t h e po et m ay b e right in ridi cu li n g

p hi l o so ph i ca l sp ecu l ati on an d r ai si n g hi s v o i ce in d e fen ce o f
comm on sen se Th e h o nesty o f a professi o n al ph il o so ph er im
.

5 C K . . O gden I A
. . Rich ards,Th e M eaning f M eaning,Lo n do n
o

1953,p . 8 .
 S ELECTE D PROBLEM S OF SEM ANTICS

Bu t can su c h c o mm o n -sen se argum en a t ti on su fli c e fo r ou r

y i
an al s s ? Cert ain ly n o t It w as Eng els w h o said th at wh at is
.

term ed comm on sense fares well en ou gh in every-day m atters,

bu t stran ge thin g s begin t o h appen t o it when it seek s t o b ec o m e
i n vo lved in t h e wider aren a o f sci entific, p hi lo so ph i cal , et c , .

investigati ons .

Hum an comm u ni cati on em braces a far fro m n egli gible phi lo

‘
s ophi cal pro blem ,st ran ge as th at m ay seen fro m t h e c om m on

sense p o in t o f Vi ew .

I s there anyt hi ng sim pler in every-day li fe than t h e fact when

“ ”
w e say t o a person w e are w o rkin g with , h an d m e t h e axe, please
“ ”
or steady th at b eam , please ,th at person ,on h earin g wh at w e
,

say,b eh aves as w e h av e aske d h im t o It is all so simple and

.

sel f-evid en t th at sh o u ld t h e b eh avi o u r expecte d in reply t o o ur

word s no t occu r,w e shou ld see it as so m ethin g ext raordin ary

an d seek t h e c au ses o f su ch a st ate o f t hi n g s J u st t h e fact wh at
.

w e are sti m u l ated t o reflect o n t h e co m mu n i cati o n process o nl y

when it b ecomes distu rbed sh ows h ow n atural that pro cess
seem s t o u s . Nevertheless h ere lies a phi l osophi cal an d so ci o
lo gical pro blem o f en orm ous sign ificance : h ow d oes it h appen
that people do comm u ni cate with one an other ? It is on ly against
t h e b ackg roun d o f th at pro blem th at w e see in a pro per light

and in a pro p er co nt ext t h e traditi o n al ,alm o st cl assi cal i ssues

o f sem an ti cs, su c h as t h e q uesti o ns o f sign , Of sym b ol ,o f meani ng,

o f l an g u age an d speech ,an d t h e related p hilo sophi c al (st ri ct ly :

gno seolo gical) i ssues O f c ou rse ,it is p o ssible t o en gage in t h e

.

stu dy o f l o gi cal an ti n o mi es, o f t h e the o ry o f types ,an d o f l o gi cal

calcu lu s,with o u t p ayi n g heed t o th ei r wid er theo reti cal aspects .

Bu t o nly t o a certain po i nt S o it is n ot a practi cal p ossibility

.

t o d eal o nl y with t h e n arro w techn i cal aspect s o f t h ese problem s

withou t cro ssin g t h e fron tier b ey o n d whi ch t h e ph ilo so phi cal

i ssue lo om s large Neither a lo gici an n or a lin gu i st can av o id
.

that eventu ality ,if h e sets o u t t o stu dy t h e theo reti c al aspect

o flan gu ag e as t h e su bj ect m att er o fhis i nvesti gati o n s He h as t o do
.

so so o n er o r lat er an d thereby b eco m e ,wi lly- n illy,a phi lo so pher .

 THE PHILOSOPHI CAL AS PECT OF THE COMM UNI CATION PROCESS 12

To derst an d that ,it su fli ces t o take a lo o k at t h e c o ntro

un

v ersy con cern in g th e pro m i ses an d co n diti o ns o f t h e c o m m u ni

c ati on process,a con tro versy b etween t h e t w o pri nci pal c o n

ception s in th at respect : trans cenden tal an d n at u ralis t Th at c on .

trov ersy will be discu sse d b el o w an d,in o rder t o sh o w t h e ar

g u m e n t s in fu ll reli e f, I sh a ll fo ll o w U rb an 6 in ch o o sin g as th
i i l o on t s J s s 7 a s t h e re resen tative o f t h e t ran
p r n c p a pp en a p er p
scen dent al concepti on ,and D ewey 8 as t h e represent ative o f t h

n atu rali st co n cepti o n Bu t as b ackgroun d t o their argu m ent

.

cert ai n gen eral rem ark s are n ec essary .

Th e problem i ti on is cert ainly one o f t h e fu nd a

o f co mm u n ca

mental problem s o f philo sophy Su flice it t o po i nt o ut th at comm u .

nicabilit y is o n e o f t h e essen ti al pro perti es b el on gin g t o t h e de

fini t ion o f kn o wledge,o f scien t ific co gn iti on : this is so becau s

intersu bj ective v erifiabilit y wo u ld be i mpossible withou t c o m
mu n icab ility M o reo ver,c om mu n icati o n seem s t o be an elem en
.

in separable from all processes connected with co gn iti on : ev e

speechl ess t hi n ki n g in m o n o l o gu e is a specific act o f co mm u n i

cati o n (in t h e e xt en ded sen se o f t h e t erm) C o n sequ ently ,it is n .

m atter for won der that phi lo so phy cann o t disre gard that pro b
“

lem ,if epist em olo gy is t o be pu rsu ed in any reaso n able m ann er

Fu rther,t h e st atem en t that c o m m u n i cati on is one o f t h
essenti al phen o m en a o f soc i al li fe is n o t o nl y o bvi o u s,b u t triv

ial With ou t hu m an comm u ni cati on , with o u t a p oss ibility 0

.

suc h co m mun i cati o n ,soc i al li fe wo u ld be im p o ssible ; thi s refer

6 Th e t
c on ro v ersy lu cidly presented by
is v er y Wilbu r M arsh all U rba
In telligible
“
in L ang uage and Reality ,L o n don 19 5 1,Ch ap VI : . Co m muni
catio n ”
. Urban dec lare s h im self in fav o ur of th e transcen dental c o nce ptio n

in w hich h e ev iden tly fo llow s K an t .

7 Jaspers,Ph ilosop h ie,V O] 2: Exi st enzerhellung,Berlin 1932

Cf K. . .

Ch ap III : K omm u n ik ation ,is dev o ted t o th e explan ation o f th e existential

.
“ ”

i st th e ory o f co mmun ication .

y,Exp erience and N at ure,L o n don 192 9 ,Ch ap V

8 Cf J D e w e . . . .
 SELEC TED PROBLEMS O F S EM ANTICS

in parti cular t o th e process o f a o ur

l b ,whi ch li es at th e roo t o f
soc i al li fe It is sel f-eviden t
. that t h e problem o f comm un icati o n
is al so one o f t h e fo cal i ssues o f so ci o lo gy .

N o wo n der ,then ,that phil osophers are n ow payi n g parti e

u l ar attenti o n t o t h e qu esti o n I sh ou ld say mu ch m o re : ef
.

fo rts mu st be m ade t o extract t h e kernel o f t h e problem from

th e m y sti fyi n g shell o f t hi s o r th at phi l o so phical specu l ati on.

M oreo ver ,o ne sh ou ld n ot even all o w onesel f t o b e di scouraged

“ ”
a p riori in t h e case o f t h e c o ntro versy ar ou nd tru e co mm un ica
ti on , a c ontroversy b etween t h e t w o con cepti ons m enti oned
ab o ve.

Fi rst o f all,ho wever,t h e co ncept o f comm uni cati on mu st

be explai n ed in great er d et ail and t h e o bj ect o f contro versy m u st
thu s be m ade m ore precise .

I fo llow U rb an in dividin g acts o f com mun i cati on i nt o tw o

pri n ci pal categori es : acts co mm un i cati ng a cert ai n b ehavi o ur
o r em o ti on al st at e (b ehavi ou ral comm uni cati on) ,an d acts co m

m un icat in g a cert ain kn owledge o r m ent al st at e (in telligible

comm un i cati o n) .

V ari ou s attem pts h ave b een m ade t o give a defini ti on of m an ,

t o bri n g o u t his differen t ia sp ecifica M arx said after Fran klin
.

that m an is an an im al whi ch pro du ces t o ols ; con tem porary

sem anti cists see that dif ferentia in t h e ability t o u se signs an d
sym b o l s In fact ,in b o th cases w e h ave t o do with di f
. feren t as
pect s o f t h e sam e pro cess o f h um an so ci al li fe Th e process o f
.

lab ou r an d t h e process o f u si n g signs,i e ,hum an co m m u n ica

. .

ti on are i nt erco n nected g eneti cally an d fu n cti on all y. I f that

c onn ecti on is un d erst o o d ,o ne can w ell i nt ro du ce comm u nica

ti on as an elem ent in t h e d efini ti on o f m an an d hum an society .

Bu t wh at c om m u ni cati on ?
I n a certain sense o f t h e term ,co mm u n i cati o n c an be o bserv
“ ”
e d in t h e anim al w o rld as well Th e bee ,with it s
. d ance an d
fli cks o f t h e ant enn ae,i n du ces it s hive-m at es t o fly t o ri ch fin d s,
“ ”
an d thu s c o m m u nicat es so m ethi n g t o them Th e sam e ap
.

pli es t o t h e ants,which with t ou ches o f t h e an tenn ae warn thei r

124 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SEMAN TI CS

l m an ifest ati o n s o f that specific fo rm o f com m un icati o n ?

'

u ar
“
Th o se con n oi sseurs o f m u sic do well w h o warn agai n st its pro
” “ ”
gram mized percepti o n, that is against t ransl atin g m u sic
“ ”
in to a lan gu age of thi n ki n g in term s o f n oti o n s or im ages .

They m ai n tain that mu si c shou ld be perceived as a stream o f

em o ti o n al st at es o f a spec ific kin d I ag r
-
. ee with th at ; co nsequ ent
”
ly, I ag ree with t h e asserti o n that if m u sic re flect s anyt hi ng
at all , then it reflects o nly em o ti o n al states,an d that if it tran s
m it s,c omm un icates so m ethin g t o o thers,then it comm un i c ates
j u st su ch states o nl y I mean ,of cou rse ,go o d ,great mu si c Bu t
. .

”
I do n o t agree with t h e asserti on that that is t h e tru e com
m un icat ion , com m u nicati o n p ar ex cellen ce, alth ou gh I admit
that it is a differen t ,sp ecial fo rm o f co mm u n icati on .

Is n o t ,e g ,t h e esc ape so u ght by t h e visu al art s in ab st rac

. .

t io n ism co nnecte d with t h e exi st en ce o f that fo rm o f comm u n i

cati on ? Th e ab stracti on ist the si s is th at t h e i n tellectu al co n t en t

“
o f vi su al experi en ce sh o u ld be rej ect ed an d o nly t h e true trans
m issi o n o f cert ain em o ti onal st ates sh ould be left Th e pro m ot.

“
ers o f d ad aism and o ther sim ilar tren d s in po etry were al so
“
c o n cern ed ,they cl ai m ed ,with a tru e c omm u n i cati on with
som e direct t ran smi ssi on t o o thers o f thei r o w n em o ti on al
st at es and e xperi ences .

Let u s sidetrac k t h e apprai sal o f all th o se arti stic t ren ds,

an d t ry t o fin d ou t wh at is c o m m on t o them fro m t h e p o i n t o f

Vi ew in whi ch w e are i nterested : in all tho se c ases w e h ave t o do

with hu m an commu ni cati o n ,bu t a co mmu ni cati o n o f a speci al
type,n am ely o f an emot ional,an d no t an in tellectual,n atu re .

An d yet w e im ply i n t ell ectu al c om m un i c ati o n when w e speak

o f hu m an c o mm u n i cati o n tou t cour t .

Why ? B ecau se it is m o st co mm on in t h e soci al lives o f m en

an d plays in their li fe a speci al r Ole,is a n ecessary c on diti on o f

all so ci al b on d s, an d e spec i ally o f t h e b o n d s resu lti n g fr o m p ro d u c

tive wo rk .

Wh at that type o f co mm u ni cati on really co n sists o f afte r

all kn o wn t o u s perfectly wel l fro m every -day li fe can b est
 THE PHI LOSOPHI CAL AS PECT OF THE COMMUNI CATI ON PROCES S 125

be seen if w e co m pare it with c o mm u n ca

i ti on by m eans,fo r
inst an ce,o f mu si c .

N ow t h e c o m po ser e xperi en ces an ecst asy o f l ove an d ex

pre sses it in t h e l an gu age o f m u si c in t h e form o f a N o c turne ,
or h e experi enc es pat ri o ti c e lan du e t o a n ati on al u pri si n g in
'

his cou ntry an d gives expre ssi on - t o h is feeli n g s in t h e fo rm o f

th e Re vo lu tionary E tude ,o r el se h e tran smi t s em oti o n ally t h e
d reari ness o f a rai n y day in th e fo rm of a Rain Prelude After .

m any years,som eon e else li sten s t o th ose w o rks with ou t kn owin g

th e acco m pan yin g c i rcu m st an ces o f thei r birth ,withou t kno wi n g
their titles,an d withou t any pro gramm ed decipheri n g o f their
meani n g in i nt ellectu al t erm s N onetheless h e d o es experi ence t h e
.

lon gin g o f t h e N octurne,t h e ex citem en t o f t h e Revolu t ionary

E tude,an d t h e dreari ness o f t h e Rain Prelude ; pro vided ,h ow
ev er,an d thi s I s n o trifli n g pr o vi so ,th at h e b el o n gs t o a d efin ite

cu ltu ral t raditi o n ,in parti cu l ar as re g ard s m usi c For a H i n du

.

’
wh o h as n ot est abli shed co n tacts with Eu ro pean cu ltu re,C h o pi n s
mu sic is as non-comm uni cative as is old H i n du m u sic fo r a Euro
pean O ne p oint m ore : since w e have t o do with an em o ti on al
.

“
cont agi on by n on -i ntellectu al m eans here,n o o n e can kn ow
whether h e experi ences the sam e feeling as did t h e com p oser,
o r as do o ther peo ple li st en i n g t o t h e sam e c o m p ositi o n Th e .

fact that even t h e sam e perso n di ffers at v ari ou s peri o ds in hi s

reacti o n t o t h e sam e pi ece o f m u si c ,d epen din g o n h is ow n em o
“
t io n al context forces u s t o t h e c on clu si o n that di fferent peo ple
perh aps experience di fferent feeli n g s in reacti o n t o specific pieces
S om e people say th at it sh ou ld be so ,an d th at t h e
'

o f m u si c
“
l an gu age of mu sic is t h e b est j u st b ecau se it is flexible I shall .

not d ecid e th at po i nt h ere . I shou ld like o nly t o add, in

parentheses,th at there is so m e g reat mi su n derst an di n g whi ch
ari ses o u t o f t ran sferi n g p ar force,in spit e o f all decl arati o ns,

t h e cat eg ories o f i ntellectu al c om m u ni cati o n t o th e fi eld of mu si c .

All in all w e can say th at in t h e case o f co m m

“ ” ’
u n i catin g o ne s

experi en ces t o o th ers by m ean s o f m u si c there is an em o ti o n al

“ ”
c on t agi o n : th o se w h o t ransm it t h e c o mm u niqu e, an d th o se w h o
126 SELECTED PROBLEM S OF SEMANTICS

rece ive it ,experi ence definite em oti on al st ates ; t h e simi larity

as b etween these st at es c ann o t be ascer tain ed ; t h e perceptive

reacti on t o wh at is comm un icat ed l argely d epen d s on t h e em o

t ional co ntext in whi ch t h e c omu n iqu é is pl ace d by t h e perso n

w h o receives it .

What ab ou t comm u nicati o n com bined w ith in tellectu al un der

st an di ng ,that is,t h e case o f t h e commu ni cati on o f cert ain in tel
lectu al states?
N o det ailed an alysis o f that type o f c omm u ni cati o n will
be u nd ertaken here I shall confine m yself t o t aki n g n ot e only
.

o f su ch o f it s general trait s as m ake it po ssible t o distin gu i sh it

from th e com m u ni cati on o f em o ti o n al states .

S u ppose P eter is fellin g trees t o gether with J o hn , an d at

“
a cert ai n m om en t h e says : H an d m e t h e axe,please J o hn
hears what Pet er say s and,com prehen din g t h e co n tent ,passes
h im th e axe A n ec essary con diti on fo r thi s act o f com preh en
.

si o n is th at J o hn sh ou ld kn o w t h e l an gu ag e u sed by Pet er,si n ce

o therwi se h e w o u ld b e u nable t o u n d erst an d h im (j u st a s G od

c orrectly c onclu d ed in t h e case o f t h e T o wer o f B ab el) . S h ou ld

J o hn ,with ou t un derstan di n g t h e lan gu age u sed by Peter,gu ess,
from t h e situ ati o n al con text an d Peter s gestu res,wh at it is that
’

P eter wants,an d pass him t h e axe,th at w ou ld n ot alt er t h e e s

senc e o f t h e case : J o h n ,guided by t h e situ ati on al co ntext ,w oul d
tell hi mself what Peter o bvi ou sly wanted t o com mu n i cate t o
h im Th e understanding o f Peter by J o hn wo u ld be replaced by
. .

’
J o h n s guessing Peter s i nten ti on s But with ou t u n derstan din g
’
.

t h e partn er there is n o comm u ni cati o n .

In what ,then ,d oes t h e act o f comm u n icati on consi st ?

A perso n m akes a stat em en t , an d an o ther perso n , w h o hears that

st at em ent ,unders tands it , ie ,

.experi ences m ent al st ates analogous
.

(no t the same, sin ce th at d epen d s o n t h e i n divid ual co ntext ,which

chan ges) t o th ose o f t h e au th o r o f t h e st at em ent An d th at is all

. .

Witho u t enterin g i nt o d et ails o f that very c om pli cated pro

cess, o ne c an at o n ce grasp t h e di f ference b etween t h e t w o ty pe s
o f co mm un i cati o n di scu ssed .
128 SELECTED PROBLEMS or S E M ANTICS

m en ti o n ed a b o ve) That is t o say

. in c o ntrast with em o ti o n al
c om m u ni cati o n i n tellectu al comm u ni cati on is co n diti oned by
t h e experi en ce o f t h e c omm u n i cati n g parti es o f analogous men t al

st at es,an d t h e id eal sou ght in thi s field is t h e m o st prec i se co m

m u n icat ion po ssible o f o ne s o w n m en t al st ates (w e im ply a fu ll

’

prec isi on and ad equ acy o f comm u ni cati o n) ,with a shifti n g o f

t h e m argin o f i n divid u ali z ati o n in experi en ci n g analogo us m en t al
st at es i n t o t h e sphere o f t h e c ont ext pro vid ed by t h e vari o u s

i ntellectu al ,em oti onal ,et c ,associ ati on s

. .

“ ”
Th e t erm con t ext h as b een several tim es u sed ab o ve in
a m et aph ori cal an d th erefore v agu e sen se ; so it m u st be defin ed

with m ore preci si on This will n ow be d one provi si on ally ,b ecau se

.

t h e pro blem it self b el on gs t o t h e i ssu e o f m ean ing,t o be d ealt

with l ater It will only be ou tli ned here t o give a general i ndi
.

cati on o f wh at I m ean wh en I say th at so m ethi n g is un d erst o o d

“ ”
in a co ntext .

Th e m atter is qui te clear when a li terary m et aph o r is reso rted

“
t o I f so m eo n e says o f som eo n e else :
. He is a bu tterfly flit
”
tin g from fl ower t o fl o wer ,then t o un derst an d that st at em ent
requi res a c h an g e in t h e un ivers du dis cours from n atural t o so ci al

sc i en ce ,si nce o therwi se a c o m plet e mi su n d erst an di n g will ari se.

S im il ar, thou gh less self-evid en t ,is t h e case o f chan ges in t h e m ean

i n gs o f cert ain st atemen ts accordi n g t o whether w e speak in
terms o f poetry , o r sci en ce, or som e speci alized di sci pli n es ;
in o ther w ords,t h e sen se o f an expressi o n c h an ges acco rdin g
t o t h e un iv ers da discours in whi ch it is pl aced T hi s is du e t o t h e
.

fact that lin gu i stic expressi o ns are extrem ely am b igu o u s an d admit
o f difl erent i n t erpret ati on s I do n o t agree with U rb an when h e
.

says th at t h e co m m u ni cati o n o f em o ti on al st at es t hr ou gh b e

havi ou r (so call ed b ehavi o u ral com m u ni cati o n) d oes n ot requ ire
t h e co n sid erati o n o f any cont ext ,at least in t h e sim plest cases ;

bu t I fu lly agree with h im o n t h e p oi nt that i n tellectu al com

m u n icat io n presu ppo ses a reference n ot j u st t o an o bj ect ,bu t
t o an o bj ect l o cate d in a d efin it e un ivers da dis co urs ,in o ther

w o rd s, th at t h e content o f a c omm un iqu é can be un derst o o d

 THE PHI LOSOPHI CAL ASP ECT OF THE COMMUNICA TION PROCESS 129

on ly in defin ite c o ntext All lin guisti c m eani n g is referen ti al ,

a .

”
bu t it is al so syt i
s em c 9 If t h e un ivers du discours is i nt erpreted
.

n o t on ly as a ch an gi n g system o f kno w ledge t o whi ch a given

st at em en t is referre d , bu t al so as an i n dividu ally c han gi ng sy stem

o f accu m u l at ed experi ence,w e achiev e wh at I h av e in a m o st

general w ay call ed t h e i n tellectu al an d em o ti on al con text o f

a ch an gi n g u n d erst an di n g o f t h e sam e expressi o n by di f feren t
i n dividu al recipients Let u s be satisfied ,for t h e tim e b ein g ,
.

with that prelim i n ary expl an ati on .

Thu s w e com e t o t h e fo ll o wi ng con clusi on s co ncernin g a m o re

”
precise formu lati o n o f t h e t erm com m uni cati on
Th e specifically hu m an m ann er of c omm u ni cati on refers
t o t h e en ti re d o m ain o f m an s spi ritu al li fe : b oth t o e m o ti onal
’

an d t o in t ell ect u al experi en c e Alth ou gh these t w o sph eres can

.

n ot be separated in an ab so lu t e w ay, they represent dif feren t

fields of spiritu al life an d thu s they are c on nected with differen t
forms o f comm u ni cati on (whi ch them selves cann ot be separat ed
in any rigid an d ab so lu t e w ay) .

C omm u nicati o n in t h e em o ti on al sphere o ften t akes place

thr ou gh t h e in term edi ary o f extra-lin gu isti c m eans,an d one can
accept t h e thesis that as far as t h e t ransm issi on o f cert ai n em o
”
tion al m o o d s (em o ti o n al co n t agi on ) is co ncern ed , t h e ex

pressiv e m eans o f m u sic an d o f t h e visu al arts cert ainly do ach i eve

so m ethi n g (alth o u gh it mu st be b o rn e in mi n d th at th e realiz a

ti on o f o ne S em o ti on al state ,achi eved as a resu lt o f extra-lin

’

guist ic co mm u ni cati on ,requ ires lin gu istic m ean s) .

Intellectu al co m m u ni cati on ,i e ,c om m u n i cati on i n ten ded t o

. .

tran smit t o o thers certai n m ent al st at es,is a li n gu isti c com m u ni

cati o n p a r excellence (si n ce t h e sy st em s o f si gns alway s repre

sen t s o m e fragm ent s o f a ph o n i c lan gu age) , an d t h e focal pr o blem

h ere is an analogous un ders tan ding by t h e c om m u ni catin g parties ,

whi ch presu ppo ses n ot onl y a c o mm o n reference t o t h e sam e
obj ect ,b u t also a c o mm o n referen ce t o t h e sam e un ivers du dis

cours .

9 Urban ,op . cit .

,p 232
. .
13 0 SELECTED PROBLEMS O F SEMANTICS

Th e pro blem of a dequ ate un d erst andi n g

between t h e as

persons parti ci patin g in t h e process o f c omm u nicati o n is c on

nect ed with t h e cont ro versy b etween t h e t ranscen d ent ali st an d

t h e n atu rali st c o n cepti o n ,a c o n t ro versy w e are n o w g o i n g t o

su bm it t o criti cal an aly si s .

2. T HE CON TR OVE RS Y B ETWEEN THE TRAN S CEN D EN TALI S T

A N D THE N AT U R ALIS T CON CEPTI ON

Th e transcen dentali st co ncepti on o f t h e comm un ic ati o n

process cert ai nl y one o f t h e stran gest c o n cepts fro m t h e po i nt

o f Vi ew o f c o mm o n sen se an d o f a sc i entifi c reflecti o n on re

ality cann o t be un derst o o d with ou t due c o nsid erati o n o f it s

p hi l o so phi cal b ac k gro u n d H i sto rically ,it reaches b ack t o t h e

.

d octrin e o f Plat o w h o ab o ve em pirical c o gniti on pl aced di rect

co gn iti o n , that is an i nsight of t h e sou l in t o t h e essence o f thi n gs,
i nto their id eas,an i nsight that can be n either rendere d in words
n o r comm un i cated Th e con tin u ati on o f th at view c an be seen
.

in n eo -P l at o nic my sti cism ; it h as also b een revived in m o st re

,
c ent ti m es in t h e v ari o u s versi o n s o f i rrati o n ali sm ,ab ov e all

in Bergso n s i ntu iti oni sm 10 an d in H u sserl s pheno m en o lo gy “

’ ’
.

Th e concepti o n that b elittles or even plain ly deni es t h e r6 1 e

o f verb al c o mm u ni cati o n h as it s ro o t s in th o se m et aphysi cal

“ ”
id eas Sp rich t die Seele,spri cht die S eele ni cht m ehr And
. .

M aeterli nck says : D oes any on e b eli eve that by means o f lan
g l m m ni ti ss f m m t o m n ?
”
12
gu a e an y rea co u ca o n c an p a ro an a

Y et t h e direct ph il osophi cal r o o ts o f t h e transcen dent ali st con

cept io n o f co mm u ni cati o n m u st be s ou ght el sewhere : in K anti

an ism ,o r rather in n eo -Kan ti an i sm Th e splittin g o f t h e w orld

.

10 S ee hi s L a p énsé e e t le mou van t ,Ch ap VI : . In tro duction ala metaph y

”
q
si u e .

11 Cf Ideen
. zu e iner re inen Phano menologie und p ha no meno lo gisch en

12
Q uoted after Urban ,o p . cit .
,p 2
. 42 .
13 2 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SEMANTI CS

Eigentlic he o fl en b arwird ,so ko nnte es Zi el werd en ,d ass Seele

m it S eele sch leierlo s o hn e alle B in dun g in der Au sserlich keit des
Welt daseins in Eines schl age .

“
J edoch kann in der Welt E xistenz mit E xistenz si ch ni cht
un mitt elb ar, son dern nu r durch die M edien der I n h alt e tref

fen D as I neinsschl agen der S eelen b ed arf der Wirkli chkeit des
.

H an delns u nd des Au sdru cks D enn K omm u nikati on ist n i cht

.

wi rklich als die widerstan dsl ose b estehen d e Helligkeit eines se

eli g en S ein s o hne R au m un d Z eit ,so n d ern die B ewe gun g des

S elb st sei n s im S t ofl der Wi rklichk eit W o hl ist es in Au gen

.

blicken ,als o b die Beriihrun g u nmi tt elb ar sei ; sie kann im Trans
zen dieren tib er alles Welt dasein si c h erfii llen A b er au c h d ann
.

ist Weit e un d Kl arheit des o bj ektiv g ew ordenen un d n un tran s

zen diert en Inh alt s das M ass fiir die En t schi e d enh eit des Au gen

bli cks der eigentli chen K omm u nikati on D iese gewi n n t ihr en .

Au fschwu n g du rch Teiln ah m e an Ideen in der Welt ,an Au fgab en

”
u n d Zweck en 13 .

Bu t it is t h e c o n cept o f transcen den t al i n tro du ced in

som e form o r an other i n t o t h e theory o f comm unicati o n , whi ch
is h ere o f deci sive si gnifican ce .

That con cept w as v ery clearly form u lated by Karl V ossler,

w h o in o rd er t o expl ain t h e essen ce o f co mm un i cati on i n tro
“ ”
du ced t h e n o ti o n o f met aphysi cal l an guage comm un ity alon g
-
“ ”
sid e that o f -
em piri cal l an gu age co mm un ity 14 .

Accordi n g t o V ossler,it is always on e person w h o is t h e

carri er an d au th o r o f t h e c o n versati on in whi ch com mu ni cati o n

t akes place,alth ou gh his fu n cti o ns an d roles m ay b e di stribu ted

o v er a n u m b er o f perso ns C o n versati o n is so m ethi n g like a d ram a
.

whi ch is played withi n each o f t h e participants in that co n versa

ti o n Thi s l o o ks as if t h e m on ol o gu e were said t o be t h e o rigin
.

o f t h e di al o gu e Bu t V o ssler g o es mu ch fur ther His explan ati on s

. .

sh o w wh at m et aphy si cal O bj ectives h e h as in Vi ew .

13 Jaspers,op cit ,p 67
. . . .

14 Vo ssler,Geist and Kultur in der Sp rach e,Heidel berg 1925 .

 THE PHIL OSOPHI CAL ASPECT OF THE COMMUNI CATION PROCESS 13 3

In der m et aphysisc hen An sic ht t llt si ch

s e die S ache so dar,
l
c ass in der mensc hlichen PersOnlich keit als l her,die ei ne
so c

Ein heit beliebiger V ielheit ist , sam t lich e

v on hi en ieden st att
fin den den Gesprach e si ch ab spielen All das,w as im Lau fe
.

der Zeit au f dem Erdb all gespro chen wird ,m u ss so nach als ein
riesiges S elbst gesprach ged acht werden ,in dem der menschli c he

Geist ,in M illi arden v o n personen h aft en R o llen sich entfalten d

u n d au s all diesen V erein zelu n gen sich wied er z u sammen su ch en d ,
‘

begrifl en ist .

“
D arau s folgt nu n freili ch ,d ass der menschliche Gei s t als

solc her eine einz ige Person sein O der werden miisst e und es
’

fragt sich ,ob der Begrifl der Person diese S tei geru n g in s Abso
lu te aushalt D ass der An spru ch au f etwas abso lut Geistiges
.

u nd Ei nheitli ches in ih m en th alt en ist ,k ann ni cht m ehr zwei fel

haft sein ; ab er die au sserste F o rmel mit ihrem V erlagen n ach

unen dli ch Vielen R o llen in e iner Perso n ist d am it n och l an ge

,
”
nicht verwi rkli cht 15 .

Be that as it m ay t h ese m et aphysical specu lati o ns o f a phil o l

o gist h ave been u se d as an argu men t in t h e c o nstru cti o n o f a tran

scen dent alist the ory o f comm u n ic ati o n T hi s is wh at U rb an ,o ne

.

“
o f t h e expo nen ts o f th at theo ry ,says in thi s co nn ecti on : Few
transcendentali sts c ert ainl y n ot K an t hi m self wou ld be
dispo se d t o thin k o f t h e n o ti o n o f t h e tran scen dent al Self as
m ore th an a sym b o l for this u n derlyi n g u ni ty Bu t t h e u ni ty thu s
.

symb olize d is itsel f n o t a myth It is a necessary c on diti o n o f

.

that u niversality ,that mu tu ality o f min d h owever sm all ,witho u t

which kn owledge an d it s c om mu ni cati on are im possible Whether .

fo r t h e Uni ty thu s sym b o liz ed w e u se t h e myth o f an o ver

‘ ’

in dividu al self or o f an o ver-in dividu al com mu nity is,from t h e

present po in t o f View ,a m att er o f relative i ndi f ference I do n ot .

much care in t h e presen t c ontext whether one thi n ks o f an all

em b raci n g mi n d in whi ch fin it e mi n ds live an d m o ve an d h av e

thei r b ein g ,o r as an o ver-in dividu al so ci ety o f mi n ds Im portan t .

15 Ibid .
,p . 13
.
13 4 SELE CTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

as these issu es are inf o t h er con texts,they are n ot t h e significant

thi n g here Wh at is si gni fican t in t h e transcenden tal m inim um
.

‘
o r t h e m in i mu m o f transcen den t al consid erati o n s ,ne cessary
’

”
for t h e un derst an ding o f intelligible c omm uni cati on 16
Su ch an assu mpti o n is m ade becau se t h e process o f hu m an
com mu ni cati o n cann o t ,it is cl ai m ed ,be expl ai n ed in any o ther

w ay An d t hi s is why on e h as t o believe in s o m e t ran scend ental ,

.

“ ”
su prain div idu al I What d oes it mean ? D oes it mean anythin g
.

at all ? Th at is i nessenti al One h as t o b eli eve An d,st ran ge as

. .

”
it m ay seem ,there are people w h o in t h e n ame o f philosophy
o penl y procl ai m that Thi s is n o exaggerati o n : t h e reader is
.

i nvite d t o stu dy carefu lly t h e answer offered by Urb an t o t h e

qu esti on ab ou t t h e pro of of t h e existence o f somethin g like that
“
Th e su pra-empir ical
‘ ’
tran scen dent al , su pra-individu al I
uni ty i m pli ed in int elligible c omm uni cati o n is su pra- em pirical

an d,therefo re,by defini ti on ,n ot verifiable as an em piri c al fact

”1 ‘
by a di rect applicati on o f t h e empiric al criteri on 7 ’
.

Th e argum ents addu ce d by t h e t ranscen dent alists in fav our

o f their c o ncepti o n are su c h a phil o so phi c al titbit th at I c ann o t
“
deny myself t h e pleasure o f qu o tin g Urb an on ce m ore : Th e
argu m en t o f t h e t ran scen dent ali st m ay be o f a pecu li ar kin d ,

bu t if so it is only b ecau se t h e facts u pon whi ch t h e argum ent

is b ased are o f a speci al order M i n d ,conceive d as w h olly iso
.

lated sep ara te sel ves, it fin ds,with D ewey ,wh olly i nadeq u ate
t o carry t h e b u rd en o f co mm un i cati o n an d all it s wo rks,b o th
sci ence and hu m an i nstitu ti ons Bu t e qu ally i n ade qu ate is min d
.

when conceived in p urely naturalis t ic terms of h is tory and so

c io logy It is u pon these c o nsid erati o n s th at t h e e vid ence rests
. .

S u ch evid ence is,t o be su re ,l argely n egative,bu t n ot wh olly

so .Th e force o f t h e tran scen den t al argu m ent rests,in t h e last
an alys i s,o n cert ai n po sitive co nsid erati o ns,n am ely t h e act u al

ch aracter o f i n t elligib le c omm u ni cati o n as w e h ave seen it t o be,

m ore especially o f un derst andin g whi ch is in vo lved in su ch com

16 Urban,op . cit .
,255 —256 .

17 I bid.
,p 259
. .
 13 6 SELECTED PROB LEM S OF SEMANTI CS

‘
is not xpressi on of somethin g antecedent ,mu ch less expre s
e
’

si o n o f an t eced en t th ou ght It is c o mm u ni cati o n ; t h e e st abli shm en t

.

o f co -o perati o n in an activity in whi ch there are p artners,an d

in whi ch t h e ac tivity o f each is m o difi ed an d regu lat ed by part

n ershi p To fail t o u n derst an d is t o fail t o c om e in t o agreement
.

in acti on ; t o m isu n derstan d is t o set u p acti on at cro ss pu r

” 20
p o ses .

An d here is fu rther explan ati on o f t h e c omm un i cative fu n c

ti o n of lan gu age
“
Lan gu age is specifically a m o de o f in teracti on of at least
t w o b ei n gs,a spe aker an d a hearer ; it presu pp o ses an o rg anized

grou p t o whi ch these creatu res b el on g ,an d from whom they

have acqu i red their habits o f speech It is therefore a relati onshi p, .

n ot a parti cu l arity Thi s c o nsiderati o n al o ne co n dem ns traditi on al

.

n o mi n ali sm Th e m eani n g of signs,m oreover,always i n clu des

.

so m ethi n g c o mm o n as b etween perso ns an d an o bj e ct When .

w e attrib u te me ani n g t o t h e S peaker as his i ntent ,w e t ake fo r

gran ted an other person w h o is t o share in t h e execu ti on o f t h e
in tent ,and also so methi n g in depen dent of th e person s c on cerned ,
thr ou gh which t h e in tent is t o be realized Person s an d .

thi n gs mu st alike serve as means in a comm onl y shared cou se

qu en ce Thi s c ommuni ty o f part akin g is m eanin g
. .

“
Th e in venti on an d u se o f t o ols h ave playe d a large part in
conso lid ati n g meani n gs,b ecau se a t o o l is a thin g u se d as means

t o con se qu ences,in stead o f b ei n g t aken directly an d physically .

It is i ntrinsicall y relati on al,anti cipat ory ,predictive With ou t .

‘
referen c e t o t h e absen t ,o r transcen den ce ,n othin g is a to o l ’
.

Th e m ost con vin cin g evidence th at an im als do n ot thi nk is

‘ ’

fo un d in t h e fact that they have n o t o o ls 21

I n m any formu lati ons,D ewey c omes cl ose t o t h e M arxi st
vi ewpo in t ,bu t t h e differen ces b etween t h e t w o positi ons also
st an d in reli ef These m att ers will be discu ssed at a l ater st age
.

when my own opin i on on controversi al issues wi ll be advanced

20 D ew ey,Op . cit .
,p . 179 .

21 I bid .
,p . 185 .
 THE PHIL OSOPHI CAL ASPECT OF THE COM MUNI CATI ON PROCESS 13 7

B efo re passin g t o t h e analysis o f t h e critical argu m entati on

o f t h e t ran scen dent ali sts,let u s t ake n o te o f o ne o th er au th o r

w h o st an ds clo se t o t h e n aturali st c o n cepti o n I m ean here Al an

.

Gardiner,w h o in h is b oo k The Th eory of Sp eech and L anguage

fo rm u lates D ewey s theses even m ore sh arply
’
.

Gardiner st arts by analysin g t h e n oti ons o f lan gu age an d

speech Bu t ,like D ewey w h o ,while con centratin g hi s attenti o n
.

o n t h e pro blem o f meanin g , h ad t o att ack t h e problem o f com

m uni cat io n ,Gardin er also sheds i ndirect li ght u pon t h e i ssu e .

G ardi ner,like D ewey ,i nterprets t h e acti on o f speaking in

terms o f co -o perati o n between t w o persons t h e speaker an d
‘

t h e listener bu t at t h e same time,an d very im port an t for t h e

so lu ti on o f t h e pro blem ,exp li c itly intro du ces as t h e thir d ele

m ent th at which is spo ken ab o u t True, t h e n atu rali sts (e g

. . .

Ri c hards) explain t h e p ossibility o f c om m u n i cati on by t h e sim ilar

m
ity of in ds an d by a reality c o mm on t o all,bu t G ardin er,by
intro duc in g t h e catego ry o f things an d t h e re qu iremen t o f a real
ist formu lati on o f t h e theo ry o f lan guage an d speech ,thereby
adm its a n ew theo retical elem en t whi ch b rin gs him cl o se t o m at e

riali sm .

'

Gardin er begins with a criticism of t h e defini ti o n o f speech

as a syst em o f artic u l ated ph oni c symb o ls u sed t o exp ress

tho u ghts,an d goes o n

“
As a first appro ximati o n let u s defin e speec h as t h e u se,
between m an an d m an ,o f articu late sou n d-si gns fo r t h e com
m unicat ion o f their wishes and their vi ews ab ou t thi n gs N ote .

that I do n ot attempt t o deny t h e th ou ght-element is speech,bu t

t h e emphasis o f my defin iti on d oes n o t lie o n th at elem en t Th e .

p o in.
t s w hich I wi sh t o st ress fi
are , rstly ,t h e c o -o perative c h aracter

of speec h ,an d,seco n dl y ,t h e fact th at it is alw ays c o n cerne d

w ith thi n gs,that is t o say with t h e reali ties b o th o f t h e extern al

world and o f man s inner exp erien ce 22
’ ”
.

Thu s,a proper fo rm u lati o n o f t h e n o ti ons o f lan gu age,speech ,

m eanin g an d u n derst an din g (G ardin er draws an explicit
2 ,
2 Gardiner The Theor o S eech and L anguage,Oxford 19 5 1,p 18
y f p . .
138 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SEMANTI CS

di stincti on between t h e m eaning o f words and t h e thi n gs deno ted

by those words),and consequ en tly a proper form u l ati on o f t h e
p r o c ess o f c o m m u n i cati o n r e qu i res ,fo ll o wi n g G ardi n er , th at fo u r

el em en t s o f t h e situ ati on be t aken i nt o acc ou n t : ( 1) t h e speaker,

(2 ) th e listener,(3) t h e thi n g spo ken ab ou t ,(4) t h e wo rd s spo ken .

What is then assert ed by t h e n atu rali sts c on cerni n g t h e essence

o f t h e co m m u ni cati o n process ?

They m ain tain that what is at st ake is simple an d prosaic,

an d as su c h d o es n o t re qu ire rec o urse t o any su pern atu ral fac

t ors What is in v o lved is simply a m u tu al tran smi ssi o n o f t h e

.

co n t en t o f c ert ai n perso n al e xperi en ces by lin gui sti c m eans,

whi ch ,they ho ld ,can always be redu ced t o t h e cate gory o f ih

-

flu en ce S u ch a t ran smi ssi on o f t h e co nten t o f experien ce by

.

t h e speaker t o t h e li sten er is po ssible ,b ecau se ( 1) t h e c o mmu n i

“

c ati n g o rg an i sm s h ave si mil ar st ru ctu res,an d (2 ) t h e reality re

ferred t o is c om m o n t o b o th parties in t h e process .

An d what do t h e t ran scen den t alists reply ?

They say that t h e entire reaso n in g ,alth ou gh it appeals t o
“
c o m m o n sense ,c an apply o nl y t o an apparen t but n ot t o
“ ”
a tru e c om m u ni cati on ,and as regards t h e l atter it inclu des
a l o gi c al erro r it assu m es t h e tru th o f what in fact n eeds t o
be pro ved .

Their argu ments are as follo ws .

F irst o f all,they questi o n t h e assu m pti on con cerni n g t h e

”
sim il arity o f o rgan i sm s . A mere extern al simil arity , whi ch
wou ld perhaps su ffice t o explain beha vioural comm un ica tion ,
c o mm u n i cati o n pu rely situ ati o n al in c h aract er,is n o t en ou gh .

In tellectu al c om m u nicati on impli es understanding th e conten t

o f st at em ents,an d co n se qu en t ly t h e ability t o thi n k an alyti cally ,

t o di stin gui sh elem ents i m po rt an t an d u n im p ort ant ,si gnificant

an d n o n -signi ficant . To ascrib e t o hu m an m in ds su ch a com
m on pro perty g oes b ey o n d t h e reco gniti o n o f an ext ern al
si mi l arity o f o rg ani sm an d p resu pp oses t h e exi st en ce in them

o f a c o mm o n fact o r o r fo rc e S t arti n g from t h e assu m pti o n th at

.

there exi st absolu tely separated mi nd s (a thesis i mpu t ed by t h e

 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SEMANTI CS

3 . FO UN D ATI O N S OF A M ARX I S T FOR M U LATIO N

O F THE PR O B LE M

N o M arxi st ,o r an y m an w h o thin ks in t erms o f sc en

i tific
cr iteri a ,can accept t h e transcen dentalist po siti o n ,since it is
b ase d on m et aphysical specu l ati on i ncom patible with science .

He fin ds,o f course,t h e n aturalist po siti on t o be mu c h nearer

t o hi s o w n ; thi s appli es in particu l ar t o tho se theses whi ch com e

cl o se t o co nsi st en t m ateri alism Bu t a M arxist c ann o t be in fu ll

.

solidarity with n atu ralism : som e o f it s p o i nts h e m u st c riti cize,

an d h e also h as t o fill m any g aps in it s argum en t ati o n .

H ence t h e M arxist rej ects t h e n oti on th at there are only t w o

alternative p o siti on s in t h e issue o f t h e po ssibili ty o f c o mmu ni

c ati o n : t h e t ranscen den t ali st an d t h e n atu rali st Far less can .

h e agree th at t h e b ank ru ptcy o f o ne o f t h e t w o opposin g theo ries

serves t o pro ve t h e c o rrect ness o f t h e o ther Thi s is an o bvi o u s .

paralo gism B o th parties t o t h e dispu te are right ,at least t o

.

a cert ai n exten t ,in thei r criti cism o f their o pp onen ts N o party .

is right ,h owever,in treatin g that c riticism as addin g t o it s o w n

c apit al
. Transcen dent alism is simply cou nterscient ific specula
_
.

ti on b ased on mere m et aphysical faith Naturali sm reveals gaps .

and I nco nsi st en ci es ; t h e in co rre ctn ess o f so me o f it s opini on s

“

an d theses c an be dem onstrate d Th e weakness o f n atu rali sm

.

c o nsi sts rath er in wh at it d oes n o t say th an in wh at it d o es say

'

Bu t there m u st be agreem en t W ith m any o f its theses becau se

they stan d for sc i ence an d comm on sense M arxism ,cou se .

quen tly ,h as t o treat t h e tw o tren ds differently ,alth ou gh it cann o t

declare itself in soli d arity with either of them That is why a M arx .

ist att em pt t o so lve t h e pro blem o f c ommun i cati on m u st be

of fered here .

I t is y n o w ,when w e have exami ned t h e fo ur po in ts,

on l

t h e fo ur aspects o f t h e o rigin al hi st o ri cal rel ati on s,th at w e h ave

fo u n d that man also h as consci ousness But even that is n o t

‘ ’
.
 THE PHI LOSOPHI CAL ASPECT OF THE COMM UN ICATI ON PROCESS 141

‘ ‘
,c onsci ou sn ess Th e spi rit is from t h e very
’ ’
any a p riori, pu re .

‘
beginnin g ridden with a curse ,is in fect ed with m atter whi ch
’

co mes in as vibrati o n s o f t h e air , as sou n ds, in a wo rd ,as speec h .

Speech is as old as c o nsci ou sness,speech is a practic al ,real c o n

sciou sn ess whi ch exi st s b o th fo r o ther peo ple an d fo r m ysel f .

And speech com es t o b ein g ,like co nsci ou sness,o nly from t h e

need ,t h e n ecessity o f c on t act with o ther pe o ple Where a rela .

ti on exi sts,it exists fo r me; an anim al is in a rel ati o n t o n othing .

Fo r an ani m al ,it s relati on t o others d oes n ot exi st as a relati on .

Thu s,consci ou sness is from t h e very b egin n in g a so ci al pro du ct

an d will rem ai n so as l o n g as m en will exi st 2
”
3 .

These w ords by M arx on t h e rOle o f speech in t h e pro cess

“

of hu m an c o m m u n i cati o n d ate fro m 1844 M o re o r less at th at .

time,in t h e spri n g o f 1845 ,M arx wro te h is Theses on Feuerbach ,

three o f which are o f particu lar im po rt ance for u s : These s V I ,
V II an d V III pert ain t o t h e soci al character o f t h e hu m an in di
vidu al an d t o t h e co nclu si on s t o be drawn fo r t h e stu dy o f t h e
m ani fest ati on o f t h e spiritu al li fe o f hu m an in di vidu als Th e .

theses are as follo ws

“
Thesis V I : Feu erbach reso lves t h e religi ou s essen ce i nto
t h e hu m an essence Bu t t h e hu m an essen ce is n o ab st racti on
.

inh eren t in each sin gle in dividu al In it s reality it is t h e ensem ble

.

o f t h e soci al rel ati o ns .

“
Feuerb ach ,w h o d oes n o t en ter u p o n a criti ci sm o f thi s
real essen ce ,is co nsequ en tly c o mpell ed :

1 To ab stract from t h e hist orical pro ce ss an d t o fix t h e

.

religi o u s sen tim en t as so me thi n g by it sel f an d t o presu pp o se

an abs trac t isolated hu m an in dividu al .

2 Th e hu m an essence ,therefore ,c an with hi m be c ompre

.

hen ded only as genu s ,as an i ntern al,du m b gen erali ty whi ch
‘ ’

m erely naturally u n ites t h e m any in dividu als .

Thesis V II : Feu erb ach ,c on se qu ently,d oes n o t see that t h e

is it self a so cial p rodu ct ,an d that t h e ah
‘
religi o u s sen tim en t
’

23 K . M arx,F E n gels,D ie deutsch e I deo logie ,in

. Werke,V o l . 3,Berlin
19 58,p . 30
—3 1 .
142 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

t
s rac t in dividu al wh om h e an aly ses b elo n gs in re ali ty t o a par
”
t icu lar fo rm o f so ci ety .

“
Thesis VIII : S oci al li fe is essenti ally p ract ical All mysteri es
.

whi ch mislead theory t o m ysticism fin d their rati on al so lu ti on

”2
in hu m an practic e an d in t h e c ompreh ensi on o f thi s prac tice 4 .

I have o pene d my discu ssi on o f t h e M arxi st i nterpretati on

o f t h e pro blem o f co mm u ni c ati on with q u o tati o n s fro m M arx

sin ce they c on stitu te t h e fo un d ati o n fo r t h e so lu ti o n o f that

pro blem .

As in dic ated ab ove ,t h e t ranscen dent alists o bj ect that t h e

n aturali sts commit th e erro r c alled c ir culus in dem onstrando :

requ ired t o p ro ve t h e po ssiblit y o f c o mm uni cati o n ,they i n st ead

assum e su ch p o ssibility o f c ommu ni c ati o n in st ati n g th at it is

”
ensu re d by su f fi cient simi l arity o f hu m an o rg an ism s Th e
.

n aturali sts are defenceless in t h e face o f thi s o bj ecti o n ,si nce

t h e assu m pti o n o f n aturali sm as t h e st arti n g p o in t for th e ex

plan ati on o f soc i al phen omen a invo lves a fun d am en t al error .

To b egin with t h e issue of t h e hu m an in dividu al ,t h e n atu

ralist s,lik e Feu erb ach b efo re them ,c o n ceive t h e hu m an i n di

vidu al in an ab stract manner,onl y as a specimen o f t h e species

“
m an That is also m ateri alism ,bu t m ateri ali sm restri cte d by
“
ab stracti o n from t h e soc i al fact o r Th e o nly
. general character
”
isti c possible in su ch an an alysis of m an is t h e gen eral character
ist ic o f t h e sp ecies,an d hence t h e n atu rali sts,like Feuerb ach ,
“ ‘
can co nceive t h e hu m an essen ce on ly as genu s ,as an i n tern al ,
’

du m b generality whi ch merely naturally u nites t h e m any in di

v iduals That weak po in t in n aturali sm is correctly attacked
by t h e transcen den tali sts Once again it can be seen that idealism
.

fee ds ab o ve all o n t h e lim it ati ons an d t h e resu lt ing rest ricti o ns

o f m at eri ali sm .

For if t h e hu m an i n dividu al is t reated n aturali sti cally , as

“
a spec im en on ly o f n at ural speci es,if t h e si m ilarity o f o rgan
”
isms is u n dersto o d in j u st su ch a w ay,then what can w e say,
24 K . M arx,Th eses on Fe uerbach ,in F E n gels,L udwig Fe uerbach
. and

t he End o f Classical German Ph ilosop hy,M o scow 1949 ,p 6 2—63

. .
144 SELEC TED PROBLEMS or SEMA NTI CS

that v
a c on ersa ti onlways in vo lves at least tw o parties spe
a

an d li stener an d yet t h e n atu rali sts do n o t pass o ver

trivi al fact in silen ce (cf D ewey ,and ab ove all G ardiner) I f

. .

did see an d fu lly un derst an d t h e impo rt ance o f t h e soci al

dit ioni ng o f t h e positi on of t h e in dividu al as
soci ety,sh ou ld they see and full y u n derst an d t h e im p o

o f t h e soci al c on diti on i n g o f t h e c omm un icati on pro cess,

they w ou ld n o t rem ain silen t ,for thi s is an importan t

which wo u ld help them t o dissoci ate themselves fro m t h e
p oin t o f thei r opp onents t h e st an dpo in t o f t ranscen d e
m ysticism Bu t in sci en ce silence ,t o o ,is un der
.

stances an el o quen t t esti m on y ; t h e lac k o f cert ain ass

definite situati on im plies appro val o f asserti ons t o t h e co

o r at least d en otes i n abil ity t o o ppose,o r t h e im po ssibi

o pposin g ,su ch asserti on s t o t h e con trary .

An d yet an alysis sh ou ld b egin with t h e issue o f th e soci al

“
st atu s o f t h e i n dividu al : th at d o ne , then all secrets of th e sim
” “ ” “
ilarity of mi n ds and consci ou sness co mm on t o all , t h e
”
m ysteri ou s ch aracter o f c o mm uni cati o n , etc , di sappear at .

o nce .

M arx id that th e hu m an essence is n o abstracti on inheren t

sa

in each single in divi du al I n it s reality it is t h e ensem ble o f t h e

, .

soci al re lati o ns Th e crux o f t h e matter lies in un derstan din g

”
.

that poin t (thou gh M arx s fo rmu l ati on o f th e thou ght is n ow

’

s omewh at o b so lete in style) C an a n o n-M arxi st d evel o p a S imi

.

lar idea ,o r at least can h e ad opt it ? I do n ot see any abso lu te

o b st ac les t o his d o in g so Bu t it is a fac t that th e in terp re ta tion
.

f m an s sp iritual life and o f h is sp iritual life from

f the p rodu ct
’
o o

the social,and consequen tly h is torical, p oin t of view is th e unden ia

ble and immense con tribu tion of M arx ism to social research .

To av o id all misun derstan din gs ,it m u st be added that M arx s

’

discovery di d n ot take place in a vacuu m ,bu t w as preceded by

reflec ti on s o n t h e in flu ence o f t h e mi li eu o n hu m an o pi ni o ns

(French m ateri ali sts) ,and o n t h e hi storical character o f hu m an

c onsci ou sn ess (Germ an idealists) M arx , however, n ot only
.
 THE PHILOSOPHI CAL ASPECT OF THE COM MUNI CATI ON PROCESS 145

v
e a s n y thesi s of
tho se views,bu t also developed them consi st
ga

En tly and,o n a n ew fou n d ati o n (t h e attenti o n p aid t o t h e rOle

‘

of t h e relati on s o f pr o d u cti o n in t h e develo pment o f hu m an c o n

isciou sness),m ade a t rue scien tific disco very whi ch n ow lies at
“

th e ro o t o f t h e m o dern theo ries o f m an s spiritu al li fe and it s

’

pro du cts .

Th e hu m an in divid u al if w e c onsid er him n ot only as t h e

o bj ect o f stu dy o f physic s,chem i stry ,me dic in e,et c ,bu t pre .

cisely as a hum an i n dividu al ,i e ,as a m em ber o f hu m an soci

. .

is a social p roduct,in t h e same w ay as are all t h e m ani

”

ety
“
fest at ions o f his spiritu al life : religi o u s disp ositi o n speec h ,

artisti c t aste ,con sc i o u sness in gen eral

“
As a hum an in dividu al m an is t h e who le o f so ci al rel a
”
t i ons in t h e sense that this o rigin an d spiritu al dev elo pmen t can
be u n derst o o d o nl y in t h e soci al an d hist orical con text ,as a speci
“
m en Of a species bu t thi s tim e n ot only a n at u ral ,bu t also
a s oci al spec i es These are hist o ri ci sm an d so ci o l o gi sm in t h e
.

definite sense o f these term s Thu s,histo rical m at eri alism h as

.

i ntro du ced a soci o lo gical ,sc ientifi c poin t o f vi ew t o t h e stu dy

o f m an s spi ritu al li fe in general ,an d t h e stu dy o f cu lture in
’

parti cu l ar .

All thi s sh ows c learly that con sci ou sness is an d wi ll be

”
a soc i al pro duc t as l o n g as men exi st Bu t hu m an speech ,
.

“
a lso ,is su c h a soc i al pro du ct fro m it s very o ri gi n ,since ,
th e

speec h is t h e practi cal , real c o n sci ou sness exi sti n g also

”
for other people Th e origin of b oth c onsci ou sness an d speec h
.

“
is t o be sou ght in so ci al li fe an d its needs, in t h e necessity t o
”
comm u ni cate with o ther pe o ple .

Bu t w e are n ot i ntereste d here in t h e origin o f language an d

speech We are in tereste d in som ethi n g else : is there any myst e
.

rio u s fact o r left in t h e pro cess o f comm u n i cati o n when t h e er

ro rs arisin g fro m t h e n aturali stic in terpret ati on o f so ci al ph e

n omena are eli min ated ,an d t h e stu dy is b ased on t h e pri n ci ples

of c o nsi sten t m at eri alism ? C an t h e tran scen d ent ali sts reaso nably

accu se M arxi sts also o f t h e cir cu li in demons trando ?

 SEL ECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

Of ,t h e transcendentalists m ay say after U rb an

co urse

E qu ally in ade qu ate is m in d when co n ceived in pu rely n atural

”
terms o f hi st o ry and soci o l o gy .

I pass o ver t h e fact that hi story an d soci o

t o do

ab o ve t o replace
tran scen den talist s can say that c om mu ni cati on ,if an aly
those terms,is n ot a true comm u n icati on Bu t w e can ,in .

fo llo w o ld J oseph D ietzgen ,w h o referre d t h e adheren ts

“ ”
an geli c m an ner o f comm u ni cati on t o heaven ,t o t h e
We here ,on t h e earth,have at dispo sal on ly earthl y co
an d an earthly m ann er o f c om mun i cati on We need n ot
.

gage in specul ati on .

Bu t d o es t h e argu m ent which w as so efl ect iv e in attacking

t h e n aturali sts ,rem ai n valid ? -N o ,b ecau se it s fo u n d ati o n h as
“ ”
b een sm ashed t h e thesis co ncern in g ab so lu t ely iso lated
bei n gs which t h e transcen den talist s mi ght with impu nity ascribe
t o t h e n aturali sts in av ailin g them selves o f t h e gaps an d erro rs
in thei r d octrine Nothin g is left ,o f that thesis,an d con se qu ently
.

n o thin g is left o f t h e criti cal argum en t ati o n o f t h e t ranscen d eu

t alist s .

Th e hu m an i n dividu al is a soci al pro duct b oth in hi s physi

c al an d his psych i cal e v o l u ti on ,b o th fro m t h e p o in t o f Vi ew

o f his phyl o gen esis an d his o nt o gene sis There is n o thin g mys
.

“ ”
t erio us in t h e S im ilarity o f o rgani sm s , as there is n o thi n g myst e
“ ” “
rio u s in t h e sim ilarity o f min ds o r t h e si m ilarity o f con sci o u s
ness That sim ilarity (which ,by t h e w ay,leaves ro o m for i ndi
vidu al di fferen ces) is m o st natu ral an d n orm al,b ein g acqu ired
by up -bringing in society ,by takin g o ver its hist ori cal heritage
chi efly thr o u gh t h e i nterm edi ary o f sp ee ch B oth these factors
.

h ave t h e sam e effect o n all m em b ers or so ci ety ,and hence there

is n othi n g extraordin ary in t h e fact that they fo rm a su bst ra
“ ”
t um fo r a si m ilarity o f min ds There is thu s n o thin g ext raordi
.

“
n ary in t h e fact th at they sm ash t h e m yths o f ab so lu tely sep ar
”
at ed i n divid u als It b ecom es qu ite su perflu o u s t o i ntro du ce
.
 SELEC TED PROB LEMS OF SEMANTI CS

Of c ou rse ,in phi lo so phy o ne c an afford t h e luxu ry o f so

sism Bu t then n o t o nl y all comm on o bj ect s o fco mm u n icati on ,
.

in general a ll
“ ”
t h e m ysti c 1

ti on Here t h e
.

”
o gical soli psi sm is blurred O n e mu st realiz e clearly that w e put
‘

an en d n ot o nl y t o t h e o bj ect o f th o u ght ,bu t t o commu nicati on

as w ell , sin ce n o thin g rem ain s t o be co mm un i cated Thi s is u n der .

“
st o o d ev en by t ranscen dent ali sts : e g ,U rb an says that
. . a min
”
im u m of reali sm is necessary fo r co m m uni cati on ,an d states
“
N o co herent the ory o f commu nicati on can be developed on
su bj ec tivist prem ises,an d if ideali sm i nv o lves su bj ect iv ism ,ideal

ism mu st be ab and o ne d 25 But U rb an declares him self ag ain st

”
.

su bj ective ideali sm fro m t h e st an dp o in t o f o bj ec tive ideali sm .

“
An d h e imm edi ately con tin ues : On t h e o ther han d ,n o co herent
theory o f c omm uni cati on can be developed withou t t h e n o ti on
o f t ranscen den t min d as well as t ran scenden t o bj ect s Any form .

o f reali sm th at den ies thi s m u st be ab an d one d 2

”
6 .

Thu s th e o bj ective character o f t h e o bj ect o f thou ght h as t o

be retaine d (alth ou gh ,acc ording t o t h e t ranscen dentali st s,e scape
c an b e so u ght in o bj ective id eali sm ) ,in o rd er t o av o id ab an

d o nin g all reasonable theory o f c o mm u nicati on .

Bu t t h e transcen dent ali st s m ay ur ge that they do n ot mean

a deni al o f t h e o bj ective charac t er o f t h e o bj ec t o f th ou ght

witness t h e fact that they reco gniz e t h e o bj ective character o f

t h e o bj ect o f c omm u ni cati o n ,as is d one,e g ,by Urb an Thei r . . .

p o in t is,they might say,that in com mu ni catin g w ith o ther peo

ple,w e speak ab ou t o bj ects ; bu t o bj ects lo cat ed by u s in a deh
“ ”
nit e u niv erse o f discou rse ,acco rdin g t o t h e lan gu age w e u se .

“
N ow t o con stru ct th at un ivers du discours, a transcen den t al
min d is n ecessary .

Th e argum ent ati on is sim ply ast oun din g Y et it su ffices t o .

“
ask : Bu t an d t h e spell is bro ken Fo r,in fact ,why is
.

25 Urban ,Op . cit .

,p 264
. .

26 I bid.
 THE PHIL OSOP HI CAL ASPECT OF THE CO MM UNI CATION PROCESS

a transcen dental min d necessary fo r t h e c o nstru cti on o f a

un ivers du discours ,bu t n o t necessary fo r t h e exi sten ce o f t h e
obj ect o f kn owle dge ? An d wh at is t h e meani n g o f t h e o bj ect

bf communicatio n b ein g o bj ective,if in commu nicati on it always

is a su bj ective pro du ct ,as a constructi on ? It w ou ld b e difli cu lt
t o answer these qu esti on s,with ou t revertin g t o t h e o ld co ncept
.

of in accessible n oum ena , whi ch h ave an o bj ective e xi sten ce ,

'

an d o f apparen t p h enomena ,whi ch are o u r o w n c o n st ru cti o n .

But that co ncept w as anni hi lated lo n g ago by t h e criti cism o f

Kanti an phen o m enali sm It mu st be st ated clearly : either on e
.

accepts ,an o bj ective exi stence o f t h e o bj ect o f co mm un icati on ,

or one considers that o bj ec t t o be a su bj ective pro du ct o f m i n d

an d thereby cancels t h e p o ssibi lity o f c o mm u n ic ati o n Ter t ium .

non datar Th e t ranscen den t alists en t an gle them selves desperately

.

in thei r o wn su btleties .

Bu t what ab ou t th at un ivers da discours in t h e light o f t h e

m ateri alistic epistem ol o gy ?
I f w e h o ld that t h e o bj ect o f ou r c o gniti on ,an d co nse qu en tly
t h e o bj ect o f comm u ni cati o n , exists o bj ectively that is,
ou tside all m in ds an d i n d epen den tly o f them then t h e mi n d
in t h e process o f co gn iti on som eh o w refl e cts it (in a speci al sense
o f t h e w o rd) Bu t an iso lated o bj ect is an abstracti o n : th e
.

m in d in t h e process o f c o gni ti on always reflects t h e o bj ect in

some con tex t In th at sense,that context mu st also exi st in t h e
.

co mm u nicati on o f c o gniti o n Th e st atemen t that t h e o bj e ct

.

o f c o g ni ti o n appears here in a definit e un ivers da dis cours is t riv

ial . Referen ce t o t h e univers du dis cours in t h e process o f co m

mu nic at ion d oes in fern ot any diflicu lt ies ,particu larly since what
is invo lved here is n ot o bj ects bu t am biguous words t h e m e an in g s
of whi ch b ec om e c oncre te o nly in a d efin ite c ont ext An d fo r .

” ‘
that pu rpo se n o transcen dent al I is needed ; su ffi ce it t o in ’

dicat e clearly and t o u n derst an d t h e context ,whi ch in tu rn re

quir es preci si on o f fo rmu lati on s o n t h e part o f t h e speaker an d
“
adequ at e eru diti o n o n t h e p art o f t h e li stener N o mystic t ran .

”
scen den t al I will help m e in u n derst an din g t h e un ivers du dis
‘ ’
15 0 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SEMANTI CS

cours o f ,for instance,qu an tum mechanics,if I am n ot fami li ar

with th e su bj ect .

One feels compell ed t o rec all M arx s w ords alre ady qu o ted
’

S oci al li fe is essenti ally p ract ical All m ysteri es whi ch mislead

.

the ory t o m ysticism find their rati on al so lu ti on in hu m an practi ce

an d in t h e c o m prehen si o n o f thi s practice

Th e stan dpo int o f t h e M arxist s in t h e con tro versy b etween

t h e n aturali sts and t h e transcen dent alists thu s b o ils d o wn to

dem onstratin g that that co n troversy focu ses o n phen om ena

that are soci al p ar excellence an d in that sense n atural .

I s thi s n ot a tru ism ; is it n ot t h e st an dp oin t cow only ad opt

ed in science ? N ot at all .

That it is n ot a tru ism is best proved by t h e con tro versy in

it s enti rety as explaine d ab o ve That it is n ot a trivi ality ,is best
.

pro ve d by t h e fact th at n ot onl y transcen dentali sts bu t even

n atu ralists do n o t fu lly u n derst an d t h e thesis an d are un able

t o assess it pro perly .

Cert ain st an dp oi nts,especi ally that ad opted by t h e tran

scendent alist s in t h e c o ntro versy n o w u n der discu ssi o n , l o o k

st ran ge in t h e ligh t o f c o mm o n- sen se Bu t t h e o pini ons o f phi l o s

.

o ph ers are n o t always in ag reement with co mm o n sen se,an d

”
o ften all thei r origin ality c onsists prec isely in applyi n g sh ocks

t o co mm o n sense S h o u ld w e then (as w as su ggest e d t o m e in

.

a discu ssi o n) c o n sider su c h o pi ni o n s as m an i fest ati o n s o f im becili

t y o r schiz o p hreni a and co nsequ en tly rej ec t them as uni m p or

t ant ? M ay w e say as w as said in th at discu ssi on either

that ,if I ascribe t o them su ch absu rd opini o ns,I do n ot u n derstan d

what these au tho rs mean ,or that if their o pi n i on s are really so
ab su rd then I am ab so lve d from discu ssi o n in vi ew o f t h e ev i

den t ly n on -scient ific c haracter o f t h e p o siti o n held by my op

pon ent s? I do n ot ag ree that w e can say either t h e o n e or t h e

o ther C o n trary t o all appearan ces,t h e h o ldi n g o f su ch opin i ons
.

is a m ani fest ati o n neither o f weakn ess n o r o f insanity ,bu t is

sim ply p art o f i rrati o n ali st th o u ght ,so co mm o n in t h e b o ur

g e o is w o rl.d E v en m y sti c i sm is a s o ci al p hen o m en o n an d a s o c i al

15 2 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

in lysi s Thi s h o lds espec i ally when ,as is t h e case of t h e theory

an a .

o f co mm u n i cati on ,t h e di sco very in questi o n is neither u niversally

reco gn ized ,n o r e ven u n derst o o d an d t aken i nt o co n siderati on

by t h e m aj o rity of researchers .

It h as beenid that t h e M arxi sts treat hum an consci ou sness

sa

an d hu m an speech con sci o u sness fo r o thers as pro duct s

o f soci al li fe Th at hypo thesis h as fo un d expressi on in En gels s

’
.

paper On th e Role of Labour in M aking th e Ap e Human,and

in t h e theory of M arx an d En gels o n t h e rOle of t h e divisi on o f
lab o ur as a fact or in soci al evo lu ti on Lab o ur . thou ght lan
gu age : these are t h e three elem en t s of fu n d am en tal significance
in th e M arxist c on cepti on o f t h e origin o f hum an so ciety These .

thr ee elemen ts are i nseparable one from an o ther M an drew .

a lin e o f disti n cti o n be tween hi m sel f an d t h e ani m al w o rld when

h e starte d t o pro du ce t oo ls,say s M arx H u m an lab o ur is in sepa

.

rably linked w ith c onsci ou sn ess,th at is with th o u ght ,whi ch

in turn is gen etically linked in separably with speech C o nsci ou s .

ness, and con se quently speec h as well, are pro du cts o fl ab ou r,pro d
u cts o f so ci al life,an d at t h e sam e tim e in di spensable co n diti ons

o f a fu rther develo pm en t o f th at pro cess,o f its higher,m o re

adv anced st ages H u m an lab ou r is b ase d on co -operati o n ,whi c h

.

is im p o ssible with ou t thin kin g in terms o f ideas,and withou t

comm u n i c ati o n S u ch is t h e di alectics o f mu tu al i nfl uence,
. which
m akes it possible t o explain t h e process of com m un ic ati o n with
o u t recou rse t o m iracles an d m et aphysics .

“ ”
Thu s,t h e i ssue tu rns ou t t o be pro sai c an d n atu ral ,thou gh
ev adi n g a n atur ali sti c i n t erpret ati o n by b ein g an essen ti ally so

cial phen om en o n Bu t is it so si mple ? I s it en o u gh t o st ate that

.

so m eb o dy speak s an d som eb o dy else listens t o h im an d t h e

t w o u n derst an d o ne an o ther?
Here a protest mu st be registere d again st a comm o n-sen se
si m pli ficati on o ft h e pro blem , sin ce that w o u ld threat en t o elim i n at e

all deeper an alysis an d t o anni hi l at e t h e sc ien tific approach .

 THE PHILOSO PHI CAL ASPE CT OF THE CO MMUNI CATI ON PROCES S 15 3

We say that people talk t o o n e an o ther

that is c om muni and

cati on . S o far so g o o d Bu t from t h e po in t o f view o f a scien

.

t ific an alysis t h e pro blem o n ly b egin s here What pro blem ? N o t t h e .

met aphysi cal o ne , as t o whether comm u n ic ati on is possible .

Of c ou rse,it is po ssible,fo r w e witn ess it everywhere N ot t h e .

mystic one as t o what transcen dent al fact or m akes c ommu ni

.

cati o n p o ssible Thi s can be expl ai ne d witho u t reso rti n g t o m i ra

.

c les an d m et ap hysics Th e scientific problem which b egins at

.

thi s po in t is : ho w ,in what manner,d o es comm u ni cati on take

place ?
S oci al psycho lo gists say that c omm uni catio n consists in th at
t h e parties co ncern ed mu tu ally in t erchan ge their rOles with
thei r opposite n um bers,they mentally place themselves in their
p o siti o n an d thu s c o m e t o un d erst an d th ei r w o r d s” Th e issue .

m ay be form u l ated so ,it m ay be fo rm u lat ed o therwi se Be that .

as it m ay,i n tellectu al c o mm u n icati o n is always co nnected with

u n derst an di n g ,with th e sam e u n d erst an di n g by t h e t w o parti es

o f cert ain defin ite st atem ents .

Intellectu al commu nicati on based o n u n derstan ding is in sep

arably co nn ected with speech A stricter definiti o n o f what .

I m ean by lan gu age an d speech will be given later There is one .

po in t I shou ld like t o stress here : re g ardless o f h ow o n e de

fin es speech ,regardless of all t h e en o rm o u s differen ces in that
respect b e tween t h e v ari ou s au th ors w h o o ften con ten d on e with

an o ther o n th at i ssue,every d efin iti o n refers t o sign s or sym

b o ls comprisin g hum an speech .

I n speakin g ,man pro duces certain ph oni c signs o f a par

t icu lar ki n d (o ther au th o rs speak o f articu l ate d so u n d sym b o ls) .

Co mm u ni c ati o n consists in that th e person w h o pro du ces th ose

ph o ni c sign s an d t h e person w h o he ars them un derst an d them
in t h e sam e w ay,that is i m part t o them t h e sam e m ean ings Th at .

is p recisely t h e definiti on o f comm u ni cati on advan ced by Lu nd

27 Cf G A
. . . Lun dberg,C . C . S ch rag O N
. . Larsen ,S ociology,N ew
York 195 4,p 389 . .
15 4 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

berg when h e says : Comm un icati o n can be defin e d as transmi s

si o n o f m eani n gs thro u gh t h e interm e di ary o f sym b o ls 2
”
.
8

Thu s w e have i n tro du ced in t o th e analysis o f comm u ni cati on

t h e thr ee fu n d am en t al n o ti o ns whi ch re qu i re fu rther i n vestiga
ti on : S i gn (sym b ol) ,mean in g ,speech (l anguage) T o u n derstand
.
‘

t h e sen se o f c o mm uni cati on an d t o be able t o expl ain sensibly

fectiveness,w e m u st first analy se

t h e soci al c o n di ti o n s o f it s ef
these thr ee n o ti ons and their related pro blems Thu s t h e pre
.

limi nary analysis of t h e process o f comm un icati on n atu rally

ou tli nes t h e pro gramm e o f further research .

2
8
Ibid ,p 36 0
. . .
15 6 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

ticu lar,t o be able t o answer t h e questi on ,all -important

t h e s o ci al p o i n t o f vie w ,as t o what helps an d what h a

ef fective hu m an co m mu n icati on ,w e m u st an alyse

“ “ ”
cate g ori es as S ign and m ean in g ,an d m u st fu
sen se o f these t erm s Bu t j u st b ecau se b o th S ign
.

are elemen t s o f t h e c omm u ni cati o n process ,t h e

fro m whi ch t o an alyse them mu st be t h e wh o le

process o f hu m an c om m u n i cati o n Any .

that process wou ld be o n e-sided , an d o ften en ti rely

Su c h is t h e u su al fate o f th e di alectics of t h e rel ati on ship
t h e part an d t h e wh o le .

O f cou rse,it is possible t o en gage in t h e typo lo gy o f signs

o r in ph i loso phi cal specu l ati on on t h e essen ce o f m eani n g

all thi s in i so l ati on fro m t h e so c i al b ackgro un d o f t h e co m m un i

c ati o n pro cess Th e extensive hi st o ry o f t h e pro blem can readily

.

pro vide appro pri ate ex amples It is also p ossible t o h old that
.

th e so ci al o rigin o f t h e p ro blem is o bvi ou s and h as been tacitly

assu m e d ,an d that su ch an assu mpti o n d o es n o t i ntro du ce n ew

elem en t s t o t h e an aly sis o f t h e pro blem an d conse qu en tly sh o u ld

n o t in terfere with it s co u rse Th at ,t o o ,can o f cou rse be illu s

.

t rat ed with hi st o ri cal examples Y et in b oth cases w e h ave t o do

.

with stan dp o in ts whi ch ,by separatin g t h e an alysi s o f S i gn an d

m eani n g fro m it s n atural soci al b ackgrou n d ,open t h e d o or
wide for sterile phi losophi cal specu l ati on .

Th e pro blem as t o t h e e ssence and rOle o f t h e sign ,an d con

sequ ently t h e pro blem o f t h e typ o l o gy o f it s v ari ou s fo rm s an d

varieties,can be seen whole on ly if and when it is c onsidered as

part o ft h e problem as t o h o w men c o mm u nicate with on e an o ther .

Let it be clearly un derst o o d th at w e m ean here t h e h uman

process o f comm u nicati on As already m enti one d , comm u ni
.

c ati o n ,in vari ou s forms,c an be o bserved n ot o nly on t h e hu m an

level o f devel opm ent , bu t also on th e an im al level Hen ce .

reference is o ft en m ad e in some specifi c sense of co urse n ot

o nl y t o co mm u ni cati on am o n g an im als,bu t al so t o signs an d

signals in t h e process o f co mm un icati on am o n g ani m als What .

 THE SI GN : A N ALY SIS A ND TY PO LOGY

ae are coneerned with here are ambiguou s concepts whi ch m ay

“

r t

obscu re t h e I ssu e an d b rin g ab ou t n u m erou s mi su n derst andi n g .

Obvi ou sly ,t h e comm u nicati on process t akes place in t h e

an m i l w ld ly i s f s t h ss f - op era tion is
a or o n n o a r a e p roce o co

i nvolved ,a process o f so ci al acti on sui gener is All c ommunica .

i
t n o is in it s v er y o rigi n l i n k e d i n s e p a r a bly with co -o erati on
p
b d f
'

( in th e roa s en s e o t h e w or d , c o v e r in g b o th co -o erati on
p
p pr o er an d s t ru gg le ) . F o r it i s in j o i n t ac ti o n th at w e fi n d t h e

need for,an d t h e o rigin o f,c om m u n i cati on o f t h e co - operatin g

in dividu als This c onfirm s t h e View o f t h e poet w h o held that

.

Im Anfang war die Tat (I n the beginning was th e deed) It is in .

practi ce,i e ,in c omm on acti on whi ch transform s t h e wo rld

. .

( on t h e h u m a n le v e l w e s p e a k o f s o c i a l a c ti o n ) , th a t p hi l o so phy

( s c i en ti fic , an d n o t sp e cu l ativ e ) see k s t h e so lu ti on , at l ea st in t h e

tgenet ic sense ,o f m any pro blems of c onsci ou sness Thi s h o lds .

also fo r t h e
\
co mmu n icati on p r o ce s s a n d t h e p r o bl e m of

t h e S ign .

“
F B ees in t h e hive co-o perafe in fin di n g and co llectin g honey ;
'

isim ilar co -operati on c an be o b served am on g an t s in t h e an thi ll ,

it h e deer in a herd ,et c : I n eac h o f these cases wh at is inv o lved

is a specifi c process o f c omm u nicati o n between b ees,ants,deer,
“ ”
et c In a sense,
. a bee whi ch by its d ance stimu l ates o ther b ees
”
t o a search for h on ey gives them S igns . A ll this is very i nterest
ing an d di scloses a variety o f pro blems,n ot o nly in t h e m atte r
of an im al psych o lo gy , calli n g for in vestigati on . Nevertheless,
it is o bvi ou s that when S peakin g ab ou t c ommun i cati on ,si gns,
etc , . w e h ave in m in d so methin g di f ferent when w e refer t o anim al s
from what w e m ean when w e refer t o hu man bein gs an d hu m an
so ciety . For t h e sake o f clarity ,an d t o av o id am biguity ,it is
co rrec t t o rej ect o b scu re an al o gi es an d t h e specu lati on s b ased

on them ,an d t o restri ct t h e sphere o f our i n t erest t o t h e spe

cifically hu m an pro cess of c o m m u ni cati o n , o f u si n g si gns,etc .

In referrin g here t o a spe cifically hu m an process o f co mm u ni ca

ti o n ,I pass n o j u dgement whatever o n t h e character o fthat pro cess
in ani m als ; I merely co nsci o u sly restri ct t h e fi eld o f m y an aly si s .
15 8 SELE CTED PROBLEM S or SEM ANTI CS

Su ch a researc h procedu re is n o t onl y permissible bu t v

e en a

vi sable in this case .

M en c o mmun ca e iv ari o u s ways,and t h e o rigin o f

t in
vari ou s co ncrete m anifestati ons o f that pro cess are also dive
espec i ally o n t h e hi gher levels o f t h e c o mmu ni cati o n pro

when t h e m o tives of c ommu n icati on are n ot confin ed t o bio

ical matters,re qu irem ents o f pro du cti on ,et c ,bu t inclu de .

nee d t o exch an ge abstract ideas ,t o stimu l ate em o ti o n s,

Y et m en always comm u ni c ate by means o f sign s in vari ou s for

Hen ce th e practical and theo retical im p ort ance o f si gns an d
n ee d fo r a defini te theo ry o f signs .

M en commu ni cate by m ean s o f gestu res,

writin g ,pictures,signals previ ou sly
all su c h c asses w e h av e t o do

writi n g ,signals all these are s om e fo rm o f sign s whi ch

tu rn ,arran ged in a sy stem ,constitu te a fo rm o f l an gu age .

Ju st becau se m an always commu n icates with o ther m en by

m eans o f signs,all soci al li fe is permeated with sign s and is im
p o ssi ble withou t them E ven th ose fam ou s B aln ib arbi sch o lars
_ .

o f wh om Gu lliv er said th at t o spare them selves t h e ef fort of

speakin g they carri ed with them all t h e o bj ects c o nnect e d with

their conversati on s,had t o u se sign s,however prim itive : ges

tures pointin g t o o bj ects, imitative gestu res, o r pi ctu res N o .

won der,then ,that signs,l on g since an o bj ect o fi nterest in philo s

o ph y,h av e n o w com e t o be con sidere d by cert ain phi l o so phi cal

sch o o ls t o be t h e pri n ci pal su bj ect m att er o f stu dy Fo r i n st an ce, .

Su sann e Lan ger,t h e au th or o f an int erestin g W o rk Ph ilosop hy

in a .
y
N e w Key A S tudy in th e S m bo lism of R eason ,R ite and Art ,
sees e ven in t h e pro blem s o f sign an d sym b o l an ann o un cemen t

o f a re uj ven ati on o f philo sophy whi ch ,in h er o pin i o n ,su fl ers

a c ri sis cau se d by t h e e xh au sti on o f t h e t raditi on al pro blem s

o f th at di sciplin e On e m ay view su ch radi cal opini ons sceptic

.

all y ,yet it is un deni able th at th e pro blem s o f si gns do , in v ari ou s

forms,com e m o re an d m o re t o t h e forefront in t h e i n vesti gati o ns
u n dert aken by t h e v ari o u s b ran c hes o fphil osophy An d r ightly so . .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SEMANTI CS

c o mm un ca ti on in t h e sen se of transmi ssi on o f meani n gs a

i
t h e rOle o f si gns in th at processl .

Wh at types o f si gns appear in t h e process o f hum an 0

mu ni c at ion ,an d what is their n atu re? Th e reply t o that qu est
will inv o lve a specific an alysis an d typo l o gy o f signs as an
t ro du ct io n t o an an alysi s of mean i n g .

As in di cated ab o ve,t h e startin g po in t o f an analysi s o f

S ign , an d co nsequ ently o f m ean in g (since S i gn an d m
”
are n ot t w o i n depen d ent entities ,bu t a wh o le whi c h

proce ss o f co gni ti on is divide d int o parts o r aspects),is

ess o f c om mu ni cati o n , i e ,a definite social act ivity In
. . .

analysi s o f t h e i ssue,it is essenti al t o st art from that po

also co n stitu tes t h e rati o n al elemen t in certai n en de

in t h e c

of that process as an ef
fec tive t ransmi ss
att em pt t o place oneself in t h e positi o n

pr o cess I n t h e
. literatu re on t h e su bj ect ,
co m pari son with a g am e o f c hess : t h e player
en vi sage h is o w n pl an o f att ack , bu t also t h e

o f his o pp on ent ,i e ,h e mu st estim at e his o ppo nen t s capacity

’
. .

t o apprehen d an d apprai se t h e v ari ou s mo v es All soci al di al o gue .

c onnect e d with c o -o perati o n , an d c o nse qu en tly with m u tu al

un derst an din g ,c o nsist s in su ch placi n g o f o nesel f in t h e posi

ti o n o f t h e partner,and in attempts t o envisage hi s situ ati on .

Th e sam e applies t o a di alo gue sensu s tricto,that is,exch ange

o f th ou ghts an d t ran sm i ssi o n o f m eani n gs through th e in terme

diary f s igns
o .

1 Th e issue ffective communication in t h e sen se o f reach ing agree

of e

men t as t o Op in ion s,in t h e sen se o f con v eyin g con v iction s,i s mu ch bro ader
an d inclu des,as m entioned ab o v e ,t h e p ro blem o f go o d un derstan din g as its

co mp onen t p art Th ose w h o

. are interested in th e issues of propagan da an d

in sh ap in g pu blic o pin ion are abo v e all c o n cerned w i th th at bro ader sen se

o f c o mmu n ic ation . Th is is an extrem el y im portant so cial pro blem,some

aspec st o f w hich w ill be discussed belo w .
 THE S IG N : A NALYSIS AND TYPOL OGY

Th e learned of B alni barbi u sed t o carry sacks cont aini n g

a variety o f o bj ect s in o rder t o spare them selves t h e nec essity

for talkin g Bu t it w as a m i sconceive d idea,n ot on ly b ec au se it

.

entailed t h e n eed t o carry great lo ads . As alre ady i ndicated ,

eve n in su ch an extreme an d ab su rd c ase it wo u ld no t be p o ssible
‘

t o eli minate t h e u se o f si gns,su ch as t h e gestures o f po intin g

t o t h e o bj ec t s in questi on o r imit ati n g certain acti on s Th e fun
.

dament al mi sconcepti on ,h o wever,c onsists in somethin g else

th o se respected sc ho lars c o u ld spare their lu n gs by abstaini n g
from talkin g ,bu t t hey cou ld n ot wo rk t h e miracle o f eli mi n at
ing thi nk in g in term s o f lan gu age Th at w as n ot p ossible simply
.

becau se there is no thinkin g o ther than in terms o f language,

“ ” “ ”
an d tru e co gniti o n an d direct co gn iti on can at t h e m ost be
a su bj ect o f phi loso phical specu lati on . I shall not di scu ss here
whether t h e system o f thin king by means,an d thr ou gh t h e ih
t ermediary, o f all ki n ds o f signs can be interpret ed as a c rit eri on

o f b ei n g m an ,a c rit eri on di sti n gu i shi n g t h e hum an w orld from

th e an im al wo rld ,altho u gh everythi n g seem s t o i n di cat e that

suc h really is o ne o f t h e po ssible c riteri a (in sep arable fro m o thers,

espec i ally t h e c riteri o n o f lab ou r) Bu t it is b ey on d d ou bt ,an d

.

of t h e greatest i m po rt anc e here , th at in t h e st age o f ph oni c

lan gu age and t h e related system o f thinkin g in term s o f ideas,

every o ther system o f si gns,th at is every o ther lan gu age sui ge

ner is , is depen den t o n ph o nic lan gu age in t h e sense that it replaces

phoni c lan gu age an d in t h e fin al st age o f comm u n icati on is

translated i n to a p h o nic lan guage ; thu s , u se d t o replace a ph o ni c

lan guage ,it makes a system o f signs o f o ther signs (o f a ph on ic

lan guage) : Failure t o ackn o wledge that fact in t h e stu dy o f th e
“ ”
vari ou s systems o f lan gu ages is a seri o u s error,pregnant with
u nt owar d theo retical co nse quen ces : ab o v e all,it falsely su g
“ ”
gests t h e equ ali ty an d au t o n om y o f su c h lan gu ages Th e d an ger
.

o f fallin g i n t o suc h an erro r j u stifies ,am on g o ther thi n gs,o u r

thesis concern in g virtue o f appro achi n g t h e i ssu es o f sem anti cs

from t h e po in t o f vi ew o f t h e comm u ni cati o n p ro cess as a whole .

It is onl y on t h e b asis o f a soci al an alysis o f th e pro blem that t h e

 16 2 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SEMANTI CS

proper hierarchy o f t h e vari o u s system s o f si gns can be rec o gnized ,

“ ”
and t h e i nt er rel ati o nships b etween t h e v ari o u s
- lan gu ages
determi ned .

Su ch an ana lysis of s
igns reveals,fi rst ,their vari ety an d,
in a sense ,t h e hi erarchy o f their rOle an d i mp ort ance in t h e proc
ess o f hu m an co mm u n i cati on ; an d ,sec o n dly ,their hom o geneity
in t h e sense o f sharin g a co mm on pro perty ,n amely that all si gn s,
deliberately pro du ce d t o serve t h e needs o f t h e c omm u nicati on
process,are veh icles of mean ings ,since all o f them are deriva t ive
with respect t o a pho n ic lan guage as far as their commu n i cative
functi o n is concern ed .

Th e rest o f thi s chapter will deal with j u st th at thesis an d th e

relate d i ssu e o f t h e typo l o gy o f sign s2

2 H U SS E R L S
.
’
TE N TATIVE T YPO L O G Y OF S IGN S

Th e v ast literatu re o n t h e su bj ect adv an cin g t h e vari ou s

theories o f signs (an d c o nsequ en tly t h e vari ou s su ggesti ons,
o ft en cont rasti n g o n e with an o ther,as t o t h e typo lo gy o f signs)

impli es t w o con clu si on s .

Fi rst ,t h e very vo lu me an d divergency o f su ch su ggesti ons

im pels rej ecti on o f t h e idea o f m aki n g a synthesis o f them an d
rather forces an attem pt t o give a new ,i n depen d en t so lu ti on ,

m akin g u se o f earli er ideas as spec ific i ntellectu al stimu li .

S econdly ,t h e an alysis o f su ch st an dpo ints sh o ws th at t h e

differences be tween them ,i nclu di ng those whi ch pert ain t o t y
p o lo gy,are n ot o nl y form al o r t erm in ol o gical in n ature ,bu t

2 Wh en this bo ok h ad already go n e t o p ress I came acro ss t h e bo o k

[ I ona mue u c/t oeo [N otion an d Word] by JI . O . Pe3 HHROB I
. regre t I h av e
no t been in position t o take in to consideratio n h ere many in terestin g ideas
a

o f th at au th or I sh ou ld on ly like t o emph asize th at I am in solidarity w ith

.

m an y of his op in ion s an d interpretatio n s,especially as far as th e an alysis

of th e concep t of t h e S ign is co ncerned .
16 4 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SEMANTI CS

own pro perti es,c o nstitu ti n g t

ac u a l e vents,an d are not

It is of h uman comm un ica t ion that

only w ith in th e p rocess

n atur al phen om en a, o bj ect s,even t s,et c ,becom e somethin g .

n am ely th o se elem en ts o f a so ci al process whi ch are

sign s .

There is n othi ng n ew in this,any m ore than t h e requ ir

is new th at an an alysis o f t h e elements of t h e

pro cess sho u ld b egin with th e so c i al co n diti o nin g

Neither is it an exclu sive achi evement and possessi on 0
alth ou gh it is M arxi sm whi ch po tenti ally creat es t h e m o st c o

Si st en t foun d ati on fo r su ch analysis Th e i ssu e as t o h ow it

.

that m ateri al thi n gs an d events b ecome signs within t h e process

hum an comm uni cati on ,
by Peirce,for exam ple He em phasized forcefu lly that a thin g ,
.

a pro perty o f a thin g ,o r an event ,all fu ncti o n as a S i gn only

if they are interpreted ,i e ,if there is someo ne w h o in t h e pro cess

. .

o f c omm unicati on acts as an i nterpreter o f t h e given thin g , even t ,

et c ,u sed as a S i gn
. That o pini on is n o w bein g supported by ,
.

for instance,M orris,an d form s on e of t h e fun d am ent al ideas

o f h is semi o tic, which by t h e w ay c an be derived from t h e ideas
o f Pei rce Th e sam e Vi ew is held by S u san S tebbin g (A M odern
.

I n trodu ct ion to Logic) and o thers Thu s,t h e po in t is n o t whet her

.

t h e st atem en t is n ew an d w h o ini ti ate d it Th e essen ti al p o in t .

is,in what sy stem s d oes th at st atem en t appear,an d what are t h e

co n sequ ences drawn fro m it .

It is t o be h om e in min d that i ncreased i nterest in t h e pro blem s

o f S i gn and sym b o l h as o pene d in c o n temp orary philosophy
a new field n o t o nl y fo r stu dy an d researc h , but al so fo r philo
s ophi cal S pecu l ati o n Su fli ce it t o i n dicate ,by w ay o f ex ample,
.

t h e b asi c id eas o f C assirer s the o ry o f sym b o ls t o d em o nstrate

’

that ideali stic specu l ati on can u se for it s pu rposes all new con
cepts C assirer cert ain ly is a pen etratin g thinker, and h as t o his
.

credit co n sid erable achi evem en ts in t h e an alysi s o f,an d re search

o n ,symb o ls an d sym b o l syst em s Y et hi s asserti o n s concernin g

.

“
m an s all egedly innate faculty o f sym b o lizin g , o f creatin g
’
 THE SI GN : AN ALYSI S A ND TY P OLO GY 16 5

real ity throu gh sym b o ls ,et c ,sav o u r o f ideali stic speculati o n an d

.

cann ot be en d o rsed by any o n e w h o d oes not accept thei r ideali sti c

phi lo so phi cal b ackgro un d .

Th e first resu lt o f a consi sten t O b servance o f t h e thesi s that

a S ign is t o be an aly sed in th e c on t ext o f t h e c o m m u n i cati o n
“

process,that is ,th at only an o bj ect o r a phen o m en on within

that pro cess an o bj ect o r a phen o m en o n which is i nt er

pret ed by som eo ne) c an be a S ign ,in v o lves t h e u n dermin i ng

or even t h e ab o liti o n o f t h e t raditi o n al en d eav o urs t o cl assi fy

si gns I in v o ke h ere ab o v e all t h e vi ews o f H u sserl ,whi ch h av e

.

h ad an en o rm ou s influ en ce o n t h e literat ure co ncernin g sign s

an d m eanin g .

What is striki n g is t h e gre at am bigu ity o f t h e term Sign

both in o rdin ary l an gu age an d in sci en tific attem pts t o i m part
preci si o n t o term s An other st riki n g fact or is t h e m arked vagu en e ss
.

and even arbit rariness in t h e term in o l o gical di stin c ti o n s b etween

“ ” “ ” “ ” “ ”
S ign , in d ex , sym b o l , S ign al ,et c N o w o n der ,then ,th at
.

att em pts t o explain t h e fu n cti on o f sign s are i n tim at ely co n

nected with attem pts t o est abli sh a typ o l o gy o f S ign whi c h wo u ld

make it possible in tu rn t o est ablish a hi erarc hy o f sign s fro m

'

t h e po i n t o f View o f thei r exten t an d c o n ten t ,an d thu s t o b ri n g

some o rder i n t o t ermi n o l o gi cal m att ers .

What is it that is m o st strikin g in t h e case o f such attem pted

typolo gies? Prob ably t h e divisi on o f thin gs an d phen o m en a
’

whi ch fu n cti on as signs in t o tho se whi ch are n a tu ral an d appear

reg ardless o f any pu rpo sive hu m an activity an d onl y ex p os t

are in terprete d by m an as signs o f so m ethi n g,an d i n t o these

whi ch are pro du cts of m an s c o nsci o u s so ci al activity an d have

’

been pro du ced by m an in order t o functi on as si gn s Th e form er .

are called na tural signs,t h e latt er , p rop er o r artifi c i al S ign s .

In a se nse ,w e saythat t h e freezin g o f water is a S i gn o f a fall

in t emperatu re,that a hal o aro u n d t h e m o on is a S ign th at t h e
weather is go i ng t o deteri o rate,that wrin kl es on a perso n s face
’

are a S i gn t h at h e is a gei n g,et c I n so m e o ther sen se w e say th at

.

black crepe o n a flag is a si gn o f m o urnin g ,that t h e c olo u rs

16 6 SELECTE D PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

of a flag are a S i gn o f nati onality ,that firin g a red ro cket is a S i gn

t o st art t h e att ack , that a m onu m en t is a S ign o f an historic e ven t ,
that a kn o t o n a han dkerchi ef is a S ign t o remin d o ne o f som e
thi n g , et c I n still an o ther sen se ,
. w e say that t h e wo rd s w e pron ou nce

are ph onic signs, that a written sen tence is a written sign ,that
a win k o f t h e eye is a sign o f co mm unic ati o n b etween perso ns,

that a defini te nu m b er o f d o ts an d d ashes or sho rt an d long

sou n ds is a sign b elon gin g t o t h e M orse c o de ,th at cert ain ink

marks are m athem atical o r l o gical signs,et c All these are si gns
.

in som e sense,bu t they are differen t si gns with differen t m eanin gs .

When reference is made belo w t o si gns tout court,that wi ll

mean proper signs,i e ,art ifici al in t h e sense that they are con
. .

scio u sly pro du ce d by m an fo r t h e purp ose o f co mm u n i catin g

with other m en Al thou gh t h e n atur al signs (in dices,sym pto m s)

.

“ ”
fall u n der t h e general catego ry o f S i gn ,they di fl er essentially
from all other categ ories o f signs,ab ove all in that they are n ot
pro duced o r evo ked c onsci ou sly by m an for c o mm u nicati on
purposes,bu t exist in depen dently o f m an as n atu ral pro cesses
an d are o nl y ex p os t u tiliz ed by men as sou rce o f

in su ch cases fu ncti o n as if they were n orm al

they were co n sci ou sly evo ke d o r pro du ce d fo r
co nveyin g som e in fo rm ati on t o S

pret at ion o f t h e pro blem is t o be

c f foo tn o te
. B y i n terpretin g
in terhum an relati ons in t h e pro
will be discu ssed in t h e n ext
signs a m eanin g in t h e di rec t sense o f t h e wo rd , an d t o t

signs,a m eanin g o nl y in so m e derive d sense Thi s is .

least for cau ti on s sake ,i n du ced by t h e c on tro versi al

’

o f t h e issu e a clear di stin cti on m u st be m ade in an alys

i n dices (natural si gns) and pro per (artific i al) S igns3

3 termin o lo gy adopted in th is b ook an d to be u sed belo w
Th e re

additi on al exp lan atio n s .

Th e div ision in to n atural sign s an d some o th er sign s,w h ich are in

sort o f o pp o sitio n t o th e fo rmer grou p ,h as a lo n g stan ding Th ere
.
16 8 SELECTED PROBLEMS OP SEMANTI CS

t ri e d t o S qu eeze t h e fu ll
wealth o f t h e phen om en a
”
referre d t o as signs i n to that Procru stean bed 0
Tw o reasons m ake it advisable t o t ake prec isely t
as an o bj ec t o f an alysi s

t o speak ,in a classi cal m ann er,t h e

ing t h e principle o f in terpretin g so c i ally an d

pro blems o f S ign an d m eani n g ; (2 ) hi s system

a g reat m an y au th o rs Every w o rk dealin g with t h e
.

signs in clu des som e typ o l o gy o f sign s fro m thi s o r

o f Vi ew M art in ak ,Biih ler, M erris ,C arn ap ,C assirer,

.

t o qu o t e b u t a few n am es,all give their Ow n typo l ogies

bu t n one o f them can v ie with H u sserl s in t h e m att er o f
’

exert ed o n o thers It might be said that Husserl h ad

.

d ecessor in Peirce : t h e latter u sed a difl eren t termin o lo gy (i n d ex ,

i coni c S ign ,sym b o l),bu t t h e sense o f t h e divi si o n w as pract i
cally t h e sam e4 ; yet P eirce w as fo r m an y ye ars un kn o wn as an

au th or,an d hen ce hi s i n fl uen ce c ou ld be b u t sm all .

Thu s t h e st artin g p o in t fo r a criti cal an alysis is t h e divi si on

o f S igns i n t o in dices (Anz eichen) an d expressi o ns o r e xpressive

sign s (Ausdr iicke) ,with t h e provi so th at accordi n g t o H u sserl

ciple of div isio n does n o t seem t o be t fact th at an ap

un iform ,in spi e of th e

propriate in terpretation m ay easily w aiv e th at o bj ection aside (th e term real

“

coin cides as t o exten sion w ith t h e term n atural

” “
sign s

In Opp o sing th e proper sign s t o th e n atur al sign s I again start from th e

co mm unication p ro cess I n th at pro cess,th ese are sign s w hich are bein g
.

co n scio u sly pro du ce d by men for co mmun ication purp oses . I n my op ini on

th e termproper sign s is t h e best term w ith w hich t o den ote th em sin ce n at

“

u ral processes fun ction as signs o nly in a sec on dary an d a deriv ativ e sen se .

Al tern ativ ely w ith th e term term artificial

“ ” “
prop er sign s I u se th e
S ign s ,sin ce I w ish t o em ph asize th at in con trast w ith th e n atur al S igns,
”

w h ich are n atur al pro ce sses in depen den t o f h u m an ac tiv ity,th e proper
sign s alw ays are, in on e w ay or an oth er,p roducts o f h u man activ ity,an d as
su ch are artifi ciall y brou gh t t o existence This I beli ev e t o be a v ery impo rtan t
.

p o in t,w h ich for a better de scr iption o f th e v arious categories o f sign s sh ou ld

also be reflected in termin olo gy .

4 S ee ab o v e all Ch S Peirce
. .
, L ogIc as Semiotic : Th e Th eo ry o f S ign s
in Ph ilosop h ical Writ ings of Peirce,N ew York 1955 .
 fl-
TI- I SI G N : A NALYSI S A ND TYP OLOGY

onl y t h e latter perform t h e fu ncti on o f expressin g tho u ghts,or,

in o ther w o rds,o f m ean ing som ethin g Th at divi si on u nd o u btedly
.

takes i nt o accou n t t h e S pecific n atu re o f verb al S i gns,thei r spe

cific expressive p ro perty ,whi c h in t h e lit erat u re o f t h e su bj ect
“
is most o ften called t ransparency t o m eani n g Hu sserl op
poses t o t h e Aus driicke all o ther signs suc h as t h e Anz eich en ,
blurs all t h e possible difl erence am o n g t h e l atter (whi ch m ay be
’

hi ghly S ign ifican t) an d den i es t o them t h e fu ncti on o f exp res

sing so m ethi n g H u sserl s typo l o gy also t akes i nt o acco u n t
’
. an d

in that h e is cert ainl y right t h e specific character o f t h e in

dices in t h e sense o f n atu ral signs Bu t at t h e sam e ti m e it blurs

'

th e di f feren ce b etween t h e i n dices so i nterpreted an d t h e sign s

of v ari ou s types,whi ch h e lu m ps t o ge ther in t h e sam e cate go ry

(I mean here ab o ve all such signs as w e sho u ld c all S i gnals,sym b o ls,

iconi c S ign s, Thu s, Hu sserl s Anzeichen are n ot i n dices
’

(natural signs) in o ur cl assificati on ,bu t all tho se signs whi ch do

n ot have as attribu t es t h e i nten ti o n al acts (specifically un d erst o o d

by Hu sserl , an d t o b e di scu ssed in t h e ch apter o n m eani n g) ,

and , co nse qu e n tly , m e ani n g Thu s,H u sserl s typ o l o gy sho uld
’
.

n ot be con fu se d with t h e c o nten ti o n th at i n di ces sh o u ld fall

ou tside t h e an alysi s o f pro per sign s,si n ce t h e e xten si o n o f hi s

i n dices (An zei chen) co vers b oth t h e i n di ces and all pro per signs
except t h e verb al sign s Thi s is t h e fu n d am ent al erro r o f t h e en ti re
.

co ncepti o n , t h e erro r resu lti n g fro m t h e se parati o n o f t h e an aly si s

of si gns fro m -t h e c ommu n i cati o n pro cess Whoever sees that
.

c onnecti o n , wh o ever un derst an ds th at e very S ign is i n clu d ed

in t h e c omm u ni cati o n pr ocess an d lo ses it s functi on as a S ign

o u tside t h e co n te xt o f that
process,that every S i gn is a thi ng
or an event so m eh o w in terp re ted by so m eo n e,m u st rej ect as

b asic ally erro neou s t h e concepti o n that o nly certain si gn s are

expressive, i e ,expres s a th o u ght ,h ave a m eanin g On t h e co n
. . .

trary,all sign s have m ean in gs,express th ou ghts,an d are si gn s

on ly in so far as they perfo rm th ose fu ncti o n s In t h e co mm un i
.

cati o n pro cess,all signs a

pp ear in t h e co m pa n y o f l an gu age
thinking,or even simply as a specific tran slati on o f su ch (in co n
170 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

fo rm ity with an est ablished co de) This is so becau se m

.

u n able t o thin k o therwise than by m eans o f verb al signs in

fo rm ,an d all o ther forms o f signs are derivative ,i e , . .

place
becau se t h e si gns are detached fro m t h e soci al co ntext of
c om m u n i c ati on pro cess an d t reate d as som ethi n g abstract
o ss e ssi n g i n here n t e xi sten ce Thu s ,H u sserl n ot o nl y separ
p .

th e Anz eich en fro m t h e Ausdriicke,bu t even Oppo ses t h e

t er t o t h e fo rm er And yet in fact these t w o cate go ries are

.

m ately co nnecte d one with t h e o ther,an d n ot onl y are they 11

oppo siti on ,bu t they appear in c o m bin ati o n ; I shou ld say

w hat H u sserl c alled t h e Anze ich en

called Ausdriicke . C onse quently ,a

t o be in oppositi on is b ased o n erro
A ll t h e proper signs (and hence a c onsiderable part
serl s Anzeich en) h av e meani n gs In thi s sen se ,they
’
.

press so methin g ,n amely t h e tho u ght whi c h is cont aine

”
meanin g o f th e given S ign An d if t h e w ord t o express is inter
.

p re t e d o th e rwi se ,n am ely associ ated with i n fo rm ati o n co ncern

ing em o ti on al ,and n ot i ntellectu al ,experiences,then t h e in di ces

(natural signs) can also express somethi n g in this sense (e g .

tears express sadness,a blu sh expresses shame or em b arrassm ent ,

et c .
)
Th e bee comm u n ca es so m e
i t h o w with o ther bees throu gh its
”
d an ce ; t h e st ag which by h is cry an d by t h e u se o f hi s an tlers
u rges t h e herd t o flee , also achi eves so m e so rt o f comm un icati o n

with t h e herd M an so metim es acts similarly in t h e comm u ni cati on

.

pro cess for inst ance when with hi s h an d h e st o ps a pedestri an

o n t h e ro adway and p o ints t o a spee din g m o t orcar An d yet
'
.

this l ast is som ethi ng qu ite different from t h e situ ati on al comm u ni
cati on o f ani m als Th at difference exi sts sim ply b ecau se,b ehin d
.

t h e o rdin ary m o vem en ts an d gestu res m ade b o th by m e and by

t h e perso n w ith wh o m I c o m m u n icate (let u s su ppo se I am abro ad
in a cou ntry t h e lo cal lan guage o f whi c h I do n ot kn o w) ,there
is a definite c o nten t ,whi ch w e b oth transla te for ou rselves (o ften
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

t h e c o mm u ni c ati o n pro cess d o es it h appen that a

. Bu t h o w
n o m e n o n b eco m es in clu ded in th at process ? B y o u r experi

by o u r custo m When w e b ecom e famili ar with a gi

"

phen o m en o n an d it s c au sal o r stru ctu ral regul arities,w e

t o perce ive it as if it were ev o ked fo r c o mm u ni cati o n purposes,

that is,created as a sign In su ch c ases it is Nature whi ch is o u r

.

“
” “
partner in t h e co mm u ni cati on pro cess,Natu re com m u ni cates
”

so m ethi n g t o u s That specific ant h ropo lo gizat ion o f n atural

.

even ts blu rs t h e distincti on between t h e i n d ex an d t h e artifici al

S i gn A n atu ral phen o m en on ,with ou t in any deg ree c han gin g

.

it s c haracter,b egi ns t o fu n cti on for us,in t h e co ntext o f our

pro cess o f c o m m u n i cati o n (it b ei n g assu m ed that w e h ave com e t o

kn o w t h e regularities go verni n g t h e given even t) ,in t h e capacity
o f a S ign ; it b egin s t o express so m ethi n g an d is ascrib ed a m ean

in g Bu t all this is an adj u n ct t o a n atu ral event ,som ethi n g added

.

t o it in t h e process o f c o mm u ni cati on ,an d appears o n ly withi n

t h e fram ewo rk o f that process Fro m t h e po i n t o f View o f n atural
.

processes ,t h e fu ncti o n o f an in dex is so m ethi n g secon d ary an d

is always related t o a defini te c o gni tive process, an d fu rther
t o a d efin it e co mm un i cati o n process In th at fu ncti on an i n d e x ,
.

like every form o f S i gn ,is derivative with respect t o c o mm uni

cati o n by w o rd s ; it is s o in t h e sen se that t h e act o f u n derst an din g

an i nd ex is, in t h e l ast an alysis ,alw ays b ase d on thi n kin g in term s

an d by m e an s o f verb al sig n s .

Thu s all sign s except t h e verb al S i gns shi ne with reflected

light ,they so m eh o w repl ace verb al signs an d,when i nterpreted ,
are alw ay s tran sl at e d i n t o a l an gu age o f wo rds (alth o u gh th at

tran slati o n o ften t akes o n an abbrevi ated fo rm ) Thi s is so .

b ecau se w e always thin k by m ean s o f a lan gu age o f w o rds 5 .

5 C ash in g in his w ork M anual Concep ts says th at th ere exist primitiv e

pe o ples w h ich o w in g to a greatly dev elo ped langu age o f gestures also h av e
man u al thinkin g
“ ”
a spec ial . Th at issu e ,an d al so th e co mp licate d pro b lem
of thinkin g o f th o se deaf-mutes w h o h av e n ot been learned a special lan gu age
o f gestures,is left apart,sin ce it do es n o t in v alidate th e general th esis ab o u t

th inkin g in term s of lan gu age of w ords an d abo u t th e necessity to translate

 THE SI GN : ANALYSIS AND TYPOLOGY

Thi s is precisely t h e po i nt whi ch I h ave in m in d when I say that

all signs ,as they se rve t h e purpo se o f hu m an co mm u n icati o n ,
“
are im bu e d with a lan gu age o f wo rd s,an d thereby with t h e
m eani n g th at is specific t o that lan gu age N o t all si gn s expre ss .

th ou ghts in th e sam e way ; on t h e con trary ,even these general

rem arks reveal an essen ti al di f ference b etween direct and i n di
rect su bstitu tive expressi o n o f th ou ghts,o r else a di fference
between t h e comm un i cative fu n ct i on in g o f t h e i ndices o n th e
one h an d and o f t h e pro per S igns on t h e o ther Bu t all t h e si gns .

are exp ress ive in a sense ,an d m u st b e so if they are t o be si gn s

at all .

Thu s Hu sserl s divisi on in t o Anzeich en and Ausdrucke is

’

un ten able It fails n ot on ly b ec au se all si gn s have in a sense a

.

mean in g , as dem onst rat ed ab o ve, bu t also b ecau se all sign s

in a sense indicate so methi n g This is admitt ed by H u sserl himself
.

when h e says that even t h e wo rds in dicate somethi n g,that they

are Anz e ichen o f th o u g hts It is di ffi cu lt t o agree with th at ,since
.

it m ight su ggest that th ou ghts can o rigin ate an d exist i n depen dently
o f verb al l an gu age , an d t h e w o rds are o nl y ex p os t selected

as thei r in dices ,Anze ich en I f o u r st an dpo i nt is th at o f a Spe

.

cific ,o rg an i c u nity o f thin ki n g an d l an gu age ,then w e m u st rej ect

su ch an id ea as S pec u l ativ e,an d st an din g in c o n tradicti o n t o all

"

what psycho lo gy an d physi o lo gy say ab ou t thou ght processes .

Bu t in su ggestin g that c oncepti o n , H u sserl at th e sam e tim e

destro yed th e fo un dati ons o f his ow n typo l o gy Th e wro n g an d .

inconsistent divisi on (which applies t o bo th elem en ts di stin gu ishe d

by it) m akes hi s typo lo gy u n accept able in m y view .

3 . D E FI N IT I O N O F THE S I G N

All this (t h e critical ,negative an alysis w as m ade with a vi ew

to draw in g certain p ositive con clu si o ns) sho ws clearly that t h e

t tiv e
su bsti u signs into th at lan gu age of w ords in t h e n o rm al an d t
t h e mo s
co mm on form of th e CO M Un ic atio n pro cess .
17 4 SEL ECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

t v
con ro ers y with H l
u sser is
n o t at all fo cu se d aro un d
-

an d termin o l o gi c al issu es (alth ou gh these are i n v o lve d a

Of param oun t i nterest is : Wh at do w e u n derstan d by t h e S ign

and in wh at co n text can it s n ature be u n derst o o d and a pro per

c l assific ati on be ef fec ted o f t h e different vari ati o ns o f t h e si gns?

E very attem pt t o o ffer a typo l o gy o f si gns u su ally begins
with a d efiniti on o f t h e S ign O therwise it wou ld be difli cult t o
.

i n tro du ce a hi erarchy and a typol o gy o f sign s H ence ,I t o o begin

.

with su ch a defini tio n ,bu t with cert ain reservati o ns whi ch re

strict my plans .

A s h as b een st ated ab ove (witho u t any deeper ju st ifica

ti on ,since w e still lac k elem ents necessary fo r that purp ose),
t h e S ign forms a whole whic h is an alysed i n t o parts and aspects
su ch as t h e m at eri al an d t h e sem antic asp ect by m ental ah
st ract io n onl y . It foll o ws fro m t h e stru ctu re o f thi s b o o k that
t h e pro blems o f m eanin g m u st be di scu ssed after t h e an aly si s o f
t h e typo l o gy o f si gns,S ince witho u t t h e an alysis it wo ul d be
im po ssible t o u n dertake a proper stu dy o fsu ch pro blem s U nfo rt u .

nat ely,an d thi s is t h e u su al difli cul t y wi th all attem pts t o o fl er

a s stem ati c expo siti o n o f t h e su bj ect ,t h e l ack o f an an aly sis

y
o f m eani n g adds , in tu rn ,som ethin g o f a di fficu lty t o t h e an alysi s
of the S ign
. It is essenti al , therefo re, that I t ou ch u pon
t h e defini ti o n o f t h e S i gn o nl y in a m o st gen eral w ay,in so far

as it is i n di spen sable for fu rther c on siderati o n s .

M o re over,I shall ,in t h e defin iti o n t o be prop o se d ,con

fin e myself t o proper,i e ,artifici al ,signs,an d that fo r reasons
. .

in dicated ab o ve , whic h reco mm e n d a separate t reatm en t o f

t h e an alysi s o f i n di ces .

In t ac klin g t h e pro blem from t h e p o in t o f Vi ew o f t h e c om

m uni cat ion process,th at is a process whi ch is p ar excellen ce
s oc i al in n ature ,I alw ay s t ake as m y st artin g po i n t a d efinit e

lan guage o f which t h e sign in questi on is an elem ent ,an d I t ry

t o un d erst an d t h e n atu re o f th at elem en t an d it s fun cti o ns within

t h e who le H ence it is bey o n d d ou bt th at e very S ign ,

. as an elem en t

o f so m e lan gu age (w o rds ,gest ures , c o de , m u st be a signi fy

17 6 SELECTED PROBLEM S OF S EM ANTI C s

Bu t it un d ou btedly grasps that property l

a rea dy m ent io
before and co m m on to all
vari ati on sth e of sign s

t h e pro perty o f i n formin g ab o u t s om et h in g , o f

e at in g s om et hi n g An other m erit o f that defin iti on is t h e

.

that it can serve as t h e startin g po in t fo r an effo rt t o classi fy signs

t o su ggest a typo l o gy Of signs .

4; GENE RA L FO UN D ATI ON S O F T HE T YPO L O G Y O F SIGN S

Th e task oftypo l o gy o f signs is t o delin eate t h e specific

th e

traits o f each separate vari ati o n o f sign s against their c omm on

“

b ackgrou n d , an d t o establi sh c onn ecti on s between them an d,

possibly ,a hi erarc hy o f types o f signs .

As menti o ne d ab ove,t h e great v ariety o f S i gns h as given rise

n ot o nl y t o a ri c h t ermi n o l o gy servi n g t o den o t e ty pes o f sign s,

bu t also t o a co nsiderable arbit rariness in t h e u se o f th at termi

n o lo gy There w ou ld be n o thi n g wro n g in th at if termi n o l o gi cal
.

di fferen ces were conn ecte d so lely with difleren t appro pri ate
co nven ti o ns I n m an y cases it is in fac t so ,
. an d th en it is essen ti al

t o un derst an d d eeply a co nven ti on an d it s fou n d ati on s It h as .

been well kn o wn since t h e time o f Plato that there is n o n atural

nexu s b etween t h e s o un d o f a w o rd an d it s m e ani n g ,an d that w e

are free t o c h an g ou r t erm i n o l o gy when ever nece ssary But

e .

t w o thi n g s t o be t aken i n t o acco u n t in thi s conn ecti o n sh o u ld

restric t any t o o far- reachi n g arbitrari ness in th o se m atters First , .

it sh ou ld be b orne in mi n d that termin o l o gical di fl erences m ay

'

e g ,in di f
‘

veil t h e sem an ti c difl eren ces revealed ferent clas

. .

sific at ions o f phen om en a an d th at g oes b ey o n d t h e li mi ts o f

conven ti o n s S eco n dly ,there sh o u ld n o t ,with o u t g o o d an d suf

.

ficient reasons,be any vi o lati on o f t h e actu al u se o f word s an d

t h e actu al mean in gs o f w o rds,since thi s gives ri se t o addi ti on al

c ompl icati o ns an d adds t o c o n fu si o n ,e speci ally in t h e case o f

wo rds with a l on g-est ablishe d traditi on in t h e ordin ary lan gu age .

Th e fact that v ari ou s au th ors b ase them selves o n difl erent

foun d ati on s in classi fyin g sign s lead s t o ty p o l o gies b ase d o n
 THE SI GN : A NALYSIS AND TYP OLOGY

vari o u s prin ciples of

divisi on V ariety is still greater when it
.

comes t o t erm i n o l o gy There wou ld be n o poin t in engagin g

.

in a critic ism o f t h e v ari o u s syst em s ; analysi s o f t h e pro blem

wou ld thereby b ecome clu m sy and o bscu re ,and so it is better
t o drop all su ch criticism .

Cert ainl y , some g eneral princi ples o f c l assificati on t o be

fou n d in t h e lit eratu re o f t h e su bj ect m ay be u sefu l in cert ain
situ ati o ns Fo r inst ance,t h e di visi on in t o n atural an d conv en
.

t ion al signs,as referre d t o ab o ve ,is o f great im p o rtance M o r .

ris s divi si o n o f sign s acco rdin g t o their e xtensi o n (in dexi c al ,

’

characterizi n g an d u n iv ersal) m ay also t u rn o u t t o be u sefu l Th e .

sam e appli es t o C arn ap s disti ncti on b etween t h e S ign as an act

’

-even t an d t h e S ign as an i nscri ti o n -des i n

( g
s i n ) p ( g
s i n g ) ,which
goes b ack t o an old co n cepti on o f Peirce an d also o f Witt

genst ein co ncerni n g t h e distin cti on b etween th e S ign as a

token an d t h e S ign as a typ e6 Bu t ,sin ce it is n o t po ssible t o .

agree with H u sserl s div i sI On i nt o i n dices an d expressi ons,it is

’

also n o t p o ssible t o agree with Pei rce s typ o l o gy b ased o n t h e

’

relat io n t h e signs and thei r referen t s (in di ces,i c oni c signs, sym
'

bols) ; with M orris s typo lo gy ,distin guishin g on ly Signals an d

’

sym b o ls an d delib erately givi n g th o se term s m eanin gs difl erent

from t h e current ones ; with Biih ler s,w h o ascribes Specific m ean
’

ing t o term s and distin gui shes signs,i ndices and sym b o ls ; with
t h e typo lo gy o f S L an ger (n atu ral signs,
. artifici al S igns, sy m b o ls) ,

or with th at o f S Stebbin g (expressive sign s,su ggestive signs,

.

su b stitu t ive signs),et c With referen ce t o all th o se concepts ,t h e

.

obj ecti o n m ay be v alidly raise d th at either t h e princi ple o f di

‘

visi on is n ot un iform , or that th e extensi o ns o verlap,or that

t h e cl assificati on is n o t e xhau stive , o r th at it is evidently arbit rary ,

et c Thu s ,all su c h cl assificati o n s m ay be u se d as specific m en t al

.

stim u li bu t I wo u ld ad opt n one o f them as m y ow n .

6 Wh en w e h av e tt
wri en signs,e g . .
,cat an d CA T each of them is ( l )
a distin ct,in div idu al in scription (t oken),an d (2
) an in div idu al v ariation o f

an in scription o f one an d th e sam e typ e .

178 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

I be gin with t w o distin cti ons o n e o f them univers ally

cept ed ,t h e o ther c ontro versi al .

First ,t h e si gns are divided ,as alre ady menti o n ed ,in t o n atur
(in dices,sympt om s) and proper (or artifici al) .

S ec o n d ,t h e pro per sign s are divided in t o verb al signs

written su bstitu tes for su ch) an d all o ther sign s In a sense .

o n ly in a sen se) ,t hi s is an

m akes with reference t o

t h e fact th at a c learly distin ct c haract er o f t h e

po sed t o all o ther signs is rec o gn iz e d ; an d t h e

fact th at all t h e rest is no t squ eeze d in t o t h e
t h e Anze
be su bj ected t o a m ore detailed an alysis,precisely
o f th at S pecific n ature o f thei rs Fo r t h e tim e b ei n g ,I
.

wh at h as already been said : becau se o f t h e S peci al rOle

p h oni c lan gu age an d o f t h e verbal sign s in t h e pro cess o f h u m
thinkin g an d c omm u nic ati on , these si gns occu py t h e
su prem e pl ace in t h e hi erarc hy o f signs .

An d n o w fo r t h e class ific ati o n graph :

ia l,or prope r,s i ns

g

Verbal s igns Preper signs

with a derivative expres sion

Fig . 1

T hu s w e h ave O bt ain e d t h e fo llo win g resu lt : on t h e o ne han d

w e h ave set apart t h e n atu ral signs (i n dices) an d have o ppo sed

them by t h e artifici al ,or proper,signs ; o n t h e o ther han d ,am on g

t h e l atter w e have ascrib ed a speci al st atu s t o t h e verb al signs

as t h e b asis o f t h e pr ocess o f hu m an co mm u n i cati o n an d h ave

again o ppo sed t h em by all o ther art ific i al sign s I n vi ew o f t h e

'

.
18 0 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

t
s ren gth of a . i deliberate agreemen t conel
c o n sc o u s an d

at a spec ifie d d ate (of all t h e c o des) ,bu t they m ay e qu ally

.

o w e thei r o rigi n t o t h e hist o ri cal prac tice o f t h e soci al

o f c o mm un i c ati on (t h e cl assic al ex ample here bein g t h e

lan gu age) In t h e latter c ase,o f decisive im p or tan ce is a

.

ac t ion whi c h in t urn ari ses m ainl y from t h e n ee d o f

co-op erat ion ; th at acti on is soci ally accept ed an d is b ein g conti

n aturally , alth ou gh withou t any traces o f an y delib

c on venti on .

Thu s all t he proper S igns are artifici al ,and in principle co n

v ent io n al as well Th e fact or enablin g their fu rther divisi on
.

is co nnected with their fu ncti on in t h e hu m an process o f com

m unicat ion t h e functi o n o f direct i n flu en ce u p o n human .

acti o n ,in o ne case ,an d t h e fu ncti o n o f st an di n g fo r cert ain

o bj ects,st ates o f t hi n gs ,o r even ts ,in t h e o ther B y t h e fu nc

.

ti on o f stan din g fo r (su b stitu tin g) som ethi n g I m ean this that
Th e S i gn appears instead o f some o bj ect ,state o f thi ngs,o r event ,
and e v o kes in t h e hu m an mi n d ideas, im ages and thou ghts whi ch
are u su ally e v o ke d by th at o bj ect , st ate o f thi n gs,o r even t (that

su bstit u ti on also is reflecte d in hu m an acti o n ,alth o u gh it d oes

n ot in t h e least fo ll o w that t h e appearance o f t h e S i gn sho u ld

alw ays ent ail t h e sam e resu lt s as d oes t h e appearance o ft h e o bj ect ,

et c ,fo r whi c h t h e S ign st an ds)

. .

It mi ght be o bj ected that t h e pro per signs always are signs

for som e th ing,that they are artifici al ,pro du ced for th e purpo se .

o f c omm u ni cati o n , an d hen ce for t h e purp o se o f so m eh o w

influen cin g hum an b ehavi o u r It m i ght also be c onten d ed that
.

“ ”
every S ign is a S ign of s om e th ing,th at it p o i n t s bey o n d itsel f ,
an d as suc h perfo rm s t h e fu n cti o n o f su b stitu ti on All that is
.

true Nevertheless,there are pr oper signs t h e fu ncti on of whi ch

.

co n si sts in direct l i n fl u enc in g h u m an behavi o ur (S i gnals) ,an d

y
proper S igns t h e fu ncti on o f whi ch consists in su b stit u ti o n
(su bstitu tive S igns) and t h e in flu en ce o f whi ch o n hu m an behav
io u r is bu t indirect In ad optin g that di fferen ce as t h e criteri o n
.

o f classifi cati o n , w e m ay fu rther su bdivid e t h e pro per S i gns with

 THE SI G N : ANALYSIS AND TYP O LOGY 1

a derivative expressi on i nt o sign als an d su bstitu tive S igns,a

th e l atter in turn i nt o su bstitu tive si gns sensu s tr icto an d sym b ol
Here is th e graph
Proper signs
Will] a derivative ex ressmn
p

uims S i
gns

Su bst i tuti v e 5 1 ns 5 gmbols

g
sensu str/c/o

We n ow proceed t o discu ss t h e vari ou s t g i

ca e or es appearin

th e classificati on su ggest ed ab ove .

In t h e d efini ti on of t h e S ig nal ,t h e starti n g po i n t fo r me i

t h e ordinary Sense o f t h e w ord O f cou rse ,that wo rd is u sed i
.

t h e l iterature of t h e su bj ect in o ther ,so m etimes qu it e arbitra

meani ngs also for M orris,every S ign whic h is n ot a symbc

is a sign al) Bu t I h ave menti oned ,t o o ,
. that I ad opt t h e direct iv
that th e existin g m eanin gs of w ords are n ot t o be vi olate d i
not necessary ,j u st b ecau se su c h a vi o l ati o n o f lin gu istic u sag

wou ld do m ore harm than g o o d ,althou gh t h e u sin g o f wo rd

in new m eanin gs,consci ou sly d esigned in View of some needs
is n ot only admi ssible in sci en ce,but actu ally o ften resorted t o
I am in agreem ent with t h e o rdin ary u sage and with t h
”
usu al meani n g o f t h e w o rd S ign al in so far as I u n derst an d b
it a S i gn t h e purpose o f which is t o evo ke,t o chan ge,or t o m ak
som eon e d esist fro m ,so m e acti on .

We u su ally do n ot say (althou gh M orris tells u s t o do so

that th e freezin g of water is a signal o f a fall of temperatu re
18 2 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SEMANTI CS

’
or that wrin kles o n a person s face are a signal o f hi s agein g
On t h e o ther han d , it is qu ite in accord with our l an gu age intu iti on
and in my o pi ni o n also with t h e n atural premi ses o f t h e classifica

ti on o f signs,t o say that th e firi n g o fa blue rocket w as for so ldi ers

a S ign al fo r an att ac k ; th at t h e appearance o f t h e green light

at a street cro ssin g is a sign al fo r ped estri an s t o cro ss t h e r o ad

w ay ; th at t h e w ailin g o f a S iren in wartim e is a S ign al for civili an s

t o seek refu ge in S helters again st an immin en t air raid ; that t h e

wailin g o f a siren o f an am bu lan ce car o r a fi re en gin e is a sign al
for all vehi cles t o leave a free passage ; th at a b ell run g in a scho o l
o r a whistle bl o wn in a fact o ry is a sign al t o break o r t o st art

w o rk .

What is t h e p oin t in all such an d similar cases? What do they

have in comm on that makes it possible t o c o mbine them in t o
a S in gle cat eg o ry ,d espite all t h e di f feren ces o f det ails ?
AS already st at ed ,in all suc h cases w e h ave t o do with S i gns
t h e m ain o bj ective o f whi c h is t o ev o ke, c h an ge , o r make so m eo ne

desist from ,so m e acti o n Thu s,these are typical signs for som e
.

th ing,si gns c learly i nten de d t o ev o ke (o r t o c han ge,o r t o st o p)

som e d efini te acti on as t h e o bj ective o f co mm uni cati on

. Thu s
they are material p henomena caused esp ecially or u tilized in order
to brin g ab ou t a resp onse,prearran ge d and agree d u po n ,whether

soc i ally (in a gro u p) ,o r i n dividu ally ,in th e fo rm o f defini t e

m an i fest ati o ns o f hu man activity .

It is o nl y t h e elem ent o f c onven ti o n whi ch c alls for an ex

plan ati o n o f t h e latter asserti on S ign als appear only where
.

an appropri ate gro u p o f peo ple h ave co n clu de d an exp licit agree

m ent by virt u e o f whi ch a given phen omenon fun cti ons for
them as a S ignal .

Thu s,if t h e so ldi ers in t renches are t o u n derst an d t h e ap

p e ar an ce o f a blue roc k et i n t h e S ky as a S ign al fo r att ac k ,they
mu st be so i n forme d in adv ance In su ch a case ,and only in such
.

a case,d oes t h e firin g o f t h e ro cket m ean fo r every s o ldi er t h e

“ ”
o rd er : F o rw ard ! Attack ! I n this c ase t h e blu e roc ket ,in con
fo rm ity with an agree d co de,rep laces t h e appro priate verb al
18 4 SELECTED PROB LEMS OF SEMANTI CS

with ph ot ocellswhi ch at a specified tim e activate li ght ,soun d

o r o ther signals t o warn o f d an ger,et c ) .

Thu s t h e sign al can be distin gu ished from o ther artifi cial

signs by t h e fo llo wi n g charact eri sti cs : ( 1) its m eaning is alwa s
y
es tablish ed b
arbitrar
y, y virt ue of a con ven t ion valid w ith in a given
group of p eop le ; (2
) its p urp ose is always to e voke or change

or s top ) a cer tain ac t ion ; (3) its app earance is occas ion al in c on

nec t ion w ith th e in tended ac t ion Th e . fact

that it replaces a certai n
verb al st atement is n ot t o be m en ti on ed as a charact eristi c,S i nce
thi s h olds,as stated ab o ve,for all proper signs .

Th e analysis thu s m ade sh o ws th at t h e sign al is a su b stitu te

for t h e correspondi n g verb al expressi on s ; it replaces them as
every co d e replaces a ph oni c l an gu age Th e m et aph ori cal st ate
.

“ ”
m en t that every S ign al is i m bu ed with t h e ph oni c lan guage
an d it s m ean i n g ,is thu s,in th e case o f S ignals,expl ain ed direct
ly an d very S im ply Th e signal h as,like every m eaning fu l group
.

o f v erb al S ign s,a m eani n g ,alth ou gh it h as su ch in a difl eren t

m ann er,in an i ndirect and derivative w ay .

“
What then is t h e rel ati on o f t h e sign al in thi s sense t o
“ ”
th e signal in e g t h e Pavlovi an sense ? Let u s get it qu ite clear
. .

that w e have here t o do with tw o words which have th e sam e

sh ape, bu t di f feren t m eani n gs I n Pavlo v s termi n o lo gy , t h e
’
.

“
sign al refers t o rel ati on s concern in g , physi o l o gi cal sti m uli

an d reacti o ns,by b ein g part o f a cert ain S itu ati o n ,treat ed as

a wh o le , whi ch brin gs ab ou t d efin ite con diti one d respon ses Thu s .

“ ”
in that case t h e S i gn al m eans th e sam e as a physi olo gi cal stim
u lu s in a d efinit e S ense o f t h e t erm N o referen ce is m ade there
.

“ ”
t o it s b ei n g imbued with mean in g and t o conn ecti o ns with
a pho n i c l an gu age ; m oreo ver, t h e very fo rm u l ati o n o f t h e pro blem
eli m i n ates t h e n eed t o reso rt t o su c h c o n cepts I sh all n ot st op .

for an appraisal o f t h e correctness an d virtue of su ch an ap

p r o ac h , b u t si m p ly co n fi n e m y s elf t o t h e st at em en t th at in Pav
“ ”
lov s t ermi n o l o gy t h e n o ti on o f t h e signal differs com plete
’

ly from that an alysed ab ove Fo r t h e tim e bein g ,that st atement

.

is sufficient for our purp oses .

 THE SIGN : AN AL YSI S AND TYPOLOGY

B S ubstitu tive
. signs

Th e d l arge class o f proper signs compri ses su bstitu t

sec o n

iv e signs B y contrast with signals,they are signs of som ething,

.

S i gns with t h e em phasiz ed fu n cti on o f su b stitu tin g ,representi n g

som e o ther o bj ects,st ates o f thin gs o r e ven ts .

Th e class o f su b stitu tive signs is in tu rn su bdivided i nt o t w o

su bclasses accordi n g t o whether t h e o bj ec t a signs st and s fo r

is a c oncret e,m ateri al o bj ect ,o r whether t h e S ign ,i e ,so m e . .

thi n g m ateri al , represents an abstract n o ti on , i e somethin g . .

whi ch is connected with t h e m ateri al world ,m ateri al relati o n

ships,m ateri al properti es,et c ,bu t in it sel f is n o t a m at eri al
.

o bj ec t . In t h e first case w e speak o f subs titut ive signs sensu

stric to ,an d in t h e sec on d ,o f symbols .

Th e pro blem o f su bstitu tive signs sensu stric to is com para

t iv ely S im ple What is i n v o lved are m ateri al o bj ec ts which stan d
.

for o ther o bj ects by virtue o f similarity or c on ven ti on Typical .

ex am ples o f su b stitu tive si gns w orkin g o n t h e simi larity pri nci ple

(iconic signs) are all kin ds o f images an d simi les (drawi n gs,
paintin gs,ph o t o g raphs,scu lptu res,et c ) an d ex amples o f su b
.

st it u t iv e si gns b ase d o n co nven ti o n are all ki n ds o f written S igns

which stan d fo r speech sou n ds,their g rou ps,wo rds,senten ces,

et c O f course ,
. t h e divisi o n is n o t a rigid on e an d there are tran si
ti on stages b etween t h e v ari o u s types,whi ch I deliberately dis
reg ard here ih o rder t o av o id com pli cati o n Th e o nly seri o u s
.

“ ”
issue here is that o f t h e m echan i sm o f that su bstitu tio n or
“ ”
represent ati o n o f on e o bj ec t by an o ther fro m t h e p o in t o f

vi ew o f t h e mental pro cesses ; t h e pro blem o f meanin g is in

"

vo lved ,but that will be discu ssed in t h e n ext chapter .

D i fficu lties arise,on t h e o ther han d , when it c om es t o

sym b o ls T hi s is due m ain ly t o t w o c au ses : fi rst ,
. t h e i ssue is very
c o n tro versi al an d approac hed fro m di f feren t an gles in t h e very
ri ch lit erature o f t h e su bj ect ; sec on d ,t h e i ssue at st ake h ere is

on e o f a class (or su b class) o f S ign s which play an excepti o n ally

important rOle in t h e vari ous field s of soci al life .

18 6 SELECTED PROBLEM S OF SEMANTI CS

In my s s em
y t ,t h e s ym b o l s are a su b class of su bstitu tive
signs an d are c haract erized pri nci pally by t h e fo ll o win g three

c haracteri sti cs : ( 1) m aterial objec ts rep resen t abs trac t no tions ;

(2 ) the rep resen tat ion is based on a con ven tion which must be
kno wn if a given symbo l is to be unders tood ; (3) conven t ional
r ep resen ta tion is based on th e rep resen ta tion of an abs trac t no t ion

by a s ign ,a rep resen ta tion wh ich o u t wardly app eals to s enses

(an d sem an ti c ally w o rk s by ex em plifi cat io n ,all eg o ry ,m et aph o r,

allu si o n t o m yth o l o gy ,t h e p ars p ro to to pri nci ple,et c) .

I n su ch a fo rm u lati o n ,whi ch seem s hi ghly Significan t for

vari o u s reasons,t h e st artin g po int again is t h e livi n g in tu itive
“ ”
m eani n g o f t h e term sym b o l whi c h is in agreem en t with th e
directive that existin g lin gu istic u sage shou ld n o t be vi o lated
u nless n ecessary , an d that , so t o S peak , t h e sem anti c en t ia sh o u ld
not be m u lti plied b ey o n d wh at is n ecessary .

For wh at ,in c onformi ty with t h e o rdi nary i ntu itive u sage,

is it th at is called a sym b o l ? We are cert ai nl y in agreem ent
“ ”

with su ch an intu itive u sage when w e say that t h e cro ss is a symb ol

o f Chr isti ani ty ,a crescen t o f Islam ,an d a six-p o in t st ar

o f t h e M osai c reli gi o n ; th at t h e h amm er an d S i ckle o r a re d

fiv e-p oint st ar is a sym b ol of C omm u n ism , a swastika of

Nazism ,an d an axe with fasces o f F asc ism ; th at a figu re o f

a w om an with a b an d acro ss h er eyes an d with a p ai r o f scal es

an d a sw o r d in h er h an ds is a sym b o l o f j u sti ce,that t h e figure

“

o f M ars sym b o lizes w ar an d her o i sm ,that o f Ero s,l o ve,an d

a skelet o n with a scyt he ,d eath ; th at bl ac k sym b olizes m ou rn i n g ,

pu rple digni ty ,yellow en vy ,whit e i nn ocence,red lo v e ;

that specific co lou rs on a flag symb olize (o ne s) n ati on and m o ther
’

lan d ,etc I n th e light o f existin g lin gui stic u sage,it is d o u btfu l

.

whether,for exam ple,m athem atical an d l o gical signs m ay be

c on sid ere d sym b o ls (alth ou gh it is o ft en said th at th ey m ay be) .

And there is n o d ou bt that t h e firin g o f a ro cket t o st art an at

tack in a b attle,a perso n s pho t o graph,o r t h e fact that water
’

h as frozen ,et c ,c ann o t be said t o be sym b o ls

. .
18 8 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

em o ti on al states an d therefore may n ot onl y brin g

con cepts cl oser t o m en ,bu t also preven t men fro m co

kno w t h e tru th Th e m ul ti fari ou s fu ncti ons o f

.

ti l th i m yth-maki n g fun ct i o n s m ake them an

p ar c u ar e r ,
i nterestin g obj ect o f stu dy .

Th e con venti on al c haract er o f t h e sym b o l (in t h e

a so ci al an d hist o ri ca l con venti o n) that is its seco n d specific
trait is linked with t h e fu ncti on o f representin g abstract
n oti o ns by m ateri al o bj ects ,which is t h e pro per fun cti o n o f

t h e sym b o l in t h e co mm uni cati on pro cess .

To un derst an d any sym b o l , t h e appro pri ate con venti on

m u st be kn o wn Th ose w h o do n ot kn o w t h e O ld and t h e N ew
.

Testamen t ,Greek an d R om an myt ho lo gy ,w h o do n ot kn o w

(u su all y from very childho o d) t h e symb olism o f co lou rs as u sed
in Europe ,w h o are n ot versed in o u r p o litical li fe and in th e
sym b o lism o f t h e v ari o u s n ati on al em blems an d co l ou rs

will not u n derstan d a sin gle sym b o l of those e xemplifie d ab o ve By .

an al o gy ,a Euro pean , even an e du cated Eu ro pean n o t ac qu ainted

with Oriental cu ltu re, will fail t o un derstan d t h e symb oli sm

o f t h e H i n du d an ces ,o r that co nnecte d with O rien t al deities,

t h e specific sym b oli sm o f c o l ou rs ,sm ell s,et c Thi s is so b ecau se

.

no sym b o l h as a n atural m eani n g ,o n t h e c ont rary , e ver symb o l

y
h as an artific ial,c o nventi on al sense whi ch m u st be learned .

Thi s is S ho wn by su ch elem entary ex am ples as th at in t h e Eu ropean

cu ltural c ircle it is bl ack whi ch is t h e c o l ou r o f m o urnin g ,whereas
in t h e E ast it is whit e ; th at in ou r cu ltu ral c ircle it is purple whi ch
is t h e sym b olic co lou r o f p ower an d di gn ity ,whereas in Chi n a
it is yell o w ; an d so o n ,n o t t o menti on t h e visu al sym b ols o f
wisd om ,co urage ,virtu e ,et c which have n o thi n g in com m o n
if c om pare d as b etween t h e vari ou s cu ltu ral c ircles .

All t hi s explai ns t h e th ird specific t rait o f t h e sym b o l th e

m

sen so ry (u su all y i c o ni c) represen t ati o n o f an ab st ract idea .

Th e fact th at t h e o bj ect represented by a sym b o l is alway s

an ab st ract n o ti on w as i n dicated as t h e first su ch t rait . It h as
been said that in t h e case of t h e sym b ol w e have t o do with t h e
 THE SIGN : ANALYSI S A ND TYP OLO GY 18 9

su bstituti on o f an abstract n oti on by a m ateri al an d concrete

obj ect ,bu t n o ex plan ati on h as b een given as t o that m at eri al

concreteness o f t h e sym b o l This is t o be dealt with later

. .

L ike every sign ,t h e sym b o l is a m ateri al o bj ect o r phenom

en on
. Were it n ot s o ,it cou ld n ot be perceived an d cou ld n o t
st an d fo r anythin g else Bu t a sym b o l is,as a ru le ,n o t m erely
.

a m ateri al o bj ect ,b ut also a vi su al i m age .

Th e paint er,t h e black an d white artist o r t h e scu lpt or w h o

wants t o u se his art t o present some ab stract concept ,such as
hero ism ,virtu e ,lo ve o r patri otism ,mu st u su ally resort t o a symb o l ,
in whi ch h e h as t o c ho ose b etween t h e altern atives : either his
picture will b e an alleg o ry co nveyin g t h e ab st ract idea in questi on ,
or it will b e an exem plificat io n con v eyi n g wh at is general thr o u gh

t h e in term edi ary o f wh at is particu l ar .

Th e sym b olic represen t ati on o f ab st ract ideas fre qu ently

reso rt s t o m et aph o rs o n whi ch t h e pi cture is b ased (espec i ally

in literature) V erb al sym b o lic im ages i nclu de su ch form u la

.

“ ” “ ”
ti ons as t h e b owl o f li fe , t h e cu p o f bitterness ,et c .

Mytholo gy is amply drawn o n Th e serpent o f Aescul api u s

.

as t h e sym b o l o f m edical art co mes fro m c lassical myt ho lo gy,

as d oes H ercu les,t h e sym b o l o f st ren gt h ,t h e ow l ,t h e symb o l

o f wi sd o m ,et c An d t h e an im al sym b o ls in st ate em blem s (t h e

.

li on ,t h e eagle,etc ) usu ally c o m e fro m eth ni c legen ds

. .

Represent ati o n b ased o n t h e pars p ro to to principle also

fre quently occurs Th e cro ss as a particu larly im port an t elem en t
.

in t h e st ory o f Jesu s h as thu s becom e t h e sym b o l o f C hri sten d om .

O f co u rse,it also h appens n ot in frequently that a sym b olic

im age is abstract in character,and in su ch a case its li n ks with
‘

th e abstract n o ti on it represents are pu rely conven ti o n al (alth o u gh

sometim es so m e im agin ary explan ati on thro u gh associ ati o n
cro ps u p) . Thi s ho lds for co lou rs as sym b o ls o f em oti o ns) ,

c om bin ati o ns o f c o l o urs as n ati on al sym b o ls in t h e case

o f n ati o nal fl ags) ,ab stract drawi n gs with m ythi cal o r m agi cal

interpret ati o ns (e g , t h e swastika), m athem ati cal an d lo gical

. .

si gns (t h e graphi c sym b ols o f i nfin ity , neg ati o n ,et c )

19 0 SELECTED PROBLEM S OF SEMANTI CS

Gesticu l at ory ,o lfact o ry ,et c .

,symb ols are in prin ciple pur
c o n venti on al
. Thi s applies fo r i nstance t o t h e sym b o lism
gestures in H i n du d ances,t h e sym b o li sm o f aro m as so w i
spread in t h e East ,et c .

S o u n d and thei r c o m bin ati o ns,t o o , can play t h e r Ole

sym b o lic i m ages by virt ue o f a con v enti o n ,m o st c o mm o
“

in co nnecti o n with a cert ain em o ti o n al t one ,felt o nly i

n ite cu ltu ral c ircle .Fo r inst anc e ,a sl o w an d m o n ot o n ou s ri
in g o f b ell s with a low t o n e is perceiv ed by u s a sym b o l
m ou rn in g ; t h e sam e h olds,by an alo gy ,fo r t h e m el o dy and
rhythm o f a c ert ain type o f m arch .

A ll thi s is o nly by w ay o f illu stration ,an d n o t as any

h au st iv e enu merati on Th e g am u t o f sym b o ls is ext r
.

an d it s p ossibilities alm ost u n lim ited Bu t in all t h e

.

have an alysed ,t h e facto rs referred t o e arli er are i n v o lved : t h e

sy mb o l is a m ateri al o bj ect ,st ate o f thi n gs ,or even t ; it repl aces

(represen ts) an ab stract n o ti on ,an d n ot any o ther m ateri al o bj ect

(which is t h e fu ncti o n o f t h e su bstitu tive S ign sensu s tric to) ;
su ch a represent ati o n is p o ssible on ly when b ase d o n d efin ite

co n ven ti on s (u sage,ad h o c agreem en t ,et c ) .

It is n ot di ffi cu lt t o notice that su ch an in terpretati on o f t h e

sym b o l , o rgani cally c on n ect e d with a defin it e c o ncepti on o f
'

a typ ol o gy o f sig n s,an d with a crit eri o n o f divi si on ,ad o pted

fo r that pu rp o se, is in c on form ity with ordin ary l an gu age

i ntu iti on an d is adj u ste d t o t h e existi n g sense o f expres
s i o ns
. Thi s fact is by n o m eans u ni m po rtan t or secon d ary,
S i nce t h e li n gu i stic cat eg o ri es S h aped by hi st o ry o f fer a cert ain
cl assificati o n o f c o n cepts,b ased on so ci al appreci ati o n o f Sim
.

ilarit ies an d di fferences in cont ent whi ch m ean s th at they pert ain
.

t o wh at su ch c at ego ri es express as reg ards rel ati o n s in t h e

O bj ective Wo rld N am es can o f c ourse be c han ge d arbitrarily,

.

bu t if this leads t o ch an ges in t h e cl assificati o n o f phen om en a

w ithou t adequa te sem an tic reasons , that is so m ethi n g whi ch sc ien ce
cann o t perm it Th e p o i n t is that t h e t erm in o l o gy ad o pt ed sh ou ld
.

help u s t o i n form o thers ab ou t t h e real wo rld t o whi ch it pertain s,

 S ELEC TE D PR OBL EMS o i7 S E M A NTICS

Th e ign ificance (especi ally t h e soci al sign

s

u n derst oo d in a pro per , i e ,restri ctive,w ay is en o rm ou s,

. .

all in view o f th eir role in sh apin g pu b li c o pi ni o n an d

m yt hs That is why w e m u st reco g nize t h e achi evem en ts o

.

scho lars as C assi rer w h o su cceed ed in n oti ci n g an d spo t - Ii

t h e pro blem ,in spite
th at pro blem is still
ficu lt bu t p ro mi sin g t a
tially m o st su ite d t o u n d ert ake th at di f
S o far h o wever t h e m att er rem ains in t h e air .

Th e un derstan di n g o f t h e n atu re an d fun cti o n o f sym b

depen ds ab o ve all o n t h e c riteri on ad opt ed fo r t h e classificati on
signs in general It d oes n ot ,0
.

an erro r there i n v alid at es a pro per an alysi s o f

sym b o ls It is n ot possible t o u n derstan d what

.

Husserl is fo llowed in dividi n g t h e si gns in t o

Ausdriicke, whi c h practice virtu ally elimin at es
o f un derstandi n g t h e spec ific n ature o f all signs 0

pro cess o f hu m an c ommu ni cati on Th e sam e h .

t arbiri ska is
'

foll ow e
au tho rs) int o i co ni c
possible, bu t th at dich ot omi c classificati on , th ou gh form ally
co rrect ,d oes n ot lead t o any in teresti n g resu lt s an d blu rs t h e

divisi on in those classes o f si gns whic h are o bservable in practice

an d hi ghl y i m po rt ant fro m t h e p o i n t o f v iew o ft h e

process This is so b ecau se t h e divisi o n l o ses c om pletely

.

distincti o n ,for exam ple,between t h e si gnal ,t h e sym b o l (in t h e

sense spec ifie d ab o ve) an d th e v erb al sign Th e sam e o bj ecti on.

m ay be raised with respect t o t h e cl assific ati o ns su ggest ed by

M orris,S Stebbin g ,S L an ger,an d t o t h e resu ltin g m eani n gs
. .

“ ”
o f t h e term sym b o l Thi s criti ci sm once m ore rem in d s u s h ow
.

j u sti fied is t h e statem ent that termi n o l o gical issu es are by n o m ean s
as arbit rary as m ight appear at t h e fi rst gl anc e It also rem i n ds .

u s t h e i m po rt ance o f a pro p er st artin g p o in t fo r an alysis ,an d

o f a pro per crit eri o n o f t h e typ olo gy o f signs .

One m o re rem ark t o con clu de these considerati o n s .

 THE SI G N : ANALYSIS A ND TYPOLOGY 19 3
‘

As l
a rea dy i n dicated ,there is n o d o u bt that some o ther clas
sificat ions o f signs,and t h e di stin cti o n o f som e o ther categ ory

or catego ri es, may pro ve advant ageou s for cert ain pu rposes We .

have pau sed here t o discu ss t h e prin ci pal classificati on which ,

in my opini on ,is th e m ost impo rt an t Within that classificati on ,
.

further divisi ons m ay be effected ,b ased on o ther c riteri a,an d

there will be n o co lli si on b etween t h e t w o I shou ld like,h ow
.

ever, t o dev o te a few rem arks t o a g rou p o f i m port an t signs t h e

an alysis o f whi ch m ay i nv o lve cer tain di f fi cu lties in t h e light
of t h e typ ol o gy ad opted in t hi s b o o k I m ean t h e signs b ased o n
.

physical m o vem ents su ch as gestures,faci al expressi on s,expres

sive mo vements o f t h e b o dy ,et c . D o n ot th ose signs express
ab ov e all a u n i form g rou p,in Vi ew o f it s connecti o n with t h e

human b o dy an d c o n sequently with human experiences an d

psychi c st ates? Is it not a g rou p of signs wh ich is particu larly
import ant in view o f t h e fact that it always accompani es th e
pho nic lan gu age (gestures and faci al expressi ons),and d oes it n ot
deserve therefo re t o be separated as a distin ct class or su bclass?
First o f all it mu st be said that in t h e light o f t h e clas
sificat io n w e h ave ad opted ,b ased o n t h e fun cti ons o f signs in

th e co mmu n i cati o n process,thi s is n ot a u n i fo rm grou p These

.

b odi ly si gn s belon g t o all t h e classes w e have distin gu i shed :

thus,for i n st ance ,tears and l au ghter,b ein g n atural phen omen a
t hat acco mpan y cert ain S piritual processes,m ay be classed as

i n dices gestures and faci al expressi ons which accom pany human
speech m ay also be t reat ed as in di ces o f c ert ain em o ti onal st at es ;

a c on ven ti on al m o vement o f t h e h an d or of so m e o ther part

of t h e b o dy m ay be a si gnal ; a win k m ay be a su bstitu tive S ign

sensu s tric to ; an appro pri at e po sture an d mo vem ent o f a part

o f t h e b o dy duri n g a dance m ay be a sym b o l ; and fin ally cert ain

m o vemen ts o f han ds or fin gers perform ed in con fo rmity with

a cert ai n co d e m ay j u st be a t ranslati o n fro m t h e pho ni c l an gu age.

Th e apparen t uniformity disappears,an d t h e distribu ti o n o f t h e

signs in qu esti on o ver t h e categ ori es ad opted in o ur classifi cati on

presents no difi cult y Thu s there is n o cau se for alarm

. .
19 4 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

S o far w e
have been di scu ssin g t h e v ari ou s catego ries
si gns, ex clu di n g verb al signs As previ ou sly i n di cat ed ,
. o ur analy

will be conclu ded by t h e stu dy o f t h e m o st im port an t pro

in t h e theo ry o f signs,n am ely that o f verb al signs an d t
spec ific n at ure .

5 . THE SPE CIFI C N ATU RE OF VE R B A L S IG N S

Th e ign ificance o f t h e pho ni c lan gu age ,an d conse qu ent

s

o f verb al si gns, for t h e c omm un icati o n process,and thereby

so ci al li fe ,h as l o n g b een appreci at ed An d t h e .

an d it s verb al sign s h av e for l o n g b een an o bj ec t o f st u

i nvestigati on A delib erate call fo r suc h i n vestigati on is

.

in t h e Up an ishads,an d t h e stu dy o f lang u age is t h e m ain su bj ect

of Pl at o s di alo gu e Cra t ilus Fro m t h e tim es o f an tiqu ity t o thi s
’ '

day,t h e pro blem h as n ot ceased t o claim hu m an atten ti o n And .

j u stly so ,fo r if w e realize t h e so ci al impo rtance o f t h e com m u ni

cati o n process , in particul ar it s role in hum an c o -o perati on ,an d
it s organ ic link with th at pro cess,w e m u st focu s ou r att enti on

precisely on t h e pho ni c lan guage .

It is po ssible t o en gage in t h e v ari ou s specu lati ons as t o whi ch

c am e first : t h e p h on i c l an gu age o r t h e l an g u age o f gest ures ;

it is po ssible t o discu ss t h e role an d significan ce o f t h e v ari o u s

cat eg o ries o f si gns ; it is po ssible t o dif fer from o thers on t h e
“ ”
p o in t as t o whether there are vari o u s syst ems o f lan gu ages
et c Bu t it is n o t reaso n ably p o ssible t o den y th at in all t h e kn o wn
.

civi liz ati o n s t h e p h o ni c l an gu age w as an d is,n ot onl y t h e prin cipal

m ean s o f hu m an comm un icati on ,b u t also t h e m ean s with ou t

whi ch pro gress in sci en ce,c u lture and techn olo gy wou ld be
imp ossible .

thi s sou n ds like a tru ism and a trivi ality th at migh t be

A ll
dispen sed wit h in sem an tic an alys is Bu t it is o nly seem i ngly
.

so ,esp eciall in sem antic an alys is Fo r it fo llo w s from th at

y .

t ru ism ,or apparen t t ru ism ,

th at t h e po siti on o ft h e ph o n ic lan gu age
 19 6 SELEc rED PROBLEMS or SEMAN II cs
'

chan ge termi n ol o gy ad opted ,bu t also (sin ce o the

in t h e
t h e o perati on w ou ld be childi shly n aive and dev o id o f any sc
fic meanin g) with a di fferent defin iti o n o f t h e sym b o l ,a
ti on wh ich again o bscu res t h e specific nature o f t h e verb a
Thu s,t h e verb al sign com pli es perfectly well with t h e
defini ti on o f t h e sign as ad opted ab ove,which defin iti on ,by
rec o gn izi n g t h e c omm u ni cati on process as t h e fou n d ati o n o f

ou r analysis,sees in t h e co mm u ni cative fun cti on o f t h e S ign

it s prin cipal property ,an d consequen tly relates t h e sign b oth

t o t h e o bj ect ab ou t whi c h it co mm unicates somethi n g an d t o

th e l an gu age in whi c h that som ethi n g is c omm uni cated .

There is n o d ou bt that t h e phon ic lan gu age is a defini te,

sp ecific syst em o f signs Bu t h ere t h e i ssu e is o pened with t h e
.

questi on : a system of what signs?

C an any p ositive inform ati on be foun d in t h e literature on
t h e su bj ect ? Cert ainl y,yes S u ch in fo rm ati o n c oncerns ab ove
.

all t h e w ay in whi ch a verb al S ign m ean s so m et hi n g Representa .

t iv es o f t h e m o st diverse t ren d s seem t o reveal fair ly co mm on

agreemen t o f o pin i o n in that m att er ; I m ean here t h e i ssue o f

“ ”
transparency to mean in g o f t h e verbal signs .

I f w e take au th ors w h o i n depen dently o f one an o ther have

written ab ou t t h e specific n atu re o f t h e verb al signs D elacro ix ,
Ru bin sh t ein ,U rb an an d Ossowski 7 w e fin d that each o f them
“ ”
u ses t h e expressi o n transparen cy t o m eanin g precisely with
referen ce t o t h e verb al signs,and fo r eac h o f th o se au th o rs that

property o f th ose signs is associ ated with their spec ific n ature .

In resortin g t o th at m et aph o r,th ose au tho rs h ave in mi n d th at

when w e perceive verb al sign s ,then ,by co ntrast with all o ther
p pro er si gn s ,w e d o n o t p erce iv e th e i r m at eri al sh ape as s o m e

H D elacro ix,L e language la p ensee, Paris 19 24 ; C II PYGHH

'
7 . et . .

m r efi fl , OCHOBbl 2 ncuxoxzoeuu
o 6 iae i [Th e Principles o f General P sych olo
gy] ,Ch ap . XI : Peas
”
W M Urban ,Language
[ Speech ] , M oc a 1946 ; . .

“ ”
and Reality ,L o n don 19 5 1; S O sso w ski , An aliza p ojecia zn aku
.
[An An al ysis
of t h e Concep t o f S ign] , reprin ted from Przeglqd Filozoficzny, 19 26,
N os 1
. 2 .
 THE SIGN : ANALYSIS AND TY P OLOGY

thi n g au t on om ou s,bu t j ust t h e con trary : that shape is t o su ch

an exten t co nfu sed with m eanin g that except fo r t h e cases o fdistu rb

c d percepti o n w e do n ot realiz e t h e existence o f t h e m at eri al

aspect fo r t h e verb al S ign AS t o w h o h as t h e pri o rity right t o

.

“ ”
t h e formu lati on transparency t o meanin g that is n o t es
sent ial ; thi s is an issu e that is o f in terest rather for an hi sto ri an

of t h e pro blem Bu t t h e fact th at t h e o therwi se divergin g o pin

“

i ons are in agreement o n that po int h as it s im pli cati on at least

th e i mpli cati o n that w e face a c o n cepti o n whi ch h as a firm po si

ti o n in t h e literatu re on t h e su bj ect .

When w e speak of signs,signals, su bstitutive signs a n d

sym b ol s,w e always speak o f m at eri al t hi n gs o r events whi ch

serve t h e pu rpo se o f hu m an com mu ni cati o n ,b ecau se prec i sely

by virt ue o f t h e fact that t h e comm u n icatin g parties u n derst an d

th em in one and t h e same w ay,each o f such signs info rms t h e
co mm uni cati n g parties Each o f these signs is in a relati on t o
.

th e o bj ect (un derst o o d in t h e b ro ad est sense o f t h e term ,so

as t o co ver thi n gs,their properties an d relati o ns b etween th em ,

even ts, psychi c processes, et c ) ab ou t whi ch it co n veys i nfo rmati o n ,

.

an d t o a d efin ite l an guage withi n whi ch it fu ncti o n s onl y as

a S ign ,i e ,means som et hi n g Bu t when w e speak ab ou t t h e

“

. . .

pro per S i gns with t h e excepti on o f t h e verb al signs,then it is

always a fact that t h e rel ati o n b etween t h e m ateri al an d t h e
“
semanti c aspect o f t h e sign admits o f a cert ain au t o nomy of

meaning ; this si gni fies that except fo r t h e i coni c signs

meani n g is always shaped indepen dently o f a given sign (in t h e
sen se o f t h e m ateri al S ign- vehicle) ,as it were ou tside that S ign ,
and consequ en tly m ay be c o m bi ned with an o ther m at eri al sh ape o f

t h e Sign w e mi ght ch an ge t h e co n venti on o n t h e ro ad sign s

withou t im pairin g their meani n g ,that is,what they comm u ni ca te
t o u s) This is c o nnected with t h e fact that all th o se S ign s fun cti o n
.

o nl y within a ph o ni c l an guage, and with t hi n kin g in t erm s o f ideas,

which is specific t o that lan guage Thi s is why w e can

. an d
“ ”
m u st have ready-m ade m eanin gs for all t h e catego ri es o f
signs whi ch are no t verb al sign s Thi s is so b ecau se w e are sim ply
.
19 8 SELECTED PR OBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

una ble t o thi n k otherwise th an by mean s o f verb al S igns,an d

all sign - maki n g (except for t h e u se o f a ph oni c lan gu age,incu l
c at ed in u s by our bein g brou ght u p in so ci ety , o r, in other words,
e xcept fo r thi nk i n g in terms o f l an guage signs) is a sec on d ary

p r oc ess, a re su lt o f t h e vari ou s con ven ti ons (in t h e broad ,h isto ri

cal sense o f t h e t erm) , an d as such is always p receded by th o u ght ,
“ ”
and it is in t hi s sen se th at it always is im bued with tho ught .

And what ab o u t verb al signs,an d lan gu age as their system ?

Here t h e situ ati on is quite differen t first o f all ,becau se they
“
have no thin g b ehi n d them they are n ot based o n meanin gs
o f som e o ther lan gu age Thi s is so b ecau se th ou ght an d l an gu age
.

fo rm a S in gle,i n divi sible,o rgan ic wh o le There is n o th inkin g

.

that exists separately and lan guage that exists separately,there

is only thi n kin g-and-lan gu age There is no concept that exist s
.

separately , an d Sig n that exi sts separately , there is onl y

c oncept -an d-verb al— sign
. O f co urse,there are people w h o thi nk
that n ot o nly can o n e thin k withou t resortin g t o verb al S igns,
”
t o lan gu age ,bu t th at it is j u st su ch thi n kin g whi ch is tru e
.

“ ” ”
There have been m any beli evers in tru e , dir ect cogniti on ,
from P lat o u p t o t h e pheno m en ol o gi sts,in tuiti onists,adheren ts
o f t h e ide a o f a mysti c un i o n b etween t h e co gni tive su bj ec t

and t h e o bj ect o f c o gni ti on ,et c. It is they w h o sadly repeat

”
aft er S chi ller : Sp rich t die S eele,spricht die S eele n i cht m ehr .

Bu t these are irrati on alisti c specul ati ons,deni ed by such disc i

plines as psych o l o gy,t h e physi olo gy o f t h e brain ,et c From .

t h e M arxi st p o siti o n ,these opin i o ns were ridi cu led and rightly

so by S talin ,in his M arxism and the Problems of L inguistics .

It is j u st thi s specific u ni ty o f thi nkin g-an d— lan gu age whi ch

”
gives rise t o t h e transparency t o m ean in g o f t h e verb al sign s .

They are mean in g,althou gh they are no t only meani n g A pas .

sag e fro m D ie deu ts ch e I deo logie , qu o ted previ o u sly ,refers

t o co nsci o u sness,t h e real fo rm o f whi c h ,acco rdin g t o M arx ,
is speech Thu s t h e verb al S i gn is n ot m ere m eanin g It is also
. .

a so u n d ,t h e m ateri al phen o men o n c o n si sti n g in t h e vibrati on

o f air w aves, withou t whi ch there wou ld be n o S ign an d n o c om

 0
20 SELEC TED PROB LEMS O F SEMANTI CS

cases as t h e percepti o n o f ali en ,i nco mprehensible spee

as a se quence o fso un ds It also co vers m ore compli cated

.

interestin g c ases,su ch as t
c o nsisti n g in aphasi a when

ph on ic fo rm o f wo rds bu t
o r l o ses t h e facu lty o f spe

t o h im B oth in t h e case o f per

.

an d in t h e cases O f aph asi a w e

fro m t h e po int o f vi ew o f t h e process o f hu m an c ommu n ic

That pro cess presu pposes t h e commun ity o f speech o f t h e
mu n icat in g person s as well as a n orm al st at e o f min d in
p er s on s A.n d it is h ere ,in Vi e w o ft h e re la t i ve c haract er o f t h e

o f so u n d an d m eani n g in t h e verb al S ign ,th at t h e

p ro blem arises : h ow is that u nity brou ght ab ou t ? I

connecti on t o anti ci pate t h e resu lts o f t h e an aly sis

an d it s li n ks with t h e sign (this is,u n fo rtun at ely ,

alth o u gh it b reaks t h e pl an ned ex po siti o n o f pro blems),

en gage in t h e ex am in ati o n o f cert ai n i ssu es pert ai n in g t o t h e

of th o se lin ks in t h e case o f t h e v erb al signs .

Tw o com petin g attitu d es are t o be fo u n d in thi s c on n

One o f them is th at o f t h e associa tion is ts w h o m
sou n d an d m eani n g exist in dep enden tly o f o n e an o ther and that

their com bin in g in t h e verb al sign is b ased o n t h e associ ati on

between a defin ite soun d an d a defini te ready m eani n g Su ch .

w as t h e o pi ni o n o f D elacro ix , w h o held that everyt hi n g u ltim ately

b o ils d own t o an associ ati o n in hu m an mem ory between sou n d

an d m ean i n g ,an asso ci ati o n whic h is arbit rary in n atu re 8 Th e .

sam e u n derlyin g associ ati o n i st assu m pti o n w as also o bserv able

in t h e case o f Ru ssell at t h e time when t h e peri o di cal M ind con

“ ”
d u ct ed a discussi o n o n meani n g 9 A S im ilar po siti on w as oc
.

cu pied by S api r in his st u dy o f l an gu age,when in c l assi fyin g

Verb al signs as symb o ls h e defin ed them as soun ds automat ically

8 D elacro ix,op . cit .

,p . 365 .

9 0
M ind,192 ,N o . 116,p . 39 8 .
 THE SIGN : A NALYSIS AND TYP OLOGY

o cia ted with A vari ati on o f t h e associ ati on ist

o ry assu m es t h e fo rm o f t h e c on cepti o n o f specific associ ati o n ,

in that respect fo llo wed HOfler That

'

theo ry c onsists in assertin g that associ ati o n is i n direct ,that it

l

takes pl ace th ro u gh t h e intermedi ary o f o ther j u dgem ents,an d

is n ot a mech anical repetiti on o f t h e relati on , as origin ally
perceived (judiz iése Asso ciation) Be that as it m ay,t h e associ a
’

t ionist c o ncep ti o n red u ces t h e pro blem t o t h e mn em o n i c asso

ciat io n o f a ready so un d with a ready m eanin g ,whi ch cou se

qu entl y mu st have b een som eh ow onto geneti cally shaped o u tside

t h e l an gu age an d i n d epen d en tly o f it Th e verb al S ign is here
.

treate d in t h e same w ay as any other Sign with relati on t o which

“
m eani n g is,as w e h ave seen , au t on o m ou s i e shaped ou tside
.

an d i n d epen d ently o f it Thi s is precisely t h e Achi lles heel o f t h e

’
.

whole co ncept ,whi ch n ot o nl y ru ns co ntrary t o ou r sen se o f

t h e specific n atu re o f th e verb al signs an d e ven t h e sim plest anal

ysis o f them ,bu t m o reo ver presu ppo ses t h e obj ect o f co nt ro versy
(it assu mes that t h e verbal signs do n ot di ffer fro m o ther signs
by t h e nature o f their lin ks with m eani n g) C on sequ en tly ,t h e.

st ro n gest argum ent agai nst t h e asso ci ati o n i st co n cepti on ,which

“ ”
at o n e ti m e w as d escrib ed by K Biihl er as
. S i m ply naive

(g era dezu na i v) ,li es in t h e fa c t th at i ts adh ere n t s d o n o t e ven

en deav our t o j u sti fy thei r assu m pti on s,ev en thou gh th o se as

su m pt ions run co nt rary t o o ur i nt u iti o n an d t o t h e resu lts o f

an alysi s o f li n gui sti c en titi es .

Th e other attitu de can be characteriz ed by t h e in t erpret ati on

o f t h e re lative un ity o f so un d an d m ean in g in t h e v erb al S i gn s

as a c o n necti on sui generis ,di f ferent fro m that which is specific

t o o ther S igns an d m arke d preci sely by t hi s that t h e m eani n g
“ ”
o f a v erb al S ign is n ot au t o nom ou s , that it can neither be shaped
n or appear ou ts ide o f th at u n ity whi c h is l an gu age-an d- thi nki n g ,
word-an d— ide a Th e o nly argu m ent ,an d a very n aive o ne,is that
.

w e u su ally learn fo reign l an gu ages by l o o ki n g fo r appropri ate

10 E . S apir,Language,N ew York 19 21,p . 10

.
202 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

so u n ds t o be associ ate d with ready mean in gs ; bu t that arg

c an v ery easily be refu te d It is i n d eed a fact ,
. but alway s
basis of some kn o wn language by means o f which w e
fr o m whi ch w e t ranslate i n t o th at foreig n l an gu age .

learned a fo rei gn lan gu age onl y when w e cease t o

when w e start t o thi n k in term s o f that fo
is ,when t h e lin ks b etween t h e so u n ds o f
their m ean in gs cease t o b e fo r u s somethi n g extern al
o n ad h oc assoc i ati o ns,and b ec o m e o rg ani c an d di rect ,a
“ ”
verb al si gns beco me tran sparen t t o m eanin g Thu s, .

is a di fference b etween t h e stu dy o f a forei gn lan gu age,

kn owledge o f a langu age already well learned Our .

pert ains,o f c o ur se,t o t h e l atter case o nly .

What is mean t by t h e connecti o n between sou n d an d meani n g

in t h e verb al Sign b ein g su i generis that is an other questi o n .

One is fu ll y j u stifie d in dem an din g an explan ati o n o f these matters .

Wh oever advances a thesis in science,mu st prove it Y et I mu st .

m ake it c lear that even if one is u n able t o give a satisfacto ry

answer t o qu esti o ns pert ain g t o a theo reti cal thesi s,o r e ven

if su ch an answer is c on t ro versial (whi ch is m o st o ften t h e case,

especi ally in t h e soci al sci ences an d t h e h u m aniti es) ,t hi s fact

d o es n ot o f itsel f refu te t h e thesi s in qu esti on I m enti on that .

here,becau se t h e thesis concern ing a su i generis connecti on

between sou n d and mean in g in t he verb al S ign ,alt hou gh su p
po rt ed by fo rm id able argu m en ts,still lacks a c on sisten t expl an a
ti o n o f t h e n ature an d mec hani sm o f that c onnecti o n Th e o nly .

att em pt t o o f fer su ch an explan ati o n whi ch , in my o pin i o n ,deserves

att en ti o n , n am ely P avl o v s hypo thesis o f a seco n d syst em o f
’

si gn als,will be di scu ssed b el o w .

There is o ne po int m ore t o be men ti o ned here an d n o w

t h e arbitrary n atu re o ft h e co nn ecti o n b etween sou n d an d m ean i n g .

This thesis w as su bmitte d by de S au ssu re 11 w h o referred t o

Whitney It mu st be emph asized ,ho wever,that while de S au ssu re
.

11 F de S au ssure , Cours de linguist ique generale Paris 1949 ,p 99

’ '

. . .
.
204 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

co nn ec ti on between t h e verb al si gn an d t h e o bj ect it designates .

It is very im port an t t o bear these t w o issues in min d .

Th e vi ew that t h e lin k b etween soun d an d m eani n g in t h e

verb al si gns is a li n k sui generis is com bine d with a di fferent
co ncepti o n o f su c h signs : it is n ot t h e sou n d al one whi c h is t h e
“ ” “
S ign,with som e au t o n o m ou s m eani n g as it s partn er bu t
t h e i n divisible wh o le ,c o nsisti n g o f so u n d an d m e ani n g ,u n d er
st o o d as a signi fyi n g m at eri al o bj ect (ac ou stic vibrati o n) Thi s .

is t h e o nl y consistent in terpret ati on o f t h e verb al si gn as a sui

generis lin k o f t h e u nity o f soun d an d m eanin g ,as a su i generis

“ ” “
S ign ch aracterize d by tran sparency t o m eanin g That tran s .

”
parency can appear if,an d o nl y if,w e cease t o perceive t h e m a
t erial , physi cal sh ape o f t h e S ign as so m ethin g i n depen dent ,

with which a n o less in dependent mean in g is c om bin ed in thi s

o r that w ay Transparen cy t o m eani n g ,so characteristic o f
.

verb al S igns,appears precisely when w e cease comp le tely t o per

ceiv e t h e m at eri al sh ape o f t h e S i gn (except fo r c ases o f di stu rb an ce

in t h e n orm al pro cess o f c om mu ni cati o n) an d are con sci o u s o nly

o f it s sem an ti c aspect .

Thu s,t h e verb al S ign is n ot any sy m b o l ,altho u gh t h e u se

o f th at term with referen ce t o verb al signs is n o w ,as referre d

t o ab o ve,alm o st u n iversal in t h e literatu re o f t h e su bj ect “ Th e .

verb al S igns sh ou ld n ot be c onfu se d with that specific an d very

u sefu l su b class o f su bstitu tive si gns al ready analysed , whi ch

I have called sym b o ls in co nfo rmity with c u rren t li n gu i sti c

i n tu iti on ,b ecau se t h e verb al S ign reveals featu res o fwhich symb ols
14 Let us take tno e o f t h e ch arac eris t tic test by de S au ssu re w h o in
pro
arbitrary (in t specifi c in terpretation of th at issu e)
.

defen din g th e a cer ain

c o nn ec tion betw een soun d an d meanin g in v erbal sign s co mes o u t again st

callin g tt
t h e la er symb ols,b ec au se s ymbo ls ch aract erize som e n atural link
betw een th e S ign an d t h e o bj ect Th e statement is v ery contro v ersial,bu t
.

t h e in ten tion t o in tro du ce termin o lo gical distin ction s b etw een t h e v ario u s

catego r ies o f sign s is m o st lau dable .

Urb an also is again st in clu ding th e v erb al S igns in a gen era l category
o f sym bo ls . His t
argu men ation is : if th e v erb al signs w ere j u st sym bols,w h at
w ould be th e sen se of talking abou t a s ymbo lic u se Of lan gu age ?
 THE S I GN : A NALYSIS AND TY P OL OG Y

t h e pro per sen se of term are deprived ,and is in tu rn

th e

priv ed o f cert ain pro perties that are characteristic o f sym b ols
in con fo rm ity w ith cu rrent u sage An d if w e i mpart
.

“ ”
t o,t h e t erm symb o l an ad h o c mean in g ,t reated in an arbit rary

fashi on ,than w e either rest ri ct t h e c lass o f sym b ols t o verb al

sign s and,vi o latin g t h e li n gui sti c u sage ,c ease t o apply t h e t erm
“ ”
sym b o ls t o th ose signs which so far have b een called so ,o r
“ ”
we conven ti o nally exten d t h e sen se o f t h e term sym b o l so as
t o c o ver with it ,fo r exam ple,all n on-i c on i c signs an d thu s o blit
crate t h e specifi c n atu re o f t h e verb al S igns which is j u st what
I wan t t o avo id .

Th e verb al S ign is n o t a sign al ,n o r yet a S ign al o f si gnals .

Fo r all t h e respect for th o se su ggesti ons (since thu s far they are
nothi n g else bu t very general hyp o theses an d su ggesti o ns fo r

researc h) whi c h are c o nt ai ned in t h e Pavl o vi an theory o f t h e

seco n d system o f sign al s (in whic h theory t h e verb al S ign is j u st

a sign al of sign als) ,it is import an t n ot t o ign o re t h e c o ntradic

ti on s an d t h e d an gers of vu lgarizati on that are i nh erent in that

theory I n thi s field,t o o ,as in any o ther,wo rshi p an d fet ish iza
.

ti on o f o pini ons have detrim ental co nsequences N o o ne deni es .

that Pavlo v w as a brilli ant sci entist Bu t from that statem ent
.

it is a far cry t o can onizin g all hi s views an d hypo theses,an d

’
cert ai nly n o one is entitle d t o ident ify Pavl o v s o pi ni o n s with

di alectical m at eri alism (as som e au tho rs have d o n e) An yh o w , .

it is precisely in t h e n am e o f di alectical m ateri alism that o n e is

b ou n d t o pro test against t h e theo ry o f t h e verb al S i gn as a S ign al
of sign als at least in th at fo rm in whi ch th at the ory is kn own

at present .

Th e cont radi cti o n c o nsists in that Pavlo v ,as can be seen

fro m hi s m any st atem en ts pu blished in Pavlovian Wedn esdays,
realiz ed perfec tly well t h e specific n ature o f t h e verb al S ign and

ph on ic lan gu age, an d yet t h e t raditi on al fo rm u lati on o f t h e

c oncept o f t h e seco n d sy st em o f sig nals an d o f t h e v erb al S ign

as a si gn al o f sign als is a deni al o f that specific n atu re

o f th e verb al S i gn Hence t h e d an ger o f a vu lgarizati o n
.
 SELECTED PROBLEMS O F SEMANTI CS

of th e pro blem (S imilar to the vu lgarizati o n h

c arac t
of b ehavi ou rism) .

Th e prim ary reservati on m u st be m ade again st t h e v e

”
si gn al As w e remem ber,a signal in t h e process o f
.

c o mm un i c ati on is a con venti on al S ign which repl aces a

t h e process o f hu m an c omm uni cati o n ,t h e sign al is p ar ex

“ ”
a sem an tic pro du ct ,h as a m eani ng an d is im bue d w ith
t ic m ean in g ,whic h o f c ou rse may n o t be said o f t h e sti m

o d ce c o n diti one d re fl e xe s in an i m als

p r u .

qualitat ively di f feren t , an d

aft er all is t o be u n derst o o d

t h e m o st fo rtu n ate , s ince it c o n t ain s

derst andin gs Y et one h as t o adm it

.

p li n e t h e r es ear c her is free t o ad o pt

t h e co n diti o n th at t h e sense o f t h e term s i n vo lve d is su f fi ciently

prec ise .

Bu t n o su ch argu men t as that c an be u sed if t h e term signal

in a con venti on al meanin g is id en tically referred b oth t o t h e
ani mal an d t h e hu m an w orld Th e m ec h ani sm o f n o n -co n di ti o ned
.

reflexes is t h e sam e in m an an d in t h e ani m al Bu t t h e m ec hani sm

.

o f con diti oned reflex es ? It is n o t m y b u sin ess t o analyse an d

critic i ze physi o l o gi cal theo ries Bu t in so far as they encro ach

.

o n t h e fi eld o f c o m m u nic ati o n processes,I h av e t o ad o pt so me

attitu de t o wards them .N ow t h e p o int is that everythin g con

nect ed with m an an d c o nse qu en tly hi s con di ti o ned reflexes

also is alway s c o nditi o ned so c ially Thi s general form u lati on

.

i m plies that w e enco u nter pro blem s o f hum an co mm un icati on ,

an d o f t h e rOle o f processes that ent ail con sci o u sn ess and are

i nseparably c onnected with lan gu age ,withou t wh i ch m an c an

n o t thi nk , etc An d t h e c o n diti o ne d reflex es that devel o p in m an
.

as a resu lt o f certai n ext ern al infl u enc es are n ot u su all y fo rm ed

ou ts ide t h e S phere o f h is c o n sci ou sn ess,bu t within that sphere .

Thi s is why w e have t o do here with a phen omen o n that differs

qua lita tively from t h e reflexes in t h e an im al Whoever fails t o .
208 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

agree that we ha ve t o do with an in com pl ete hypo thesi s

'

e ven if w e ad o pt t h e m ost fav o u rable i n terpret ati o n , if w e vi rtu ally

c o nclu d e th at w e do n o t fu lly g rasp wh at is b ei n g said in th at

hyp othesis,there rem ains a termin o l o gy w hi c h is,t o say t h e

least ,am bigu ou s an d which threat ens u s with seri ou s misu n der
st an di n gs an d with a p o ssible vu lgariz ati o n Thi s is why w e h ave
.

n ow t o c o n clu d e th at th e verb al S ign is n either a sign al , n o r

a signal o f sign als ,an d th at b efo re these m atters are c l arifi ed

experim en t ally and theo reti cally ,w e m u st rather ab an d o n th at

termi n o l o gy
.

Thu s t h e verb al S ign is n ot a sym b ol ,n ot a si gnal ,n o t any

o f t h e o th er kn own cat eg o ri es o f si gn s,if thei r n am es h ave

a st ri ctly d efin ed m e an i n g at all it is a sign sui generis,a sign

that h as it s ow n specific n atu re .

Bu t j u st b ecau se o f it s specific n ature,as a resu lt o f whi ch

t h e verb al S ign m ay n ot be identifie d with any o ther S ign ,it can

t ake o ver t h e fu n cti ons o f at least som e o f tho se signs Th e .

verb al si gns is n ot a sign al ,since i t h as di fferent features an d

pro perties from them ,bu t it can functi on as a sign al Th e verb al.

S ign in t h e sam e sen se is n o t id en ti cal w ith a sym b o l ,bu t it m ay

assu m e it s r Ole . Ex am ples c an be mu ltiplied ,if a m ore det ailed

cl assificati o n o f sign s is m ad e . Thi s is o n e m o re pro o f o f t h e
speci al S ign ificance an d rOle whi c h t h e v erb al sign h as in t h e
.

c o mm u n i cati o n pro cess .

Th e seco n d c haracteri stic o f t h e verb al S ign ,whi c h in fact

is lin ked org anically with t h e fir st with t h e su i generis u n ity
o f so un d an d m e an i n g in t h e v erb al S i gn) ,is it s fun c ti on an d r Ole
in th e p ro cess o f ab st rac ti o n .

From t h e gen etic po in t o f vi ew ,t h e verb al S ign ,li ke every

o ther S ign ,is evid en tly a p ro duc t o f t h e abst racti o n process .

There is n o thi n g stran ge in this All co gniti on an d all percepti on

.

always w ork o n t h e sel ecti o n prin c i ple . Thi s is conn ected with
t h e specifi c requ irem ents o f acti o n ,whi ch with o u t su ch selecti on
wou ld n ot be po ssible Th e sam e phen o m en on is o bservable
.

in c onnecti on with e very kin d o f S ign which , in functi oni n g

 THE SIGN : ANALYSIS AND TYP OLOGY

withi n t h e fram ewo rk of hum an c omm unicati on ,is su bj ect t o

t h e gen eral re gu l ariti es g o verni n g all co gniti o n E very S ign is
.

a p roduct o f t h e ab stracti o n process an d at th e sam e tim e an i m po r

tant ins trumen t o f that process There is here,h owever,a b ord er

.

line whi ch d etermin es a qu alit ative differenti ati on b etween t h e

verb al signs an d all o ther kin ds of S ign Th e po in t is that every
.

sign may sim plify , fo rm ulate Som ething in an abbrevi ated

form ,be p ars p ro to to,et c , an d m ay thu s be an im portan t
.

in stru men t o f t h e ab stracti on process,bu t in all these cases it

always rem ains conn ect e d with defin ite senso ry d at a,with a def

init e men tal i mage ; thi s refers also t o what are kn own as generic
represent ati o n s Thi n ki n g in term s o f ideas re qu ires a di f
. feren t
instru men t ,whi ch is t h e verb al S ign ,precisely b ecau se o f its
“ ”
specific pro perty , transp aren cy t o m eani n g ,whi ch m akes it

po ssible t o ri se t o t h e hi ghest levels o f abstracti on ,i n accessible

t o o ther types o f S ign ,an d t o be separate d fo rm con crete sen so ry
data t o an exten t exceedin g t h e po ssibiliti es or o ther kin ds o fS i gn .

As t h e psych o lo gists t ell u s,t h e verb al si gn ,t o o ,is associ ated

in our mi n d with represen t ati o ns Bu t thi s is a t ot ally di fferent
- .

kin d o f conn ecti on with a sen sory i mage what is i nvo lved
here is either t h e imagin ative associ ati on s o f o bj ects connecte d
with mental pro cesses an d accompanyi ng tho se processes, or
t h e asso ci ati ons o f t h e im ages o f written signs,wo rd s spo ken ,
their soun ds,et c Th e sem antic conten t o f t h e verb al S i gn is,
.

ho wever,i n depen dent o f su ch associ ati o ns,whi ch on ly accom pany

th at con tent bu t are n ot a c on diti on of it s existence (and be
sid es they dif fer as b etween t h e i n dividu als w h o un derstan d a
given S ign in t h e sam e w ay) B ecau se o f t h e u nity o f soun d an d
.

m ean i n g
“ ”
,an d becau se o f it s tran sparen cy t o m eani n g ,t h e
verb al sign h as speci al properties o f ab stracti on Every word .

generalizes,wro te Leni n S imilarly S apir in hi s Language says

.

that c o gn iti o n b ec om es co mm un icable o nl y if it is n ot stri ctly

in divid ual bu t can be su bsu med u nder so m e class o f th i n gs o r
even ts, whi ch su b su mpti on is t h e w ork o f t h e wo rd Th e sam e is .

m ain tain ed by S u sann e Lan ger an d ot h ers .

210 SELECTED PROBLEM S or SEMANTI CS

O f co u rse ,t h e rOle verb al S ign in t h e ab stracti o n pro cess

ofthe

w o u ld requ ire speci al researches an d a co m prehen sive m o n o

graph In thi s place I on ly draw attenti on t o t h e pro blem ,whi ch
.

is quit e su fli cient for m y pu rpose .

An d fin ally ,t h e t hi rd characteri stic o f t h e v erb al S i gn : it s

speci al pro perti es fro m t h e p o i n t o f vi ew o f a p recise c o mm u ni

cati on between m en Th e i ssu e here is so o bvi ou s that n o len g thy

.

an alysis is n eede d .

One can comm u ni cat e , an d m en in fact do co mmu ni cat e,

“
by means o f di fferent lan gu age s An thropol o gi sts testify t o t h e
”
exi st ence o f (primi tive) t rib es that prefer m an u al con versati o n

b y m eans of gestu res t o v erb al con versati on A s h as already b een

.

menti oned ,Cu shi n g in thi s c onn ecti o n Speaks o f a speci al style
“
o f m an u al thin kin g di fferent from o u r thin kin g in term s o f
language All this is n either extrao rdi n ary n or im po ssible But
. .

at t h e sam e tim e o n e thi n g is cert ai n : neither t h e phi lo sophi cal

sy stem o f H eg el ,n o r Ei nstein s theo ry o f rel ativity ,n o r e ven

’

a gram m ar o f t h e sim plest ki n d fo r thi s o r th at lan guage

“ ”
co u ld be fo rmu late d by m ean s o f su c h a lan guage . There is
a speci al po wer ,i nheren t in t h e ph o ni c lan gu ag e,wh i c h m akes

p ossible a fu rther developm en t o f thin kin g an d it s rise t o hi gh

er an d hi gher levels o f abst racti o n ,whi ch m ake s it p o ssible t o

disco ver an d fo rm u late in creasin gly wide an d pro fo un d regu

larit ies in t h e u ni verse,an d th ereby enables m an t o b eco m e t h e
m aster o f t h e w orld One m ay com plain ab o u t t h e am bigui ty an d
.

i m precisi on o f o rdi n ary lan gu age ,bu t even suc h a co mpl ain t
can only be m ade by m eans o f that o rdin aryl an gu age an d withi n

its fram ewo rk Th i s is why t h e phoni c l an gu age is n ot o nly a partic

.

ularly c o n veni en t an d fl exible in st ru m en t o f t h e c o mm uni cati o n

pro cess,bu t also an instru ment that is excepti on ally easy su bj ect
t o i m pro vem en t an d en d o wed with alm o st b o u n dless p o ssi

bilities o f perfec tin g it self An d th is is on e o f t h e m ost i m portan t

.

aspect s o f t h e specific n atu re o f v erb al S i gns .

 CHAP TER THREE

THE M EANI N GS O F M E ANI N G

W ,Hu m pt y D um pty
‘ ’
h en I u se a w o rd said in a rath er s

fu l t o ne , it m eans m ean —
‘
just w h at I ch o o se i t t o neith er

n or le ss
’
.Th e q u est io n is ,said A lice,w h eth er yo u can ma
‘ ’ ‘
k e

m e an ’ ‘
g
di fferen t thin s ,Th e q u estion is , sai d
’
um t H py
m aster — th at s all
’ ’
w h ich is t o b e
'

( Le wis C arroll : Th rough

“
M en v
co n t en t th em sel es w it h th e same w o r ds
u se , as if th e ver y so un d n ecessaril y carried t h e sam e m eaning
”
.

(J oh n Locke)

I SAY t o so m e on e igno ran t o f Fren ch : D o nnez-m o i m on ch a

” “
peau ,s il v ou s plait His only reacti on is t o reply : I do n ot
’
.

“
u n derst an d you I repeat t h e sam e thin g in En glish : G ive me
my h at ,please an d t h e same man smi les an d passes m e my h at .

He un d ersto o d t h e m ean in g o f what I h ad said .

Tw o persons wan t t o cross t h e street wh en th e t rafli c light

fl ashes red One o f t h e pedestri ans st ops i mm edi ately ,whi le t h e
.

o ther,app aren tly n ot fami li ar with t rafli c regul ati o n s,g oes o n .

His compani on st ops h im and explain s : Y ou see that red li ght ?

It m eans that n o o n e m ay cro ss t h e ro ad n ow ; when t h e green
”
light comes,then you m ay cross At t h e next crossin g t h e learner
.

st o ps o f hi s o w n v o liti o n when h e sees a re d light He n ow .

u n derst an ds t h e m eani n g o f that S i gn .

An d so it always is when w e have t o do with si gns an d with

s ign-s itua tions : su ch a sit u ati o n o ccurs o nly when t h e co mm u ni

c ati n g perso ns un derst an d in t h e sam e w ay t h e m ean ing o f t h e

si gn in q uesti o n.

Th e pro blem o f m eani n g em erges in a si gn-situ ati o n o r ,

ferent an d sim pler fo rm u lati o n ,in t h e pro cess o f hu m an
t o u se a di f
 THE M EANIN GS OF M EANI NG

com muni cati on ,S i nce that process,if w e disre gard t h e issu e

“ ”
o f t elepathy an d o ther fo rm s o f allege d direct commu ni cati on ,
cons s s in
i t t rasm it tin g tho u ghts,em o ti on s,et c ,by . igns
means of s

it is a process o f pro du cin g sign-situ ati ons When I Speak,write,

.

place road signs or o perate b eacon lights at street c rossin g s

“ ”
draw m aps or plans,fix po ison l ab els on b ottles,sew epau let
tes o n un i fo rm s,h o ist sign al fl ags,et c ,then in e ver case I am
.
y
u sin g cert ain S igns fo r co m m un i c ati o n pu rposes (even a m en t al

In on olo gue is , as w e kn o w , a di alo gue in a m aske d form ) ,an d in

'

each o f these cases I p ro d u ce a sign-situ ati o n C onsequ en tly ,

.

in each o f th ese cases t h e problem o f m eani n g em erges .

It h as alr eady b een said that S ign an d meanin g fo rm a uni ty

whi ch is b ro ken int o parts o r aspect s o nl y by abstracti o n There .

is n o S ign withou t m eanin g (since even an au thentic si gn whic h

for any reaso n is n ot c om prehen de d ,e g ,becau se t h e lan gu age
. .

in questi on is n ot u n d erst o o d ,is n o thin g m o re than a m ateri al

obj ect o r event ,a bl o t o f in k,sou n d , an d m eanin gs by
themselves withou t a sign-vehi cle,exist on ly in t h e min ds o f
incu rable metaphysici an s Hence,an an alysis o f t h e S ign , if
.

ly f m d th t ly i ig -situ ati o n
p pr o er p er o r e , a is an an a s s o f t h e s n ,
an an alysi s o f c o m mu n i cati o n by m eans o f S i gns,m u st t ake

int o accou n t t h e S ign as a whole ,as a un ity t h e materi al si gn

vehicle (so un d ,pictu re,c on venti o n al d rawi ng ,et c ) an d mean in g . .

In discu ssin g t h e d efiniti o n an d t h e typo lo gy of si gns,w e h ave

b een t akin g that u ni ty for gran ted ; althou gh o ccasi o n ally w e
have referred t o t h e sem antic aspect o f t h e Si gns,w e have been
referrin g t o it as t o so methi n g given an d evident This is n o t t h e
.

best metho d ,yet it is u nav o idable in all tho se cases where w e

have t o do with a mu tu al in ter-relati o nshi p or with a close con
nect io n b etween t h e aspect s or elem en t s o f t h e phen o m en o n u n d er

i nvestigati o n It is high tim e n ow t o fill that gap,fo r otherwise

.

b o th t h e an alysis o f t h e S ign an d consequ en tly t h e an alysis o f t h e

c om m u ni cati o n pr o cess w ou ld su f fer Th e m o re so sin ce t h e
.

pro blem o f meanin g is extrem ely i m po rtan t (in View o f t h e i m po r

tance and frequency o f sign-S itu ati o n s in soci al life,if not for
214 SELECTE D PROBLEMS OF SEMANTICS

o ther reasons), an d m o reo ver it is neither un am bigu ou s

u n iversally well u n derst o o d ; o n t h e c o ntrary ,it is ex cepti o n

com plicate d and diflic ult

f
.

I S hall also set n o w t h e li m its o f my in terests an d in

those im portant issues whic h I inten d t o an alyse ,an d those
I shall di sregard .

C K O gden an d I A R ich ards o nc e dev o te d t o t h e

. . . .

o f m e ani n g a m on o graph en titled Th e M ean ing of

set o u t t o i n vestig ate in what

u se d in t h e lit e rat u re o n t h e su bj

C hapter VIII gives sam ples o f t h e

an d sh o ws th at t h e act u al u sage is
”
o f in o u r phil o so phy ,alth o u gh

are pri n ci p ally resp o

spe ct To pu t an en d t o
.

au th o rs reso lve d t o b ri n g o u t th o se s

whi ch are in actu al u se In Chapter .

st rate th at t h ere are as m an y as 16

t erm ,som e o f t h e gro u ps em bracin g

i n gs In all,
.

“
o f m eani n g so m e o f them v ery rem o te o ne fr om an o ther

qu esti on s ari se : Is their li st exh au stive ? D o n ot o ther m ea

o f th at t erm appear ? I s it n o t p o ssi b le t o co n ceiv e o f yet

m ean i n g s?
These questi o ns are cert ain ly i m port an t an d in teresting
so m e p o i n t s o f Vi ew W e
.

list o ft h e po ssible u s
an d in sc i en tific

t o d raw u p su ch an ab so lu te list (in vi ew o f di f feren t u ses o f t h e

“ ”
t erm m ean in g in t h e v ari o u s eth nic l angu ages) o r in any ri gid
m anner (in Vi ew o f t h e i ncessan t d evel opm en tal processe s wit h in
lan gu ages) We are i nt erest ed in a cert ain spec ial g rou p o f u ses
.

o f t h at t erm that gro u p w hi ch refers t o t h e i nterpret ati o n

”
o f th e m eanin g in relati on t o t h e fu ncti o n o f t h e S i gn in t h e
c om m u ni cati o n pro cess , t h e fu ncti o n whic h m akes po ssib le
216 SELECTE D PROB LEMS OF SEMA NTI CS

appear when w e u se t h e term meanin g un der certain

st ances,bu t also t o ad o pt an attitu d e t o wards t h e v ari o

cept io ns c o nn ect e d with th o se di f feren t

in vo lved An d that requ i res somethin g m o re
.

t o su bj ect a given t erm t o sem anti c an alysi s an

ferent senses On e m u st give a pr
t o li ght it s di f .

’
t o on e s o w n vi ews an d t ake a stan d not o nly in
that divide philo sophi cal scho o ls,but also in t h e specifi c i ssue
i nvo lved in t h e process o f hu m an comm u ni cati on That is so .

b ecau se general divisi o ns an d general stan d po in ts in phi losophical

con t ro versies do n o t au t o matically pro du ce so lu ti on s o f speci al

an d i nt ri cat e pro blems .

Th e pro blem o f meani n g is cert ainly one o f t h e m o st im

p ort an t an d philo sophi cally m ost bafllin g issu es o f o ur times .

Incessan t declarati ons concernin g it s import ance m ay already

seem b ori n g , bu t on e m o re repetiti o n is nevertheless wo rth wh ile,
t o av o id bein g su specte d o f n eglectin g o r un d erestim ati n g t h e
m atter Bu t then that i m port an t i ssue m ay be u sed in diflerent
'

ways either as a su bj ect m att er o f sci en tific analysis (su c

cessfu l an d c o rrect o r n o t , bu t th at is a fu rther qu esti on) ,o r as

a spri n gb o ard fo r vertigin ou s m et aphysical S pecu l ati ons . That
t h e seco n d altern ative is n ot m erely a theo reti cal p ossibility is
best pro ved by Hu sserl s theory o f m eanin g whi ch ,stran gely
’

en ou gh ,fin ds adh eren ts even am o n g thin kers w h o are p o sitiv

ist ically-min ded Thi s is why speci al stress mu st be laid on t h e

.

proper st arti n g po in t o f an alys is,S in ce that will determ ine suc

cess o f failu re .

,
Our st artin g po i nt h as already b een defined : it is t h e real
ss f h m mm i ti t h l ig -S itu ati on Bu t
p r oc e o u an c o un c a o n e re a s n .

in an alysi n g t h e problem o f mean i n g one wo u ld like,especi ally

in view o f t h e con siderable n u mb er o f attem pts and solu ti o n s
that are clearly m et aphysical in c haracter,t o add somethin g
m ore t o what h as b een said ab ou t th at st artin g poi nt .

F irst o f all,I sh ou ld like t o fo llo w T adeu sz K ot arbiII ski

'

an d t o b egin by att acki n g that lin gu isti c hypost asis whi ch is

 THE M EANIN GS OF M EANING

respo nsible for m any a sin of m etaphysical di st o rti on of the

”
pro blem . There is n o such thi ng as m eani n g in thi s
case th at fo rmu l a direct ed ag ainst hypo st ases is n o t j u st a su er
p
ficial ped antry (as is pro ved by H u sserl s theo ry) ,
’
but a very u seful
”
reco ll ecti on M eanin g is a ty pical t erm used as abbrevi ati o n ,
.

which refers n ot t o any entity (whether m ateri al or ideal) call ed

meani n g ,bu t t o m en w h o com m u n icate with o ne an other by
u sin g certai n o bj ect s o r events t o t ransmit t o o n e an o ther what

they thi n k ab ou t t h e wo rld aro u n d them Thi s is worth remem .

berin g when one plu n ges into t h e whirlpo o l o f t h e pro blem s

o f m ean i n g so as t o av o id b ei n g led ast ray by t h e delu sive

bu t nevertheless attractive m etaphysical thesis that every n ame

h as it s cou nterpart in an o bj ect ,an entity ,t o which it refers .

On e feel s an u rge here t o dot o n e S i s an d cro ss o n e s t s

’ ’ ’ ’

as regards t h e on t o l o gical aspect o f t h e issu es in v o lved , t h e m ore

so sin ce t h e pro blem s o f m eani ng an d n o ti o n ent ail s om e o nt o l

ogical attitu de,an d a fragment ary t reatm ent o f th o se pro blem s

prevents u s fro m di scu ssin g all t h e issu es concern ed

First o f all,it mu st be explained that when I say t o exi st
“
or t o be I u n derst an d these wo rds in a m ateri alisti c sense .

“ ” “ ”
Acc o rding t o that interpret ati on ,all that exists or is h as
a m ate ri al n at u re an d conse qu ently exist s i rrespective o f any

c o gni zi n g min d ,an d is an external stim u lu s o f o u r senso ry ex

periences Thu s there e xist thi n gs (m ateri al o bj ects) whi ch in

.

a b ro ad sense o f t h e w o rd (co verin g also su c h t hi n g s as fields

o f en ergy) are m ani fest ati o n s o f wh at is given t h e ab stract n am e

“
o f m att er (it is in this spirit that t h e pro blem is treated by
En ge ls in hi s D ialect ics of N ature) This is t h e direc t m eanin g
~

“ ”
o f t h e w o rd exists , an d thi s is t h e pr o per i nt e rpret ati on o f wh at

is kn o wn in m athem ati cal lo gic as t h e exist enti al qu antifier .

“ ”
Thu s,t h e direct mean in g o f t h e word exists is redu ced t o t w o
st atem en ts : ( 1) whatever exists h as objective exi stence, i e , . .

in depen dent o f any co gnizin g m in d ; (2 ) that existence is ex

ist ence in t h e m ateri al sen se,su c h as is t h e at trib u te o f thin gs
in th e bro ad un derstan din g o f t h e word Thi s in terpretati o n .
218 SELECTED PROBLEM S O F SEMAN TI CS

of th e direct m ean in g o f t h e w o rd exists is charac teri stic

ev ery fo rm o f m at eri ali sm , an d therefo re t h e co rresp o n di

theses o f pansom at ist ic reism are u n qu est io

Bu t thin gs exist n o t in an is olat ed fo rm ,bu t in
m ake it p ossible t o speak o f a m at eri al u n ity o f
also say th at th ere exist co n n ecti o n s an d relati o n s

that there exist traits an d properties o f thin gs (i

marks all t h e elements of a given class or set 0
in t h e hu m an m in d fin ds reflecti o n in what a
n o ti on s) ,that t h ere exist pr ocesses o r even t s (cc

o f t h e m at eri al w o rld ,thi n g s,so me h o w ch an ge) ,

attit u des an d acti o ns o f th o se fragments o f t h e

which w e call m en ,et c In all su ch cases,when

.

“ ”
or is ,then t h e c o n diti o n o f o bj ective existence (in t h e sense
that w e h ave t o d o n ot with an arbitrary pro du ct o f t h e co gniz
in g mi n d ,bu t with c o gni ti on in so me appro xim ati o n of

s om et h i n g wh at o ccu rs i n depen dently o f t h e c o gn izi n g m i n d

an d o f all m i n d in gen eral ,alth ou gh t h e act o f c o gn iti o n itself

h as a o bj ec ti v e t i n ge) is sati sfied ,bu t in a di fferent m anner from

t h e precedi n g case . R elati on s , pro perties, pro cesses, attitu des,
et c ,are n o t t h i n gs (as are m en ,h o u se s,ch ai rs ,st o n es,
.

alth o u gh the y alway s pert ain t o t h i n gs,th at is,t o t h e m ateri al

w o rld C on se quen tly w e have t o do with som e fragm en t o f t h e

.

“ ”
m ateri al w o rld ,bu t t h e wo rd exi sts m u st n o w b e u n derst o o d
in an in direc t sen se (t h e rei st s speak in thi s co nn ecti o n o f su b
st it u t iv e abbrevi ati o n s : i n st ead o f sayi n g t h at thi n gs are m ark ed

by som ethi n g,that so m eth i n g h appen s t o th in gs,et c ,w e say .

S i m ply th at there exist pr o perti es,relati o n s,st at e s,et c ) . Th u s

in so far as reism is n o t identifi ed with nom i n ali sm ,t h e reist ic
st and p o i nt o n t h i s i ssu e also c oi nc id es w it h t h e gen eral m at eri ali sti c

st an dp o i n t
.

I f w e say th at n o ti o n s,m eani n gs,e tc ,exist ,t h en w e si m ply

.

speak o f thei r exi st en c e in t h e i n di rect sen se T o ascrib e t o th em

.

di rect exi sten ce wo u ld be (o bj ective) id eali sm O f t h e first water,

Sin ce o bj ecti ve i deali sm mai nt ai ns th at som e id eal en titi es e xist
220 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTICS

of my lysis Tw o pro blems mu st be formu lated prec isely

an a . .

what is a si gn-situ ati on where that which w e call m eani n g a

pears ; an d what do w e mean by m ean in g?
M any references have already b een m ade t o t
cati on pro cess as t h e fou n d ati o n o f an a n aly sis o f si

ing C onse qu ently ,w e h ave referred t o t h e sign-s

.

whenever w e have t o do with c omm u

t o do with a S ign-situ ati o n :
clu siv ely by means o f signs Th at thesis is co rrect .

it con veys bu t little T o add som ethi n g on t h e su bj ect

.

t o an alyse t h e sign -S itu ati o n For that pu rp ose I sh .

t o presen t three c oncepti o ns o f O gden an d Ri c hards,o f J o hn e

so n ,an d o f G ardi n er Th e ch o i ce is n o t acc ident al in so far as

.

all these c o n cepti on s resort t o schem es simi lar and yet di f ferent
an d so m eh o w c om plement ar y,an d as such form steps leading
t o what in my o pin i o n is a co rrec t i n terpret ati on o f t h e pro blem .

O gden an d Richards are au th o rs o f a n ow c lassi cal b o ok

on t h e th eo ry o f m eani n g 1 and u n d o u btedly h ave in th at re

spect co n sid erabl e achi evem ents t o their c redit Thi s fact ex l ai ns
p .

why their di agram o f t h e sign-situ ati o n is considered alm ost

classi cal ,in spit e o f t h e fact th at t h e id ea it expresses h ad b een

form u late d earli er (cf Ru ssell) S i nce I am n ot i nt erested in

. .
-

chro n o l o gic al pri ority ,bu t in a typi cal st an dp o i n t o n t h e i ssue

w e are an alysi n g ,t h e w ork o f O gd en an d Ri ch ard s can well be

taken as t h e representative o f that st an dp oi nt .

O gden an d Ri chard s stan d for a cau sal theory o f meani n g ,

si nce they c l aim th at b etween t h e v ari o u s elem en ts o f t h e re

lati on o f meani n g there is a cau sal nexu s We are,h o wever,

‘
.

i n terested n ot in that aspect o f t h e pro blem ,bu t ab ove all in t h e

formu l ati o n o f t h e si gn-situ ati on (an d,c onsequen tly ,m eanin g)
as a d efin ite rela t ion .

O gden an d Ri chards di stin gui sh t h e fo ll o win g three ele

m ents o f t h e S ign -situ ati on : t h e sym b o l (whi ch in their t ermin ol

1 C . K . O gden I . A . Rich ards,Th e M eaning f M eaning,Lo n do n

o
 THE M EANI NGS OF M EANIN G

y is t h e
og sam e as th e
ign),t h e o bj ect (referent),and t h e inter
S

Venin g th ou ght (reference) Th e som ewh at artifici al t ermi n o l o gy

'

, f c e) is explaine d by their u n willin gness t o u se

(referent re eren
“ ”
term s,such as obj ect ,in view o f their bei n g bu rdened
with a definite semantic traditi on .

THOUGHT OR REF
ERENCE

SYMBOL St ands for REFERENT

(an imputed relat ion
)
TRUE

Th eitu ati on is clear Th e au tho rs refer t o comm unicati o n

s .

and t o t h e S i gn- situ ati o n ,t h e l atter b ei n g in th ei r o pini on redu cible

t o t h e three elem ents sh o w n in t h e di agram : t h e s mbol sy m b o lizes
y
some thing an d e v o k es an appropri ate though t whi c h refers t o

t h e referent (o bj ect) Th e rel ati on b etween t h e symb o l an d t h e

.

referent is an i n di rect o n e ; a d irect r elati o n (al o n g t h e b ase o f

th e tri an gl e) o ccu rs o nly in tho se excepti on al cases when w e have

t o do with a simil arity b etween t h e sym b o l an d t h e referen t (i e .

'

in our termin ol o gy ,when w e h av e t o do with an i con ic si gn) .

It is worth whi le drawi ng attenti on t o t h e vigour with which

t h e au tho rs rej ect t h e su ggesti on th at t h e sign-situ ati o n is
ch aracteriz ed onl y by a rel ati o n b etween t h e sym b o l an d t h e

thou ght Su ch a st an dpoi n t (they qu o te B aldwin s Though ts

’
.

and Th ings as an ex am le they t reat as so li psist ,and they st ress

p )
“ ”2
t h e necessity o f expli citly reco g n izin g t h e wo rld b ey o n d u s

2 Ibid . . 0
,p 2 .
2
’
SELECTED PROBLEM S OF SEMAN TI CS

o u r an a lysi s Of t h e si gn-situ ati o n Y et they rem ai n silent w h e

.

co m es t o m en w h o c om m u n icat e with o n e a n o ther .

These appear in J o hnson s di agram J o hnson s b oo k3

’
.
’

t a w o rk o f any S ign al S i gnificance ,bu t

meric an w ork co nc erni n g t h e soci al sci e
as an i l lu st rati on b ecau se it s au th o r ad o pts

0,there three elemen ts o f t h e si gn -situ ati o n (J o hn s

are

plicit ly t o t h e c o mm u n ic ati on process) ,bu t they are

d thei r arrangem ent also is di fferent ,an d th at in a ch aracterist i
an n er Here ,then ,is Jo h nso n s t ri an gle o f reference
.
’

The Symbol or Reference

The Speaker,or Symbol User The Hearer and Referent

Fig 4.

N ot ly t h e schem e bu t t h e ter m in o l o gy (reference , ref

on

en t ) are c learly b o rro w e d fro m O gden an d R i c h ards Jo h n

'

“ ”
n gives t h e t erm s an entirely n ew sense ( referen ce is u sed
“ ” ” “ ”
t as th o u ght bu t as frame o f reference ,and referen t
”
t as o bj ect bu t as t h e perso n w h o is spo ken t o yet thi s
y resu lts in confu si on O ne m ay legitim ately o bj ect t o su ch
.

“ ”
rmin o lo gy as t h e sym b o l o r referen ce an d t h e bearer an d

feren t b u t m y p o in t c oncern s som ethi n g else : in t h e fu n dam en

1 ch an ge o f t h e enti re si gn -situ ati on ,in whic h t h e relati o n

y m b o l-re feren t thr o u gh th o ught is replaced by t h e relati o n

”
p ea ke r -hearer
,then th at rel ati on is that o f m en w h o c o m

3 E . S . Jo h nso n , Theory and Prac t ice of t he S oc ial S t udies , N ew

ark 19 5 6 .
224 SELECTED PROBLEM S OF SEMANTI CS

tho u ght ,by means o f whi ch comm u ni cati on t akes place I f .

S ign an d t h e th o u ght are t reat e d separat ely ,t h e nu m b er o f

elem ents in questi o n ri ses t o fiv e Th e geo m etrical S h ape is

.

relevan t here (it mi ght a t rapez o id ,o r t w o t ri an gle s with a

b ase, Th e im po rt ant p oint is that h e g rasped t h e

elem en ts an d rel ati ons occu rrin g in t h e S i gn - S it u ati on It is.

’
that reaso n that I co nsider G ardin er s stan dpo in t t o be a co r
one .

F irst o f all (an d this is,as w e shall later see,extremely

p ort an t fo r t h e analy si s o f m eanin g) ,an en d is pu t here
cific feti shi z ati o n o f t h e S ign an d o f t h e S i g
n -situ ati o n ,so

in t h e literatu re of t h e su bj ect I n o ther word s : t h e su ggesti on

.

is rej ected th at t h e S i gn-situ ati on means a relati o n b etween sig ns

or a rel ati o n b etween t h e S ign an d t h e o bj ec t ,b etween t h e S i gn

an d th ou ght o n t h e one h an d an d t h e o bj ec t o n t h e o th er, e tc ( su ch.

a su g gesti on c o m es from lexical an d l o gi cal o perati o ns and fro m

“ ‘ ” “ ‘
parti al an alyses o f wh at t h e wo r d x m ean s , what t h e red
’

”
flag m eans ,et c ,that is,from all th ose an alyses whic h su ggest
’
.

that signs have some so rt o f in depen den t e xisten ce) Th e fact .

that t h e S i gn-S itu ati on devel ops as a relat ion bet ween the m en
“ ”
wh o comm un icate with one ano ther an d pro du ce si gns fo r that
pu rpose,is well u n derst o o d an d e xpli citly i n di cate d I n dis
.
.

cu ssi n g t h e stru ggle ag ainst t h e feti shiz ati o n o f t h e S ign ,I h av e

b orro wed som ethin g fro m M arx w h o in Cap ital c o ined t h e term
“ ”
fetishi sm o f co mm o di ti es in co nnecti o n wi th a pro blem whi ch
very mu ch resem bles o urs We are seekin g t h e sen se o f mean
.
“

” “
in g ,an d M arx wante d t o explain t h e sen se of valu e In t h e
c ou rse o f his an alysis ,h e realiz e d th at peo ple w h o in vestig at ed

t h e exch an ge o f co m m o diti es o n t h e m arket succu m be d t o t h e

n o ti o n th at c o m m o diti es ex ch an ge d them selves so t o speak by

them selves,so that t h e relati o ns o f econ o mi c valu e were relati o ns

b etween conn n o dit ies To M arx goes t h e credit o f pro vi ng that
.

in fact they are rel ati o ns b etween pro du cers o f co m m o dities,

that is m en ,so th at they are social rel ati ons,soci al l ab o ur is
“
em b o di ed in c o m m o diti es,and b ecom es t h e fo un dati o n an d
 THE M EANIN GS OF “
M EANI N G
”
225

measure of e c
x han ge relati ons and of what w e call value Th e .

“ ”
di scovery o f t h e fetishi sm o f c om mo dities w as i n deed a rev
olu t io n in t h e i nt erpret ati on o f econ o mi c rel ati o n s An an alo g o u s
.

phen omen on is n o w o b served in t h e case o f meani n g and th e S i gn

“ ”
situati on : here , t o o ,a S pecifi c S i gn fetishi sm prev ails and t o
a considerable ext en t h ampers t h e u n derst an di n g an d so lu ti o n

o f t h e pro blem . C onsiderable sci entific credit mu st be ascribed

t o th ose w h o ab o lish o r at least oppose that fetishi sm by drawin g
attenti on t o t h e app aren tly trivi al fact that t h e S ign- situ ati o n is a
“ ”
relati on b etween men w h o pro du ce S igns (o r u se them) Thi s cre dit .

ho lds go o d even if it is n ot po ssible t o agree with o ther asser

ti ons of theirs I men ti on this b ecau se on that p oin t G ardiner w as
.

neither t h e first n or t h e on ly on e t o adv ance such an o pi n i on .

Leavin g t h e M arxist con cepti on apart fo r t h e time bein g ,it mu st

be st ated that t h e u n derst an din g o f that poin t ,essen ti al for t h e
theory o f commu ni cati on ,is t o be fou n d in princi ple in all t h e
pragm atists an d b ehavi ou ri sts,and also in adherent s o f o ther
trends w h o have been influen ced by pragm atism (for in stan ce
M orris,w h o is c onnected with neo -po sitivism ,an d Urb an ,w h o
is c onn ected with C assirer ; b oth are Ameri cans and b oth have
been in fluenced by pragm atism) Th e excepti on al positi o n an d
.

r Ole o f Gardin er c o nsist s in his h avi n g su cceede d in co m bi nin g

“ ”
his stru ggle a gainst S i gn fetishism with a c onsistently reali st
(one shou ld rather say : m ateri ali stic) interpret ati on of t h e rela
ti on b etween t h e S ign an d t h e O bj ective reality .

G ardi ner,o f co u rse,is c o ncern ed with lan gu age an d speech ,

an d co n se qu en tly h e spe aks o f v erb al S igns Bu t thi s fact d o es
.

n o t li mit t h e sig nificance an d t h e gen eral v alidity o f what h e says

‘

Lin gui sts,h e m ain t ain s,h ave never forgo tten t h e rOle o f w ords

(verb al S i gns) in t h e co mm u ni cati o n process On t h e co ntrary ,

.

t h e i m po rt an ce att ached t o t h e rOle o f th o se sign s veiled all thei r

other elem en ts, that is t h e m en w h o co mm u n icate with one an o ther,

an d t h e O bj ects t o whi c h t h e c o mm u ni cati on pro cess pert ai ns

and with ou t whi ch t h e S igns w ou ld l o se all sense Thi s is why

.

Gardin er wrote :
. 226 SELECTED PROBLEM S OF SEMANTI CS

Th e s a em en
t t
t that speech serves t o express
S i m ply i gn ores t h e fac t that I c an speak ab o u t this pen wit

I am writi ng ,ab ou t m y h o u se,m y b o o ks,m y fam i ly ,

S h o rt ,ab o u t ev eryt hi n g else in t h e w o rld If lingu is t ic .

is e ver to m ake w ide app eal,it m us t clearly be p lac ed up on

r ealis t ic basis th an a t p resen t Th e ru dest Villager kn o w s
. t
he t alk ab o u t all t h e vari o u s t h in gs whi c h h e can see
can

t ou ch Why ,then ,S hou ld that t ru th be hidden fro m t h e theo

.

”
o f l an gu age ? 7

It is n o t di fficu lt t o o b serve that in t h e co u rse o f t h e

presente d here and espec i ally as a resu lt o f a proper selecti on
o f t ext s,w e h ave o bt ai ne d a p ositive answe r t o t h e questi o n as
“
t o wh at is t o be m ean t by t h e S ign-situ ati o n Th e criti ci sm o f
“ ”
S ign feti shi sm i nheren t in t h e schem e su ggested by O gden
an d R ic hards w as con t ained imp lic it l b o t h in t h e t e xt o f J o hn
y
son an d in that o f G ardin er Th e critic ism o f ideali sm in t h e
.

i n terpret ati on o f t h e sign-situ ati on is c ontai n ed exp lic itly in t h e

w ord s o f Gardiner w h o at t h e sam e tim e n o tes t h e rOle o f t h e
t h o u gh t elem ent in t h e c o m m u n icati on pro ce ss,alth o u gh in t h e
c ase o f t h e w ord h e c o m bi nes S ign an d th o u ght i n t o an i n divi si

ble wh o le A ll in all,in declarin g on eself t o be in solid arity with

.

G ardin er ,one m ay say that the s ign-s itua t ion o cc urs wh en at

leas t t wo m en c om m un ic a t e on e w ith an o t h er by m eans of s igns
in or de r to transm it on e t o ano th er th e ir th o ugh ts ,exp ress ions of

fee lings ,w ill,e tc co nnec t e d ( un iverse ofdisco urse

w ith som e o bjec t

t o w h ich th e ir c omm un ica t io n p er t a ins I n o t h er w o rd s,w hen ever

.

th e S i gn an d t h e si gn -sit u ati o n occu r,t h e S i gn m u st refer t o so m e

o bj ec t (di rect ly o r i n di rect ly) ,an d t h ere m u st be at l e ast t w o

part n ers in t h e pro cess o f c o mm u ni cati o n by m ean s o f that S i gn :

h e w h o u se s t h e S i gn in o rd er t o c on vey h is t h ou gh t s,an d h e
w h o perce iv e s an d in terpre ts it (an d c o n se q u en t ly ,u n d erst an d s

it) Th u s,t h e S i gn -situ ati o n t urn s o u t t o be so m et hin g ext rem ely

.

c o mm on , as c o m m o n as is t h e pr o cess o f co m m u n i ca ti n g -by

7 I bid .
,p 22(italics
. A . S .
)
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEM ANTTCS

2 M EA N I N G
. AS A REA L OR ID EAL OB JE C T

N o thi n g is impler than t o t ake su ch elem en ts o f t h e S i

s

S itu ati o n as t h e o bj ec t t o whi c h c o mm uni cati on pert ai n s,o r

tho u ght ab o u t that o bj ect

with t h e sign that stan ds for
sign-S itu ati o n an d thereby t o impart t o them

c h aracter Th e m o re so S in ce t h e c on centrati o n
.

an d in terest on su c h e lem en ts is n ot always du e

the oretical stan dpo i nt ,bu t is o ften dictated by

C o nsequ ently ,alth ou gh t h e iden tificati o n o f
o bj ec t d en o te d is fro m t h e the oreti cal p o i n t o f vi ew S im p ly

co n tradi cti o n with it s iden tifi cati o n with t h e th ou ght ab o

that o bj ect ,t h e tw o so lu ti ons are o f t h e sam e type an d m ay as

such be tre ated ,in a sen se, j o i n tly .

A . M ean ing as th e o bjec t deno ted

Th e dif
feren t at ion
b etween m eani n g an d den o t ati o n
whi ch played su ch an impo rt ant rOle in Frege s an alysis 8 ,w as ’

forg o tten ,an d then again brou ght t o light by Ru ssell 9 Thu s, .

t h e i ssu e is li nke d with t h e n am es o f these t w o l o gi ci an s and

phi lo sophers (from t h e form al po in t o f vi ew ,t h e issue w as also

raised by H usserl in L ogisch e Un ters u ch ungen , V o l II , Pt 1,p 47, . . .

bu t that differen ti ati on ac qu ires,in t h e li ght o f his theory o f

i nten ti on al acts,a speci al ch aracter an d wo u ld re qu i re separate
an alysi s) .

Frege postu l ates tw o expressi o ns : t h e m orni n g star and

”
t h e eveni n g st ar ,an d rai es t h e pro blem o f their m eani n gs
s .

His c on clu si on is th at in a sense t h e m eani n gs o f these expres

G Frege, Vo m S inn u n d Bedeu tun g in Zeitschrift fur Ph ilosop h isch e

3 .

Krit ik,189 2; th ere is an E n glish -lan gu age v ersion in Trans lat ions from the
Ph ilosop hical Writ ings of Got t lo b Frege, O xford 195 2 .

B R u ssell, O n D en otin g M ind,190

5 ; qu oted B
“
9 . after . R ussell,
Lagic and Kn o wledge . 1—195 0
Essays 19 0 ,Lon don 1956 .
 THE M EAN ING S OF M EANI NG 229
“ ”

i
s ons are identical ,but in an other sense they are differen t When .

“ ‘
we ask What is meant by t h e m o rn i n g
“
What is m ean t
‘
by t h e evenin g and bearin g in min d the ob ec t whi ch
j
these expressi on s (o f whi ch they are n ames) den ote,then t h e
meanings o f t h e tw o expressi ons are identi cal ,for t h e o bj ect
wh i ch they den o te is one an d t h e S am e Bu t when w e consider.
.

the con t en t o f these e xpressi ons,t h e w ay in whi ch they d en ote

their design ata,then their meani n gs appear different Thi s can .

be demonstrated by t h e fact that pe ople may reach a lin gu isti c

agreem ent c o ncernin g these expressi on s and fo rmu l ate thei r

definiti on s witho u t realizi n g that they refer t o on e an d t h e same

obj ect There is n o thin g stran ge in th at ,
. S ince w e h ave t o d o with

different questi o ns an d con sequ ently w ith different meanin gs

“ ” ”
of mean i n g .Frege reserve d distinct term s for each : B edeu tu ng
“ ”
fo r t h e form er (tran slated as den ot ati on by Ru ssell an d as
“ ” ”
reference by B lack) ,an d S i nn for t h e latter (tran slated
“ “ ”
as mean i n g by Ru ssell an d as sense by B lack) In t h e former .

“
case,wh en w e ask What d o es w e ask in t h e sen se
“
of What is an d w e are c o n cerne d with an o bj ect ,t h e

design atu m o f t h e n am e In t h e latter case,w e ask ab ou t t h e

.

content o f t h e n am e Therefo re Frege is co rrect in st atin g :

.

“
A pro per n am e (w o r d ,S ign ,S ign c o mbi nati o n ,expressi on)
exp resses it s sense , s tands for o r des igna t es it s referen ce B y m ean s .

Of a S ign w e express it s sense an d design at e it s referen ce 10

”
.

I do n ot rai se here t h e issu e o f den ot ating sentences,whi ch

is t h e m a i n su bj ect m atter o f t h e an alysis carried out by Frege
’
and ab ov e all by Ru ssell (it is t h e fou n d ati o n o f Ru ssell s the ory

of descri pti o ns) We are here in tereste d prin ci pally in t h e dist in c

.

ti on between m ean ing an d den ot ati on Th at distin cti on is e qu iv

. .

“ ”
alent t o t h e st at em ent th at in a cert ai n sense m ean in g is identical
with t h e o bj ect o f which t h e given expressi on is t h e nam e (I un der
“ ”
st an d here t h e t erm ex pressi o n in a bro ad sense,c o veri n g
b oth verb al S ign s an d t h e c om bi n ati o n s o f su ch) .

10 Fre e
g ,o p . cit .
,p . 61
.
23 0 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

Thi s is
i n du bitable fact which lead s t o t h e fo ll o win g
an

clu sion : in vi ew o f th e c lear di f ference existing b etween

m eani n g s,an d in view o f t h e specific character 0 .

“ ”
What d o es me an ? o ne S h ou ld ,
st andi n gs,u se di f feren t terms Thi s .

biII S ki l l fo ll o wed t h e same cou rse C o nse quen tly ,w e

’ '

”
spec ific mean i n g o f m e an i n g in t h e case o f nam es,
i nsist that w e have here t o do with a speci al case (that
and that su c h am bigu ity can t o a large e xten t be

by a co nsi sten t u se o f distinct term s, m ean in g

’

’
Frege s idea go es b ack t o t h e traditi on
an d t h e c onn o t ati o n o f ideas as fo rmu lated

o f J S M ill ,alth ou gh t h e t w o ideas are n o t

. .

t h e adherents o f t h e o pi ni on listed in t h e

un der (2 ) go b ack directly t o M ill s co ncepti

’

“
m ean i n g as an i n heren t pro perty o f t h e o bj ect t o .

S ign refers Th e o bj ect

. is un derst o o d h ere in a S peci ‘

an ide al o bj ect ,a n oti o n In th at case,t h e -su m o f t h e .

that con stitu te t h e essen ce o f t h e n o ti o n un derst o o d

ject iv e entity , i e , its conn o t ati on ,is e qu iv alent t o
. .

Thu s m ean in g is i n heren t in t h e o bj ect ,an d it mi ght c

said t h at m eani n g is t h e o bj ec t , S i nce it is e qu iv ale n t t o it s

O f course ,I t ake n o respo nsibility either fo r these

“ ”
o r fo r essen ces I h ave m erely rel ate d a cert ain po i nt o f vi
.

“ ”
in o rder t o realize th ose m eani n gs o f m eanin g whi ch m ay
e nco u n tere d in practi ce Th e other extrem e ,within t h e ty pe
.

t h e so lu ti o ns o f t h e pr o blem o f m e ani n g whi ch w e are n o w

discu ssin g ,is represented by Hu sserl s theo ry ’

.

B . Th e concep tion f
o in ten t ional m ean ings

In ificati o n , H u sserl s th eo ry is listed un der (3)

o ur class
’

whi ch grou ps theo ries i nterpretin g m ean in g as an ideal o bj ect ,

’
or as an i nh eren t pro perty o f th o u ght S ho u ld w e t ake H u sserl s .

11 T K o t arb inski,Elem enty

.
[E lements Lw ow 19 2
9 .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEM ANTI CS

ti ons of inten ti on al act ,et c I s that j u st a misun derst an di

.

“ ”
Or is it an i ndu lgent i nterpret ati on o f wh at H u sserl says,
interpretati on disregardin g c ontext ? Thi s,however,is n ot
m ost i m port ant po in t Wh at is import an t
.

phi l oso phy ,t h e traditi o ns o f whi ch

’

o gy, did pr o ve su sceptible t o Hu sserl s ideas Thi s fact in

’
.

that t h e pro blem S hou ld be given m ore attenti o n than w

seem n ecessary at first gl an ce .

It is a tru ism t o say that in order t o un derstan d any idea

belon gin g t o a philosophi cal system o ne h as t o i nterpret that
idea in the con text o f that system Thi s remark is addressed t o
.

t he adheren ts o f t h e i n ten ti o n al con cepti on o f m ean i n g Th e.

i n terpretati on of Hu sserl s theory of meanin g an d o f in ten ti onal

’

act d o es in v o lve hi s en t ire sy stem i nclu di n g hi s ep o ch e,eidos,

‘

Wesenschau , t h e theory o f u ni versals, t h e phen om en o l o gical

metho d ,etc O therwise it wou ld n ot be po ssible t o u n derstan d
.

“ ”
what an o bj ect means in hi s system ,what is an i ntenti o n al
act th at c o n t ai n s as o bj ect ,et c Un fortu n ately,there is n ot a
.

word ab ou t that in t h e works o f Poli sh adh erents o f t h e inten

t io n al c oncepti o n O n t h e co ntrary ,when readi n g tho se w o rks it
.

wo u ld be easy t o be misled in t o b elievi n g that Hu sserl s theory ’

represen t s a v ari ati o n o f t h e psych o l o gical th eo ry ,w hi c h is c on

cern e d with t h e disp o siti o n s o f m en u sin g a cert ai n lan gu age .

How S harply H u sserl w ou ld protest against such a fl agrant

mi sun derst andi n g o f hi s b asic ideas ! It is n ot my i n ten ti on t o
here t h e extrem ely compli cated theses o f Hu sserl s
’
expou n d

philoso phi cal system an d all t h e resu ltin g impli cati on s for t h e
p r o ble m o f m e a ni n g (an d it m u st be b o rn e in mi n d tha t a ll hi s

m ore im port an t theses h ave suc h im pli cati o ns) I S h o u ld o nly

.

like t o presen t (in t h e fo rm o f qu o t ati o ns,as far as p ossible)

at lea t th o e o
s s f h is the e with ou t w ch in my opin i o n
s s hi — it
is n ot p o ssible t o u n derst an d t h e c oncepti o n o f i n ten ti o n al act
an d,con se qu en tly ,H u sser l s theory O f m eani n g
’
.

I shall b egin by st atin g t h e well-kno wn fact that H u sserl

is an idealist w h o ,in c on tinuin g Plat on ic t raditi ons,n ot on ly
 233
“
THE M EA NI N GS OF M EANI NG ”

reco ni es
g z xistence o f ideal entities,but also considers
th e e

m eaning t o be su ch an en tity .

Let u s be fair : H u sserls d o es n ot admit h e is a Plat oni st ,

an d even di sc laim s th at exp ressis verbis :

D ie B edeu tu n gen bilden ,so kOnn en w ir auch sagen ,ein e

Kl asse v o n Begriffen im S inn e v on allgemeinen Gegens tdnden
‘ ’
.

m
lOl th
anW
old
u
Sie S i n d d arum n icht Gegen st an de,die ,wenn nicht i rgen dw o
in der Welt ,so in ein em T i mog O0
‘ ’ '
ot V Lo g O der im gOtt lich en
p
Geiste existieren ; denn so lche m et aphysi sche Hypo stasi eru n g
”1
ware ab su rd 4 .

Y et t h e o ld M arxi an prin ciple th at m en ,like soci al classes,

sh ou ld be j u dge d n ot by what they t hi n k o f them selv es ,bu t

by what th ey actu ally do ,m akes u s sceptical An d ou r scepticism .

grows as w e read o n
Wer sich daran gewohn t h at ,u nter S ein nur reales Sein , ‘ ’

unter Gegenst an den reale Ge genst an de zu verst ehen ,dem wi rd

di e Rede v o n allgemei n en Gegenst an den u n d ihr em S ein als

gru ndverkehrt erschei nen : d agegen wird hier keinen An st o ss
fin den ,w er diese Re den zu n ach st ein fac h als Anzeigen fiir die
Geltu n g gewisser U rteile n imm t ,n amlich so lc her,in den en u b er
Zahlen ,Siit ze,geom etri sche Gebilde u dgl geurteilt wird ,un d . .

si ch n u n fragt ,ob n ic ht hi er w ie so nst als K orrel at der U rteils

geltu n g dem ,w o riiber da geu rteilt wird ,evidenterweise der Titel

‘
wahrhaft sei en der Ge genst an d zu gesprochen werden miisse
’
.

In der Tat : lo gisch b etrachtet , S i n d die S ieb en regelm assigen

KOrper Sieb en G eg enstan d e,eben so w ie die S i eb en Weisen ; der
S atz v o m Krafteparallelogram ein Gegest an d so gu t w ie die
”
St adt Pari s 15 .

Has n ot H u sserl m ade a mi st ake,then ,in assessin g hi s o w n

opin i o ns an d thei r gen eal o gy ? Bu t th at is a seco n d ary i ssu e .

What is impo rtant is that Hu sserl represen ts t h e st an dpoi nt

o f o bj ec tive idealism as con cerni n g ideal en titi es,an d m eani n gs

in particu lar An d th at fact is b ey on d dispu t e

.

14 E . Hu sserl,L ogische Untersuchungen,Vol 2,Pt 1,Halle 19 13,p 10

. 1 . . .

15 Ibid .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANT I CS

N at u rlich ist es n c i ht u n sere Ab si cht,das S e in des

au f e n e i S tu fe t ll
zu s e en m it dem Gedach tsein des Fik t iv
Widersinnigen D ie idealen Gegens tande
haft Es h at evidenterweise n icht blo ss ei n en
.

s o lc hen G egenst an den (z

. B v o n der Zahl 2, . .

R Ot e ,v o m dem S atz des Widerspruc hes u dgl ) . .

S ie als

sen au c h
l he
so c id eale Gegenst an d e bezu glich
i d Gelten diese Wahr S n .

h eit en ,so m u ss all das sein ,w as ihr e Ge ltu n g o bj ektiv v orau s

S etzt G ilt u ns alles,w as ist ,mi t Recht als se ien d u n d als so
sei en d v erm Oge der Evidenz , m it der w ir eS im D en ken als
e rfassen ,d ann k ann kei n e R ede d av o n Sei n ,d ass w ir die Ei gen

berechtigu n g des idealen S eins v erwerfen dii rfen In der Tat .

kann kein e I n terpret at ion sku n st der Welt die idealen Ge gen st an de
”
au s u n serem Sprec hen u n d D enken elim ini eren 16 .

This needs n o comm ent An d if there is any di fferen ce between

.

hi s st an dpo i nt an d Plat on ism ,then it is su ch as t h e di f feren ce

between a green devil an d a yell ow on e Anyh o w ,his views on .

ideal en tities in general are cl o sely c o nnecte d with hi s v i e w o fm ean

in g as an ideal entity ,S in ce fo r H u sserl m ean in g is an o bj ective
ide al en tity Whoever fails t o see an d un derst an d that ,bl o cks
.

hi s r oad t o u n derst an din g t h e theory o f i ntenti o n al acts an d t h e

i n ten ti o n al con cepti o n o f m ean in g .

“
Wir hab en bisher v orzu gsweise v on B ed eu tu ngen gespro
c hen ,die ,w ie der n o rm alerwei se rel ative S i n n des W o rtes Be
“

deu tu n g es sch on besagt ,B edeu tun gen v on Au sdriicken S i nd .

An sich b esteht ab er kein n o twen di ger Zu samm enh an g zwi schen

den idealen Ei nheiten ,die fakt isch als B edeu tu n gen fun gieren ,
u n d den Zeic hen ,an welc he sie geb u n den S in d , d h m ittels . .

welcher sie sich im m en schli chen S eelen leb en reali si eren Wir .

kOnn en also au ch ni cht behau pt en ,d ass alle idealen Einheiten

dieser Art au sdriicklich e B ed eu tun gen S in d Jed er Fall ei ner .

16 I b id .
,pp 12
4—12
. 6 .
23 6 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

direct p assa eg from u nc hangin g meani n g o f so -

c a le l d pu re lo
an d it s tasks .

I n der Tat h at es die i

re n eL o gik ,w o imm er S ie v on B
fen ,U rteilen ,Schl iissen han d elt ,au sschli esslich mit diesen
E i n heiten ,die w ir hi er Bedeu tungen nennen ,zu
Thi s is qu ite c omprehensible when it is realized that
Hu sserl ,w h o in that m atter is faithfu l t o B o lz an o s tradi ti ’

m eani n g as an ideal entity is identical with a pro positi o n

“ ”
o pp o se d t o sen ten ce an d Fo r him , there
a di f feren ce b etween acts o f j u d gem ent , experience d actu ally
an d ch an geable ; an d ideal c on ten t o r pro po siti on as t h e u nch ang

ing p artner o f different st atem en ts Thi s di stincti o n b etween t h e

.
.

t w o ki n ds o f j u dgem en ts is an al o g o u s t o P ei rce s di sti ncti on

’

between token (experi ence o f a given Sign -S itu ati on) an d typ e
( a ce rt a i n ty p e o f e xp eri en ce o f si gn-S itu ati on s
) Th e difference
.

between Hu sserl an d Peirce is that t h e former ascrib es t o prop

o sit ion s t h e st at u s o f id eal en titi es whic h are abso lu tely id en tic al
“
with m eani n gs an d are t h e d om ain o f pu re l o gic .

D ie I dealit éit des Verh altni sses zwisc hen Au s dru ck un d

B edeu tu n g zeigt sich in B ezi ehu n g au f b eide G lieder so fort d aran ,
cl ass w ir,n ac h der B e deu tun g ir ge n d ei nes Au sdruc ks (z B . .

qu adra tis ch er R es t) fragen d , u nter Au sdru ck selbst v erst an dlich

n i c ht di eses h ic e t nunc geau ssert e L au t gebilde m einen ,d en
flii ch t igen u n d iden ti sc h nimm er wi e derkehr en den S chall Wir .

m ei nen den Au sdru ck in sp ecie D er Au sdru c k quadra t ischer

.

Res t ist iden tisc h derselb e ,w er i mm er ih n au ssern m ag U nd .

wie der d asselbe gilt fiir die Rede v on der Bedeu tung,die also selbst
”
v erst éindlich ni cht das bedeu t u n gsv erleih en de Erlebn is m ei nt 19 .

Th e m att er is qui te c lear ,an d t h e m ec han i sm o f bu i ldin g

a system b ase d o n o bj ectiv e ide ali sm can b e seen in d et ail Hu s .

serl S st arti n g p o i n t fo r c o n st ru cti n g m eani n g as an ideal entity

’

is t h e fact th at when w e h ave t o do with any st atem en t ,e g , . .

18 Ibid ,pp
. 9 1—92
. .

19 I bid ,pp 42
.
—4 3
. .
 THE M EANI NGS OF M EANIN G

“
th e q
s u are is
qu adran gle havin g equ al sides an d e qu al angles
a

w e are co ncerne d with a cert ai n th o u ght w hi ch repeats itself

whenever that st atement is actu ally repro duced ,pro vided that it s
sense is u n d erst o o d ,bu t regardless o f t h e i n divid u al di f ferenc es
between t h e psycho l o gical acts whic h accompany t h e vari ou s
occur rences o f th at st atem en t For H u sserl ,thi s is su fficient
.

proof that mean in g mu st e xist as an ideal entity ,regardless o f

th e c o ncrete experi en ces o f j u dgements havi n g that m eani n g .

“
M ei n Urteilsakt ist ein flii ch t iges Erlebn is,entstehen d u nd
vergehen d Nicht ist aber das,w as die Au ssage au ssagt ,dieser
.

Inhalt ,dass die drei HOhen e in es D reieckes sich in einem Punkt

’

schneiden ,ein En tst ehen d es u n d V erge hen des S o o ft ich ,O der

.

Ever au ch i mm er ,di ese selb e Au ssage gleich sin nig au ssert ,so o ft

wird v on n eu em geurteilt D ie Urtei lsakte S in d v o n Fall zu Fall

.

verschi eden Aber, w as S ie u rteilen , was die Au ssage b esagt ,

.

das ist fiberall d asse lbe Es ist ein im strengen Wortverst an de

.

Identisches,es ist die eine u n d selbe geom etri sche Wahr heit .

S o v erh éilt eS sic h bei allen Au ssagen ,m ag au ch ,was sie sagen ,

falsc h O der gar absu rd sein Als Iden tisches der In ten ti on
erke n en w ir S ie au c h j e wei ls in eviden ten A kt en der R efl exi on ;
n
wir le gen S ie ni cht w illkii rlich den Au ssagen ein ,so n dern fin den
sie d ari n 2
”
0 .

That co n cepti o n of m ean in g as an o bj ective entity am o u nts

t o o bj ective ideali sm AS w e shall see l ater o n ,in Hu sserl s case
’
.

it is i ntim ately c onn ected with su bj ec tive ideali sm Bu t let u s n ot .

be m i sled by th at apparen t o pp o siti o n Th e ideal O bj ects an d.

ab so lu te ideas in syst em s o f o bj ec tive ide ali sm ,ab so lu te id eali sm ,

et c ,are n o thin g bu t i n divid u al c o n sci ou sn e ss,artifici ally S hifted

‘
“

int o t h e su pra-in dividu al S phere an d thu s transform ed int o so me

thin g abso lu te I n thi s i nterpret ati on ,O bj ective idealism is but
.

a t ransform ati o n o f su bj ective ideali sm I n H u sserl s case ,t h e

’
.

mec han ism o f that transfo rm ati o n (as d em on st rated ab o ve)

20 I bid .
,p . 44 .
238 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEM ANTI CS

is obvi o u s Th e in dividu al acts o f und erstan di n g cert ain

.

si o ns are t aken as t h e st arti n g p o i nt : what is comm o n t

in dividu al experi ences (after t h e rej ecti on o f

m ents c onnected with t h e in dividu alities o f t h e
with t h e situ ati o n of a given experien ce ,et c ) is extrapo lated ,
.

an d in this w ay is cons truc ted wh at is said t o be a pro p o siti o n or

m eamng in th e ideal sen se o f t h e wo rd That it is a c onstruo

.
inof“WW
ti on an d what c on stru cti o n it is,c an be sh o wn (c o n trary t o H u sserl s
’

asserti o ns th at wh at is i n v o lved here is an act o f direc t Wesen

schau su pp o rt e d by t h e testi m on y o f sel f-evid enc e) by wh at Hu s

serl says hi m sel f,as here qu o te d e xtensively H ence Hu sserl s’

.

“
theory can be headlined M eanin g as an ideal o bj ec t o r as
”
an in heren t pro perty o f th o u ght , S i nce m eanin g i nterpreted A
lilin a
ns h“

as an ideal en tity is b ut an abso lu tized and i n heren t pro perty

o f th ou ght co nn ec te d with certain e xperience s in u n derst an di ng

expressi o ns Thi s is confirmed by t h e i n tim ate li n ks between

.

that c oncepti o n and t h e theory o f intenti o n al acts .

N ow that w e kn o w,pro b ably clearly en o u gh,h o w Hu sserl

u n derst an d s meanin g as an ideal en tit y,let u s pass t o in t en
.

t ion al act s and t o t h e i nten ti o n al co ncepti on o f m ean in g ,whi ch

h as fou n d reflecti o n in Po lish phil o so phical literatu re .

Wh oever wo u ld un derstan d t h e c on cepti o n o f i nten ti o n al

acts,as c o nce ive d by H u sserl ,an d apply it t o t h e pro blem o f

m ean in g ,mu st b ear in m i n d n o t o nl y m eanin gs as ideal objects ,

bu t also t h e entire theory c on cernin g t h e essence o f thin gs an d t h e
direc t see ing o f thi n gs Tru e,t h e concepti on of ep o che ,eidos,
’

an d e ide t ic seeing,fu n d am en t al t o t h e phen om en o l o gical m etho d ,

devel o ped in t h e peri o d that fo ll o we d L ogische Un tersuchungen ,

w here i n t h e the o ry o f m eanin g an d t h e theo ry o f in t en ti o n al acts

were form u l ated ; yet that work already i nclu des ideas that c ame
t o be t h e fo u n d ati o n s o f tho se theo ri es Thi s refers ab o ve all t o
.

t h e id ea o f a direct see in g o f m ean i n g as an id eal entity ,an d

t h e realiz ati o n o f t h e c o nsequ ences resu lti n g therefro m fo r t h e
in tenti on al theo ry o f m ean in g .
 SELECTED PROBLEM S OF SEMANTI CS

his i n tenti on al c oncepti on o f m eani n g) ,with t h e thesis that

w e express cert ain wo rds w e have cert ai n d efin ite d

t o un derst an d th at st ate in su c h an d su ch a w ay .

o f i n ten ti on al act s em b races a thesi s ab o u t S

dispo siti ons co ncern in g t h e

sam e ti me it i n clu des a l ot o f o ther theses, su ch as

in g m an m u st c on sider t o be at least st ran ge,t

taken o ver as part and parcel o f t h e theory o f in tenti on al
Acc o rdin g t o B ren t an o (Hu sserl ad opt s hi s theses) ,t h e

ferences b etween t h e v ari ou s types o f experience consist in

m ann er o f reference o f con sci ou sness t o a cert ain co nten t
’

in t h e m edi aeval scho lastic termi n o lo gy,in their in ten tion .

serl says

In der Wahrn ehm u n g wird etwas wahr gen omm en , I n

der B ildv o rstellun g etwas bildlich v orge st ellt ,in der Au ssage
etwas au sgesagt , in der L i eb e etwas ge liebt ,in H asse etwas geh asst ,
im B egehren etwas b egehrt u sw N ur ein s halten w ir als
.

fii r un s wi chtig im Au ge : d ass eS wesen tli c he S pezifisch e Verschi e

denh eiten der i ntenti on alen B eziehu n g , O der ku rzweg der In
‘
tenti on (die den deskriptiven Gattu n gsch arakter des Aktes ’

‘
au sm ac ht) gibt D ie Wei se , in der ein e blo sse V orstell un g ein es
’
.

‘
S achverh alts diesen ihr en Ge gen st an d m eint ,ist ein e an dere ,
’

als die Weise des U rteils, das den S achverh alt fiir wah r O der falsch
halt 2” 4
.

Thu s,every experi en ce in whi ch there is a reference a re

lati on o f con sci o u sness t o a certain co nten t o r,in o ther wo rds,

t o an i nten ti o n al o bj ect ,is an in ten ti on al act AS w e S hall see,
.

t h e con tent o f co nsci o u sn ess an d t h e i ntenti on al o bj ect are o ne

an d t h e sam e . Th e differen ce in intenti on depen ds o n t h e dif
ference in th at c onten t o r i ntenti on al o bj ec t Bu t let u s n ot su p
.

po se th at w e h ave here t o do with a real relati on b etween con

scio u sness an d o bj ect ,or th at t h e i n t enti o n al act an d t h e int en

t io n al o bj ect are tw o thin gs re ally appeari n g in con sci o u sn ess2 5 .

24 Husserl,Op cit ,pp . . . 36 6—367 .

25 Ib id ,p 37 1
. . .
 THE M E ANI N GS OF M EANI NG

There is oni ntenti onal experience,t h e characteristic trait

ly an

of whi ch con sists j u st in t h e given i ntenti o n .

Je n ach ihrer Spezifisch en Besonderu ng macht sie das

diesen G egenst an d V o rstellen O der das ihn B eu rteilen u sw v oll .

und allei n au s Ist di eses Erlebn i s prasent ,so ist eo ip so

. das
liegt,b et one ich ,an sein em eigenen Wesen die i n tenti onale
‘
Beziehu ng au f ei nen G egenstan d vo llzo g en ,eo ip so ist ein ’

‘ ’
G egenst an d in ten ti o nal gegenw artig ; denn das eine u n d an dere
besagt gen au d asselb e Un d n at ii rlich kan n solch ein Erlebnis
.

im B ew usstsein v orh an den sei n mit dieser seiner I nten ti on ,ohn e

~

dass der Gegenst an d iiberh au pt existiert un d vi elleicht gar

exi sti eren k ann ; der G egenst an d ist gemein t ,d h das ihn M einen . .

ist Erleb nis ; ab er er ist d ann bl oss vermein t u n d in Wahr heit

ni chts 2
”
6 .

H u sserl explains h is idea by w ay o f t h e example o f h ow w e

im agine J o ve J o ve is an in ten ti on al o bj ect o f what I im agine ,
.

but in an alysin g my experience I fin d that obj ec t n either in m en te

n or ex tra m en tem It I s S i mply n ow here ,an d yet t h e im agined
.

pictu re o f J o ve is a t ru e experien ce Bu t t h e m ost interesti n g .

is H u sserl s asserti o n that n o thing c han ges when t h e obj ect o f

’

inten si on d o es exist .

“
Existiert andererseits der i nt en dierte G egenstan d ,so brau ch t
in ph iin o men olo gisch er H insicht ni chts gean dert zu sein Fti r .

das B ewusstsein ist das Gegeb ene ein wesen tli ch G leiches,o b der
vo rgestellte Gegenst an d existiert ,O der ob er fin giert un d viel
lei cht gar w idersinn ig ist J up iter stelle ich n i cht an ders v or als
.

B ismarck, den Babylon is ch en Turm n icht an ders als den Kolner

'

D om ,ein regelmdss iges Tausen deck n i cht an ders als ei nen rege l
mdss igen Tausendflcichn er 27
'
”

A t
s ran ge the ory ,that : it refers t o a re ference o f c o nsc i ou sn ess
to co ntent , and t o an o bj ect o f t h e i nt enti o n al act ,o n ly t o st at e

in th e en d th at n o t o nl y is th ere no o bj ect ,b u t that there canno t

26 I bid .
,pp . 372
- 373 .

2
7 Ibid
,p 37 3
. . .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

be o n e at all ,si nce defin itione

there is o nly an d exclu si
ex

an act o f c on sc i ou sness as an i n tenti o n al act Elsewhere in .

work”,Hu sserl explains that co ntent expressed in

sense is identical with m e anin g an d o bj ect All this is co ns .

clarified by t h e later d evel o pm ent o f hi s t h e o ry I n t h e .

t h e phen o m en o lo gical ep o che th o se j u dgem ents whi c h d o

pert ain t o pu re co nsci o u sness an d thereby to e idos ,t o t h e

sence o f thi n gs ,are su bj ect t o su spensi o n E ide t ic redu c t ion .

pends t h e j u dgem en ts co ncern in g t h e in dividu al e xistence o f

O bj ec t ,and transcenden tal redu c tion g oes still
in g all that is n o t a co rrelate o f pu re consc i ou s
'

as J M Bo ch e rIski c o rrectly rem arks ,there is left o f

. .

o nl y wh at is given t o t h e su bj ect” Th e re al w o rld is t o .

referre d t o pu re c o n sc i o u sness ,an d deprived o f it s in dep

“
ent an d ab so lu t e ch aract er ; it thu s b eco m es onl y an i n tenti
”
o bj e ct ,a con ten t o f co n sc i o u sness .

This is su bj ective idealism o f t h e first water,an d

be at v ari an ce with t h e o bj ective idealism o f H u ss
o f id eal en tities,i n clu di n g m ean i n gs Th at du ality is .

b oth in t h e develo pm ent o f Hu sserl s o w n theo ry ,an d in t h e ’

developm en t o f t h e phen o m eno l o gical sch o o l Fin ally ,w e m ust .

co ncern o urselves with o n e p o i n t m o re : d oes H u sserl so m eh ow

bridge t h e gap between t h e o bj ective idealism o f hi s co ncep

'

ti on o f m eani n g as an ideal entity an d t h e su bj ective idealism o f

h is co ncepti on o f i n t en ti o n al acts? D oes h e fo rm u lat e any u n i
fo rm theory o f m ean i n g ?
Y es,an d n o Y es in t h e sense t h at h e clearly co m bi n es
.

t he t w o co n cepti o ns i n t o a wh o le in a m ann er whi c h I S hall

dem o nstrate bel o w N O in t h e sen se th at t h e inner split in t o

.

o bj ectiv e an d su bj ectiv e ideali sm rem ains,an d b o th con cep

ti o n s are c on nected by a bridge that is very n arro w an d u nsteady
(fro m t h e p oi n t o f Vi ew o f t h e u ni fo rm ity o f t h e theo ry) .

23 I bid .
,p 5 2
. .

29 J . M Boch eII ski,Con te mp orary Europ ean Ph ilo sop hy,Berkeley an d LOS
.
'

An geles 19 5 6 ,pp . 137— 140 .

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

or din ary prec isi on o f th o u ght This is precisely why h e h as b eco

.

o ne o f t h e gre atest i n tellect u al t ro u ble-m akers o f o ur

It is o nl y B ergso n w h o c an v ie with h im in that respect .

d oes th at trou ble-m akin g co n si st of? In propagat

cal,an ti- scient ifi c opi ni o n s I n H u sserl s c ase ,that occ urre d ,
’
.

t o speak ,in t h e fu ll glo ry o f preci si on ,whi c h i n evitably m a

a g reat i m pressi o n on read ers .

M y attitu de that o f a philo sopher w h o ad opts t h e st a

p o in t o f di alecti cal m ateri alism t o H u sserl s phi l o so phy
’

m eani n g ,is self-evident an d u ne qu iv ocal In my o pin i o n .

ideal en tities, eidetic seein g ,eidetic redu cti on ,t

re d ucti o n ,in t en ti o n al ac ts,et c ,are pro du cts o f
.

vi ews,b elated afterm ath o f t h e vari ou s system s

phi losophy Wh y? Fi rst o f all ,b ecau se H u sserl s ideas are in
’
.

clear o pp o siti o n t o t h e re qu i rem ents o f t h e sci en tifi c m eth o d

in thinki n g,which is h o stile t o all ki n ds o f i n tu iti o n s an d de

man ds, am ong o ther thin gs , in ter-su bj ective c om mu ni cability
o f t h e facts u n der i n vestig ati on and t h e p o ssibility o f v erifica

ti on o f t h e resu lts o f research AS I have said ,I do n ot m ain tain

.

that all that is an u nsense,m ere ru bbish cl ad in a gram m ati cal

“ ”
garb N or do I say th at I do n ot u n derst an d what h as b een
.

“ ”
said . M y lib eralism ,as c o m pared with t h e attit u de o f t h e
positivi st s,is du e t o t h e fact that I am m o re sceptical ab ou t
t h e po ssibi lity o f so lvi n g phil o so ph ical co ntro versi es I n hi s .

co nclu di n g lecture o n l o gi c al at o mi sm (a series delivere d in

B ertran d R u ssell reflected o n t h e rel ati on b etween phi lo s
o p h y an d sci en ce O n e perh aps can n o t ag ree with everythi n g
.

R u ssell says,h is assessm ent o f t h e rOle o f phi lo sophy is certainly

t o o pessi m i sti c ,bu t n evertheless hi s o pi n i o n is an i nteresti n g

o n e an d co n t ai ns a lo t o f t ru th .

I believe t h e o nly di fferen ce b etween sci ence an d phi los

o ph y is th at sci en ce is what yo u m o re o r less kn o w an d phi l o s

o ph y is wh at you d o n o t kn o w Phi losophy is that part o f

.

sc i en ce whi c h at presen t peo ple ch o o se t o h ave an o pini o n ab o u t ,

but whi ch they have n o kn o wledge ab o u t Therefo re every ad .

 THE M EANI NGS OF “
MEANI NG
”
24

v ance inkn owledge robs philosophy o f so me pro blems w hic

fi rmerly it h ad An d o f cou rse t h e m om en t they b ecome so lu ble
th ey b ecom e t o a l arge class o f phil osophi cal minds u ni nterest
Big,becau se t o m an y o f t h e peo ple w h o like phil o sophy,t h
charm o f it co nsi st s in t h e S pecu lative freed o m ,in t h e fact t h a

you can play with hyp otheses Y o u can thin k ou t this o r that whi o
.

may be tru e, wh i ch is a very valuable exerci se un til you disco ver w h a

is true ; bu t when you disco ver w hat is true t h e who le fru it fu

play o f fancy in that regi o n is cu rt ailed ,an d yo u will abando

that regi on and pass o n 32
”
.

Th e fact that phi lo sophi cal con t roversi es continu e fo r mil

lenn ia an d th at t h e b asi c st an dpoin ts in th ose cont ro versies h av
survive d m illen ni a ,th e fact that t o thi s day there are discu ssi o ns

like tho se whi ch S chiller so well describ ed in his Xen ien :

Einer, das h o ret m an w o h l,sprich t nach dem an dern .

D o ch ke in er
M it dem an dern ; w er n en n t zw ei M on ologe Gesprach ?

this seems t o co n firm t h e tru th o f at least some o f Ru ssell s

’
all

stat em ent s,seaso n ed as th ey are with bitt er i rony Wh at then .

if I rej ect H u sserl s theory as a pro du ct of im agi nati o n ,if Hu s

’

serl an d his fo ll owers reply with e qu al ap lom b th at it is preci sely

their stan dpoi nt whi ch is scientific and that I am in t h e wron g ?

What if I deman d a sc ien tifi c p ro o f Of t h e existence o f ideal
entiti es,if my o pp on ents addu ce evid ence as a pro o f w hi ch in

their eyes is a m ost scien tifi c one? I can mu l ti ply argum en ts

dem onstratin g that t h e stan dpo in t o f m y o ppone t n s is a n -
ti scien
t ific ; I also can ,if I feel fo rced t o it ,d escrib e thei r o pin i o ns fro m
th e soci o l o gical p o in t o f vi ew an d ascrib e t o th em a d efi nite
functi on in t h e class stru ggle I person ally thin k that all th at is
.

j ustified an d m etho d o lo gically correct But it h as o ne fun d am ent al

.

32 B . R u ssell, Th e Ph ilosoph y of L ogical Ato mism in Th e M onist ,

19 18,qu oted after B R ussell,L ogic
. and Kno wledge,p . 28 1
.
 SELECTED PROBLEM S O F SEMANTI CS

defect : it d oes n ot su ffi ce t o con vince th e opp onen t if

t o his o rigi n al assu m pti o ns And thi s m akes all t h e
.

between phil o sophy on t h e o ne h an d an d suc h sciences

m at ics,chem ist ry o r any o ther experiment al discip
o ther I n t h e exact sc i ences,calcu lu s o r experi men t
.

t leS t h e qu esti o n I n phi l o sophy it is n ot so ; this is

.

t h e hi st o ry o f phil o so phy and t h e presen t S it u ati on in

I do n ot want t o engage in a discu ssi o n as t o why it i

I believe th at thi s fact u ltim ately di scredi
at least on e h as t o ackn o wledge th at st at e

an d d raw appro pri ate conclu si on s . Neither

p na i on s n o r t h e n u m er o u s p o s itiv i m in ded
st -

ph ers wanted t o d raw such con clu si on s An d t h e b as

'

si o n is : t h e adheren t o f a phi l o sophy with whi ch one

n o t a gree m ay n either b e ign o red n or accu sed o f prea

n o n sense .

Wh at then is a philo sopher t o do in su ch a S itu ati o n ? Fi rst

o f all , h e S hou ld t ake co gniz ance o f th e fact th at o pposin g views
do exist Thi s leads t o fu rther c onsequences S ince t h e vi ews with
. .

w hi ch I do n o t agree are ali en t o m e an d even , acco rdi n g t o m y con

v ict io n , d etrim ental t o t h e pro gress o f hu man kn o wledge,I mu st ,

as a phi l o so pher,o ppo se an d fight them Bu t sin ce I o perate in
.

a field in whi c h vi ct o ry m ay be w o n onl by co nv in c in g m y o p

y
ponent by appropri ate argu m en t ati on ,I m u st famili arize my sel f
with hi s o pi ni o ns in order t o be able t o com b at them properly .

All this m akes my vict ory o nly p oss ible ,bu t in n o w ay cert ain .

Bu t in order n ot t o be at a l oss o n that S li ppery g rou n d o f philo

sophi cal pro blem s,where o n e m o ve s in a di f feren t w ay fro m
where one is on t h e firm gro u n d o f t h e exact scien ce ,one thi n g
is necessary : on e mu st re alize n ot on ly that there are di fferent
ways o f s o lvi n g p hil o sophi cal pro blems,bu t also th at these are

difl eren t ways An d if o ne sees an d u n derst ands th o se di fferen ces

.

one mu st clearly realiz e wh ich w a an d to wh ere o n e is g o i n g

y .

From t h e po in t o f view o f a m axim alist ,thi s is cert ai nly n ot m u ch ;

bu t in fact t h e requ i rem en t is n o sm all o ne .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SEMANTI CS

as purs ue d by l o gi ci an s,then a critical di scu ssi on on a bro ade r

theoreti cal b asis is required We shall revert t o th at i ssue when
.

an alysi n g t h e last p o i nt o f ou r li st , in conn ecti o n with t h e the ory

o f m ean i n g b ased o n M arxi st pri nci pl es Fo r it is onl y in su ch
.

a con t ext th at w e sh all b e able t o assess pro perly t h e m erit s an d

d em erits o f t h e concepti on s enum erate d here .

Th e o ther extrem e ,o pposite t o a psych o l o gi cal or m ent alisti c

c o ncepti on o f m eani n g , is t en an t ed by t h e bi ol o gi cal c o n cepti o n ,
o r all th o se v ari ati o ns whi ch co n nec t t h e m eani n g o f a S ign wit h

su c h reacti o ns o ft h e hu m an b o dy as m ani fest th em selves in acti o n .

In t h e light o fthat c oncepti on , meanin g im pli es t h e relati on b etween

t h e S ign an d t h e bi o l ogical reacti on o f t h e hu m an o rg an ism

t o that S ign o r in a soci al i nt erpret ati o n t h e relati on b etween

t h e S ign an d h u m an acti on in a b road sense o f t h e term I f w e ap .

pro ach t h e bi olo gi cal con cepti on from that angle , there are
revealed t h e lin ks whi ch co nnec t t h e Pavl o vi an the ory n o t o nly

w ith pragm atism ,o perati o ni sm ,an d M o rri s s sem i o ti c ,bu t also

’

with cert ain neo -p ositivist ideas .

Th e anti-m ent ali stic ch aracter o f th at c on cepti o n o f m eani n g

is m ost clearly m arke d in t h e case o f P avlo v s refl ex the ory F irst
’
.

o f all,th at the o ry elimin at es t h e catego ry o f m eani n g an d in ter

-S itu ati on
p re t s t h e S ign , an d consequently t h e comm un icati on
process,in term s o f stim uli an d re acti ons Th e S pecific n atu re .

o f hu m an co mm u n ic ati on ,i e , c om m u n i cati o n by m eans o f

. .

a ph o ni c l an gu ag e ,is reduced t o a m ore comp lica ted syst em o f

sti m u li an d reacti on s t o them ; this is achi eve d by t h e i n t ro du cti on

o f an additi on al ,higher level O f sti m u li as S i gn als It w o u l d be .

su perflu ou s t o exp ou n d h ere t h e e lem ent s o f t h e the o ry o f co n

dit ion ed reflexes ; I S hall ab st ain also fro m repeati n g m y reser

“
v at io ns co ncerni n g t h e term S i gn al in general ,an d t h e term
”
sign al o f S ign als in p arti cu lar It will su fli ce t o st at e th at in t h e
.

li ght o f Pavl o v s phy si ol o gi cal theo ry ,t h e category o f m eanin g

’

(in t h e sense ado pted ab ove) disappears,an d t h e rel ati on whi ch

in t h e m entalisti c i nt erpret ati on b ears t h e t raditi onal n am e o f
“ ” “ ”
m eanin g is t ant am o un t t o t h e relati o n b etween t h e S i gn ( Si gnal
 THE M EANINGS OP
“
MEANING ”
24

in P avlo v te rmi n o lo gy) an d t h e reflex asso ci ated with that S ig

’
s

In other w ords,it is claim ed th at what is t raditi on ally callc

“
meani n g is in fact a reflex o f hu m an o rgani sm t o t h e S ig
(S ign al) .

I n h is theo ry ,P avlo v w as n ot c on cern ed with t h e ph i lo soph ic

aspec t o f t h e problem o f m e an in g ,an d co nfi n ed hi m self t o t l

stu dy o f cert ai n S pecifi c phy si o l o gic al reacti on s of hum

o rgani sm N ev ert h eles, h is theo ry h as i mpo rt an t , th ou gh i

.

direct , phi lo so phi cal im plicati o ns These i m plicati ons appe

.

di rectly in those p h ilosop hical tren d s wh ich so lve t h e p ro h le

o f meani n g after t h e fa shi o n o f t h e bi o l o gic al concepti o n .

First o f all,I mean here pragm ati sm N ot pragm ati sm .

interpreted by Jam es,bu t t h e au thentic pragmati sm whi ch o ri

in at es with Pe irce an d then fo ll ows vari ou s c hann els an d c o
bines u n der t h e comm on n am e tenden cies whi ch o ften di ff
very mu ch one from an other ,from radi cal su bj ectivi sm t o opi
i ons which in cert ain po ints com e cl o se t o materi ali sm It is pr _
.

cisely with pragm atism th at is co nnect ed t h e t en d en cy t o war

a behavi o u ri sti c interpret ati o n o f m ean i n g .

When I refer t o solu ti ons after t h e fashi o n o f t h e bi olo gic

co ncepti on ,I h ave n o so rt o f idea o f t aki n g o ver so m e elem en

o f that concepti o n , but refer t o a S im ilarity o f solu ti on s,t o t h e

co n geni ali ty Th is applies o f c ourse t o Peirc e w h o expou n d
.

hi s ideas lon g b efore Pavlo v .

“
In h is article How t o M ake o ur Ideas Clear Pei r
formu lated t h e b asi c c oncepts o f his pragm atism ; they i ncl u d
t h e thesis th at m ean in g is n o thi n g b u t t h e practi cal c o n seq u en

o f th ou ght as m ani feste d in acti o n He says .

Th e whole fun cti on o f t h ou ght is t o pro du ce h abits

acti on To devel op it s thi nkin g s A S ) m ean i n g,
’
. .

have,therefore,S im ply t o determ ine what habits it pro du ce

”
for what a thi n g m ean s is S im ply wh at h abits it i 3
n v o lv es

”
33 “
Ch S Peirce , How to M ake O ur I deas
. . Clear ,in Values in a Un ive r
of Change (S elected Writ ings of Charles S . Peirce ) , S tan ford U n iv e rsi
Press 1958,p . 123
.
 SELECTED PROB LEMS OF SEMANTI CS

And then deshe c onclu

“
It appears ,then ,that t h e ru le fo r attaini n g t h e thi rd gra
o f cl arity o f apprehensi o n is as fo ll o ws : co nsider wh at e

whi ch m ight co nceivably have pr

t h e o bj ec t o f ou r concepti o n t o h ave Then ,o u r concepti o n
.

”
these effects is t h e whole of o u r concepti on o f t h e o bj ect 34 .

That idea Peirce n ext develo ped in t h e articles pu bli shed in

190 5 in The M on is t35 ,in o rder,ab o ve all ,t o pro tect pragm atism
agai nst bei n g v ulg ariz ed by t h e epig o ni Th e idea itself is very .

sim ple : m ean in g am ou n ts t o ef fects m ani fest ed in acti on ,definite

habits o f acti on Effects o f what ? H abits c o nnected with what ?
.

Peirce ex plains in t h e paragraph o n thin kin g Bu t h e un derst o o d .

perfectly well t h e fu ncti on o f t h e S ign in t h e comm u nicati on

o f th ou ghts an d t h e c onnecti o n b etween m ean in g an d S ign Thus , .

w e fin d here t h e id ea whi ch Pavl o v d ev el o p ed l at er o n ,alth ou gh

t h e st artin g po i n t o f i nterests w as qu it e di f feren t in eac h case .

That idea cam e t o rest l ater at t h e ro o t o f t h e vari ou s i nterpreta

ti on s withi n pragm ati sm itsel f,an d at t h e same time exerted in
fluence o n other philo sophi cal t ren ds .

Withi n pragm atism ,t h e t w o extrem e ten denci es concern in g

th at i ssue were represen te d by F C S Schiller o n t h e on e han d ,
. . .

an d by Geo rge H M ead o n t h e o ther

. .

I n 192 0,M ind pu blished m ateri als from a sym posiu m on

m eani n g Th e prin ci pal partic i pan ts in t h e di scu ssi o n were S chil
.

ler,Ru sse ll and J o achi m S chiller ,st arti n g from a pragrn at ist
.

p ositi o n ,ascrib ed a pu re ly su bj ectivist an d v o lu nt aristi c ch aracter

t o t h e the ory that m ean i n g am o u n ts t o ef fects m an ifest ed in
hu m an acti o n .

What if m eani n g be n either an i nherent property o f obj ects

‘
n o r a st ati c rel ati o n b etween o bj ects at all,n o t even b etween
’

t h e o bj ect an d a su bj ect ,bu t essenti ally an ac t ivity o r a t t it ude

taken u p t o wards o bj ects by a su bj ect an d energetically proj ected

34 I bid .
,p 12
. 4 .

35 '

Th ey are t h e articles Wh at Pragmatism I s? ”

an d I ssues of Pragmat
 SELE CTED PROBLEMS OF S EMANTTCS

an d t h e adj u stive respon se o f t h e o ther organi sm is t h e me

”
of the gestu re 41 .

Th e cont en ti ons o f that tren d in pragmati sm whi ch

m eanin g as b ein g effects m ani fested in hum an acti on ,as b
t h e resu lts o f co mm u ni cati n g th ou ghts by m eans o f S ign s,
in h arm ony with t h e t en dencies whi ch in t h e 19 2 0s ’

appeared in Ru ssell s l o gical at omi sm , in l o gi cal em p

’

( neo - ositivi sm
p ), in operati o nism an d in semi o tic All .

tren ds are i nterconn ect ed ,i nfluence one an other,an d

S i mil ar co urses in thei r ap pro aches t o meanin g This refers .

all t o cert ain general c o n clu si o n s from

o f e xperim en t ers (chi efly in t h e case o f

resent at iv es o f t h e n atural an d t h e ex

t iv ism) w h o c om b atte d ,at

o f t raditi o nal phil o so phy An o ther po int is,
.

they su cceeded in that com b at ,an d h ow far they them selves

l aid fou n d ati o ns for a n ew met aphysi cs Y et ,despite all criticism
.

aime d at t h e ph il o so phy co nn ect ed with po sitivism ,it m u st

be said th at its en deav ou rs t o find a practi cal interpret ati on of

m eani ng in dicate d an i m port an t problem .

Operati oni sm is u n d o u bt edly t h e m ost i n teresti n g in that

respect I t s fo u n d er ,B ridgm an ,b ehav es as a physi cist w h o tri es
.

t o expl ain , fo r t h e pu rpo se o f t h e disci pli ne h e represents,cert ain

gen eral theo retic al c ategories,in d o in g whi ch h e t akes i n t o ac
c o un t ab o ve all t h e great rev o lu ti o n efl ect ed in a n u m b er o f

co ncept s by E i nst ein s theo ry o f rel ativity I cann o t say w hether

’
.

there were any co nn ecti o ns an d exchan ge o f id eas b etween Bridg

m an an d t h e Vi en na C ircle ; anyh o w,t h e pro blem s o f m ean ing
an d o f m eani n g ful st atem ent s,whi c h pl ayed suc h an i m p ort an t

rOle in t h e ev o lu ti o n o f n eo -po sitivi sm ,st an d s ou t in fu ll reli ef

pre ci sely in t h e case o f B ridgm an s views Tw o these s are in

’
.

vo lve d here F irst ,that mean in g is e qu al t o t h e sum o f t h e opera

.

ti ons corresp on din g t o a given term ; or,in o ther wo rd s,that t h e

41 Ibid .
,p . 81
.
 THE
“
M EANIN GS OF M EANI NG ”
25 3

me anin g term is t o b e sou ght in what o ne d oes,an d n ot

of a

in what o ne says S econ d ,that a qu esti on h as a m eanin g (in t h e

.

sense that it is sen sible ,an d n ot pu rely v erb al) when on e can

poin t t o t h e operati o ns resu lti n g in an swer t o th at questi on .

These t w o theses are in cl ose harmony with t h e stan dpo i nt o f

Peirce,on t h e on e han d ,an d with th at o f t h e neo -positivists,t o
be discu sed belo w,on t h e other .

B rid gm an writes
“
We evid ently kn ow what w e mean by len gth if w e can tell
what t h e len gth o f any an d every o bj ect is,an d for t h e physicist
no thi n g m ore is re qu i red T 0 fin d t h e len gt h o f an o bj ect ,w e
.

have t o perform cert ai n physical operati ons Th e con cept o f .

len gth is therefore fixed when t h e o perati on s by whi ch len gth

is measu re d are fixed : that is,t h e concept o f length invo lves as
much as an d n o th in g m o re than t h e set o f o perati ons by which
len gth is determined I n general ,w e m ean by any con cept n o thi n g
.

more than a set o f operati ons ; the con cep t is synonymous with
the corresp onding set of op erat ions If t h e concept is phys i cal , .

as o f len gth ,t h e o perati ons are actu al phy si cal o perati o ns,n am ely ,

those by whi ch len gth is measured ; or if t h e c oncept is m ent al,

as o f mathem ati cal c o n ti nu ity ,t h e o perati o ns are ment al o pera

ti on s,namely th o se by whi ch w e d etermin e whether a given ag

t f m g i t d i t i
”
42
g g
re a e o a n u es s c o n n u o u s .

An d further o n h e thu s fo rm u lates hi s ideas :

“
For o f co u rse t h e t ru e m eani n g o f a t erm is t o be foun d by
observi n g wh at a m an d oes with it ,n o t by wh at h e say s ab o u t
”
it 43 .

That concept o f m ean i n g is co nn ected with t h e c oncept o f

‘

meanin g fu ln ess o f st at em en ts,whic h h as played su ch an i mpor

tant rOle in t h e n eo -p ositivist cam pai gn ag ain st met aphysics .

I f a S pecific qu esti o n h as m ean in g ,it m u st b e possib le t o

fin d operati on s by whi ch an an swer may be given t o it I b eli eve
42 P . W Bridgm an ,Th e
. L ogic f M odern
o Physics , N ew York 19 27,

43 I bid 7
. .
p . .
 SELE CTED PROBLEMS OE S EMANTI CS

th at m any o f t h e questi ons asked ab ou t soci al an d ph iloso

su bj ects will be fo u n d t o be m eani n gl ess when ex ami n ed
”
t h e p o i nt o f vi ew o f o perati ons 44 .

Th e qu esti on o f m eanin gfu l an d m eani n gless st at ements

uS t o a cert ai n p o i n t whi c h will en able u s t o u n d erst an d

t h e appro pri ate c on cepti o ns o f t h e neo -positivi sts,n amely

am bigu ity o f t h e ex pressi o n : That st at emen t h as m ean i
I n one c ase,reference is made t o meani n g in t h e traditi onal sense
o f t h e term ,whi ch i m pli es th at a given st at em en t c o nveys som e

c o nt en t t o t h e li st ener o r read er S u ch st at em ent s are c o n t rasted

.

with nonsense,that is suc h se qu ences o f wo rds as in view o f their

disag reemen t with t h e gramm ati cal ru les o f t h e l an gu age i n vo lved
“ ”
H orse by th ou gh seven still ) o r in vi ew o f t h e inc om
prehensibility O f cert ain words
“
Wo ggled diggles are mig
”
gling ) con vey no conten t I n t h e secon d case,t h e po in t in qu esti on
.

is t h e m ean in gfu lness o fsu ch st atements as can be dec ide d u pon

in practice,as c on t raste d with unsense, i e , su ch st atem en ts as
. .

h ave t h e g ram m ati cal form o f sen tences an d are com prehen sible,
but c ann ot be decided u pon in practi ce an d c o nsequ en tly mu st
be reco gni zed as pu rely verb al Thu s,un sense h as a verb al m ean
.

ing (that is,som e sen se) and is n ot a n o nsen se ,bu t b ei n g an

un d ecid able an d unv erifi able st at em en t is d ev o id o f p ractic al

im po rt an ce and c ann ot be considered a S cientific statem ent .

That disti ncti on b etween sen se an d u n sense w as en listed by t h e

n eo-po sitivi sts in their c am paign ag ain st met aphysi cs .

Th e b asi c ideas on m ean in g o f t h e pragm atists an d t h e o pera

t io n ist s are fo u n d in n eo -po sitivi sm t o be o ne o f t h e elem ents
in th at o ft -chan gin g t ren d ,n on -uni form in it s c o ncepti on s .

H ist o rically ,n eo -po sitivi sm (lo gical em piri cism) w as shaped

un d er t h e o v erwhelmi n g i nfl uence o f Ru sse 11s l o gi cal at omi sm ,
’

chi efly th o u gh t h e i n t erm e di ary o f Wittg enstei n C on se qu en tly ,

.

it is d esirable t o begin a presentati on o f t h e neo -positivist vi ews

44 Ib id ,pp 2
. . 8 -30 An interestin g exp osition o f th at stan dp oint is t o be
.

foun d in Op erat ional Philosop hy by Anato l R ap op ort,N ew York 1953 .

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF S EMANTTCS

He [a m an]
‘
derstan ds a word ,becau se h e d o es t h e ri
un
’

‘
thin g S u ch un derst an din g m ay be regarde d as b el on gin g
.
’

t h e n erves an d b rai n ,b ei n g h abits whi ch they h ave

while t h e lan guage w as bein g
sen se m ay be red uced

Bu t in hi s theory o f m eanin g Ru ssell did n ot m ai nt ain a

sist ent ly b ehavi ou rist p o siti o n I n thin ki n g ,verb al S ign s are
.

“ ”
for n arrative pu rposes,an d their fu n cti o n c onsists in descr
im ages ret ain ed by m em o ry o r pro du ced by im aginati on (w e
wou ld say rather : repro du ce d an d pro du ced ideas)
“

“
These t w o ways o f u sin g w ords m ay be spo ken o f t o gether
‘
as t h e u se o f w o rd s in thi n ki n g This w ay o f u sin g word s,S i nce
’
.

it depen ds u pon i m ages,can n ot be fu lly dealt with o n b eh avi ou ri st

lines A nd this is really t h e m o st essenti al fu n cti on o f w ords :
.

that prim arily throu gh their conn ecti on with im ages they brin g
u s in t ouc h with wh at is rem o t e in tim e o r S pace When they .

o perat e with ou t t h e medi u m o f i m ages t hi s seem s t o be a t eles

co ped pro cess Th us th e p ro blem of th e m ean ing of w ords is re

.

”
du ced t o th e p roblem of th e f mean ing o images 43 .

Thu s, in Ru ssell s case ,t h e behavi ou rist in terpret ati on o f

’

m ean in g is acco mpan i ed by a secon d one ,whereby t h e meani n g

o f signs is red u ce d t o i m ages o r repro du ced an d pro du c ed id eas .

While in t h e light o f t h e first co n cepti on m eani n g b elon gs t o t h e

field o f physi o l o gi cal reacti on s o f hu m an o rgani sm ,in t h e li ght
o f t h e seco n d it b elon gs t o t h e sphere o f psy ch ol o gic al ex peri ence .

Y et in b oth cases t h e S ign is li nked w ith m e anin g by t h e b on ds

o f a cau sal rel ati on .

Th e wh o le concepti on ,in n o w ay un i fo rm ,is h o wever dom

in at ed by t h e pragm atist ideas o f li n ki n g m eani n g with acti on
an d o f seeki n g m ean i n g in acti on Repl yi n g t o F C S S chil ler s
’
. . . .

o bj ecti o n s at t h e 19 20sym posiu m ,Ru ssell wro te :

“ ‘
M ean in g,in m y Vi ew ,is a ch aracteristi c o f S ign s ,an d
’

‘
si gns are sen sible (o r im agin al) phen o m en a whi c h cau se acti on s
’

47 I b id .
,pp . 30
0—301 .

43 I bid .
,pp . 30
2-30
3 (italics A .
 THE M EANI NG S OF M EANIN G

appropriat e ,n ot t o them selves,bu t t o somethin g else with whi ch

.

they are associ ated Th e possibility o f acti on with referen ce t o

.

what is n ot sensibly presen t is on e o f t ho se thi n gs that m i ght

”49
be held t o ch aracterize min d
Thi s poi nt is still clearer in t h e case o f Lu dwig Wittgenstei n ,
’
a di sci pl e O f Ru ssell s,w h o act ed as i n t erm edi ary b etween t h e

latter an d contin ent al phi lo so phers ; t h e clarity is t h e greater

if w e t ake int o acc ou nt t h e ev o lu ti on o f his vi ews fro m Tracta tus
L ogico-Ph ilosop h icus t o Ph ilosop hical I nvest iga t ions (th at b o o k ,

pu bli shed posthum ou sly ,presents Wittgen ste in s vi ew s as S haped

’

over a peri o d o f s o m e d o zens o f years) .

In thi s Tra cta tus , h e still represents t h e co ncepti on o f m ean i n g

im ages, alth ou gh even there di fferent tu nes can be heard He .

says for i n st an ce :

3 2 62What d oes n ot get expresse d in t h e Sign is S ho wn by it s

“
.

appli cati on What t h e S igns co nceal ,their appli cati on d eclares 5 0

.
”

In Ph ilosop h ical I n vest iga tions,t h e identifi cati o n o f meani n g

with t h e applicati on o f t h e S ign is already effected con si stently .

Wittgen stein even com es t o t h e con clu si on that in t h e words,

apart from t h e w ay in whi ch they are used,there is n othi n g else

that m ight be called m ean in g5 1 His st an dpo i nt can be redu c ed

. .

t o t h e fo ll o wi n g :
“
43 For a large cl ass o f cases tho u gh n ot for all in
‘
whi ch w e em plo y t h e wo rd m eani n g it can be defined thu s : t h e
’

meani n g o f a w o rd is it s u se in t h e lan gu age 5 2

”
.

Wittgenstei n d o es n ot repeat t h e ideas o f t h e pragm atists

an d t h e b eh avi ou ri st s in S pit e o f t h e fact th at hi s reaso n i n g is

on t h e sam e plan e as the i rs M ean in g is t h e relati on b etween

ishoweverdom .

Si gn and acti o n , bu t an acti on o f a parti cu lar k i n d ,n am ely that

whi ch consists in u sin g t h e S ign in Speech .

49 M ind,O cto ber 19 20,N o 116 ,p 40 . 2 . .

5 0 L W itt en stein Tract at us L o ico - Ph ilosop h icus ,L o ndo n 19 33

.
g , g .

51 L Wittgen stein ,Ph ilosop h ical I n vestigat ions,Oxfo rd 1953,p

. . 3 .

5 2 Ib id . 0
,p 2. .
 SELECTE D PROBLEM S OF SEMAN TI CS

N ow t h e neo -
itivi st co ncepti on of m eani n g b ecom es fu
po s
co m prehensible ag ai n st t h e b ackg ro u n d o f all these vi ews It .

fo r u s a m atter o f sec on d ary i m po rt an ce whether w e h ave

do with con gen i ality o r m erely with an o rdi n ary recepti o n
views o f o ther tren ds an d o ther thinkers We o nly wi sh .

high-light a cert ain st an dpo int ,an d t o S how it s vari ati o n s

ord er t o ext ract wh at is typi cal in them for a co n cepti o n o f t
“ ”
m ean i n g o f m ean in g
Am o n g t h e fo rm er m em b ers o f t h e V i enn a C irc le that pro b
lem w as an alysed by ,in parti cu lar ,M o ritz Schli ck an d R u d ol f
Carnap .

S chli ck i d
ra se t h e pro blem of
'

m ean in g in hi s Allgem eine

E rkenn tn islehre ,an d later v t d t o it in t h e vari o u s arti cles
re er e

an d p apers pu bli she d in t h e c o lle cti o n Gesamm elte Aufsatz e

'

“ ”
I refer in parti cu lar t o his arti cle M eani n g an d Verificat ion 5 3 .

S chlic k s st arti n g p oint ,l ater ad o pte d by t h e V i enn a Ci rcle

’

as a wh o le ,w as th at t h e m ean i n g o f a S ign is t h e sam e as t h e

m etho d o f it s verificati on H ence a t ransiti o n t o t h e concept

.

o f u nsense that is,st atem en ts whi ch have t h e gram m ati cal

fo rm o f a sentence bu t are dev o id of sen se S inc e th ey are u nv eri
fiable S chli ck com bined th at typi cally o perati oni st co ncepti on
.

with t h e View o f Wittgen stein (t o wh o m h e referred exp ress is

verbis) th at t h e m eani n gs o f e xpressi o ns are m an i feste d in t h e w ay

in whi ch they are u sed in speech That c om bin ati o n o f th e t w o

.

“
c o ncepti o n s appears m o st clearly in t h e arti c le M eanin g an d
V erificati on m en ti on ed ab o ve .

“ ‘
Thu s,whenever w e ask c oncern in g a sen tence, What d o es
it what w e expect is i nstru cti o n as t o t h e cir cum st ances
in whi ch th at sentence is t o be u se d S t atin g t h e meani n g o f
a sen t ence am ou nts t o st atin g t h e ru les acc ordi n g t o whi c h t h e

senten ce is t o be u sed , an d thi s is t h e sam e as st atin g t h e w ay in

whi ch it can be Verified (o r falsified) The meaning of a p rop os i

.

”
t ion is the m e tho d of its ver i fi ca t ion 5 4

53 Fir st p ublish ed in Ph ilosop h ical Revie w ,Vo l 44 ,1936. .

54 In M S ch lick,Gesa mm e lt e Auflsdtze,19 2
. 6 —1936 ,V ienn a 19 38 ,p 340. .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

i t o M o rri s s views ,it is n ecessary t o m ake a cle

’
In referr n g

di stin cti o n b etwee n t h e o pini o ns con taine d in hi s Foundat io

of th e Th eor of S igns 5 6 an d th o se fo rm u l at ed l at er o n in h is b
y
S igns,L anguage and Behaviour In m y o pi n i on ,hi s e arli er .

more m o dest w ork is much better than his system as developed

in that b o o k I n Foundat ions ,M orris sets fort h a reas
.

c ept io n o f m eani n g Stressi n g .

firml y o pposes all Plat on izin g i nterpret ati o ns In .

with his co ncepti o n ,meanin g is a term that belo n gs

“ ”
p ro ce ss o f sem i o si s ( S ign -S ituati o n in other t erm in ol
That term b ecom es com prehensible o n ly in t h e co n text o f such
pro cess an d t h e t erms related t o t h e latt er c oncept .

“
Nothi n g is i n t rin si cally a S ign or a S ign vehicle ,bu t becom es
su ch o nly is so far as it permits som ethin g t o t ake acco u n t o f .

so m et hi n g throu gh it s m edi ati on M eani n gs are n ot t o be l ocated .

as existen ces at any pl ace in t h e p rocess o f sem i o si s bu t are t o be

‘
c h aracteriz e d in t erm s o f this pro cess as a wh o le
’
M eani n g .

is a semi oti cal term and a term in t h e t hi n g-lan gu age ; t o say that
there are mean in gs in n ature is n o t t o affirm that there is a cl ass
o f en titi es o n a par with t rees,ro cks,o rgan ism s,and c o l ou rs,

bu t th at such o bj ects and properties fu ncti o n within processes

”
o f semi osis 5 7 .

Th e aspect is qu ite di fferen t when it com es t o M orris s fun

’

dam ent al w o rk on S i gns m arked by vast c laim s and i nsigni

‘

ficant resu lts I fully agree with t h e critic ism o f it s ideas as made
.

by M ax B lack 5 8 an d J K ot arbirrska 59
’

. .

M o rri s w an te d t o h an dle t h e pro blem o f t h e S ign from t h e

beh avi o urist po i n t o f vi ew ,and therefo re postul ate d a c o mplete
“
renu nci ati o n o f t h e c at e g ory o f m ean i n g

56 I n I n ternat ional E ncyclop edia o f Unified S cience,Vol . 1,N O . 2,Un i

v ersity of Ch ic ago Press,1938 .

57 I bid
,p 45 . . .

58 M Black, Th e S em iotic
. of Ch arles M orris in M . Black ,Language
and Ph ilosop hy,N ew York 1949 .

59 J . K otarb inska, Pojec ie

“
zn aku
”
[ Th e Co nce pt Of S ign] ,in S t udio
L ogica,19 57 ,V o l . 6 ,p p . 57—133 .
 THE M EANINGS O F M EANING

‘
term mean in g is n ot here i nclu ded am ong t h e b asi c
’
Th e
te rms o f sem i o tic Thi s term ,u seful en ou gh at t h e level o f every
.

day an alysis,d oes n ot h ave t h e precisi on necessary for sci entific

analysi s Accou n ts o f mean i n g u su ally thr ow a h an dfu l o f pu tty
.

at t h e t arget o f S ign ph en o m en a,while a techn i cal semi o ti c m u st

‘
p ro vid e u s with w o rd s whi ch are sharpened arrows M eani n g .
’

signifies any an d all ph ases o f S ign-processes (t h e st atu s o f b ei n g

a S i gn, t h e int erpret ant ,t h e fact o f d en o tin g,t h e signi ficat u m) ,

'

an d frequ ently su ggest s m en t al an d valu ati o n al processe s as wel l ;

hence it is d esirable fo r semi o tic t o dispense with t h e term an d

t o i nt ro du ce Speci al term s fo r t h e vari o u s fact ors whi ch m eani n g
fails t o di scrimi nate 6 0
”
.

Th e dec larati on is reason able Bu t t h e execu ti on ? One h as t o

.

agree with B l ack th at n o thi n g remains o f th at strid ent ann ou nce

ment except t h e declarati on itsel f M orris replaces t h e term .

“ ” “
meanin g by t h e term S ignificat u m (in d o in g which h e av ails
hi m self of t h e fact that in En glish there are t w o syn onym ou s
“ ” ”
words, t o mean an d t o sign ify ) as bein g t he equ ivalent o f
t h e c on diti o n s u n d er which a S i gn den otes so methi n g 6 1; an d then
“
di stin gu ish es between t h e i n dividu al vari ati ons o f that Sign i
”
ficat u m accordi n g t o t h e dispositi on s o f t h e hum an organ ism
t o react in defin ite ways t o preparat o ry sti m u li .

It is time to su m u p what been sa id so far an d to draw m ore

general c o nclu s o ns
i .

To avo id misu n derst an din gs,I mu st em phasize o nce m ore

that my so le o bj ect h as b een t o S how a certain typ e o f so lu ti o n
o f t h e pr o blem o f meani n g C o nse quently ,I do n ot cl aim th at
.

t h e views d escrib ed here b el o n g t o o ne an d t h e sam e phi l oso phi cal

tren d ; o n t h e contrary ,there are sometim es co nsiderable dif
lam
B ,
k
c r
iae
g ferences b etween them N o r do I cl aim that t h e theory o f m ean in g
.

6 0 Ch B eha vior,N ew York 1946 ,p 19

. M orris,S igns ,L anguage and .

61 I bid .
,p . 18 .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS O F SEM AN TTC S

is characteri stic o f su ch t ren ds ; o n t h e co ntrary ,it is so m etim es

o pp o siti on t o o ther theo ries withi n t h e sam e syst em (as in

case o f n eo - positivism) I o nly mai nt ai n th at there is a

.

type of solu ti on o f t h e pro blem o f mean in g which is

t o vari ou s phil o so phi cal sch o o ls an d t ren ds .

That so lu ti on w as b orn o f oppositi on t o m etaphysical

c ept s o f t h e H u sserli an type,where m ean in g is t ran sfo rm ed

a so rt o f ideal entity ,o r ag ain st m ent alist i

c oncept s,whi ch l ocat e m eanin g in m an s spir

’

e x cl u sively t o psyc h o l o gical categ o ri es Such

.

by t h e con cept o f meani n g as a specific

an d cert ai n reflexes o f o rg anism ,o r a consc i ou s reacti on in

form o f a definite acti on ev o ked by t h e given S ign Thu s,in .

“
li ght o f that co n cepti on , m eanin g m eans t h e e qu iv alen t
a re l ati o n b etween t h e S ign an d t h e reacti o n it ev o kes ,o r,m

bri efly bu t with less prec isi on ,o f t h e acti on evo ked by t h e S i gn .

Psyc ho l o gical categ ori es are here replaced by categories o f o bj ect

iv e b eh avi o u r,t h e acti o n o f hu m an organi sm ,an d in this w ay w e
ac qu i re o bj ectiv e d at a whi ch en abl e u s t o defin e m ean in gs an d

di fferenti ate b etween them ,data whi ch can be o b served i nter

su bj ectively.

How is that concepti on t o be evalu ated ?

It h as tw o u n questi o n able virtu es First ,t h e oppositi on t o
.

Pl at oni zin g met aphysics an d idealistic m ent ali sm gives ri se t o

a t en den cy t o i nterpret m eani n g as a relati o n s u i gener is S ec on d ,
.

t h e same sou rce gives ri se t o a t en den cy t o i n terpret meanin g

in term s o f o bj ective reacti on s o f organi sm o r c onsci o u s acti on .

Y et it also h as o bvi ou s S h ortco m in gs First o f all,these t h e

.

o ries wh i ch take as thei r fo un d ati on t h e rel ati o n b etween S ign

an d acti on , ten d ,at least t o some extent ,t o fetishize t h e S ign ,as

i n di cate d ab ove I n o ther words,they fail t o n otice that m ean
“

in g is ab o ve all a so ci al rel ati on b etween m en w h o act

an d w h o c omm u ni cat e with o n e an o ther Next ,while dev el o pi n g
.

o u t o f an o ppositi o n t o a o ne-sided i nt erpret ati on o f m ean in g ,

they fall i n t o t h e other ext rem e : t h ey S im pli fy th e pro blem in t h e

 26 4 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF S EM ANTTC S

co m mi t an erro r an d be mi st aken in hi s an alysis,but also b eca

difl erent peo ple,in i g
us n th e sam e m eth o d an d st arti n g fro m

sam e the oretical

differen t ,an d even in some respects Con tradict o ry ,c
Th e resu lts o f research an d t h e c on clu si ons drawn fro
are determi ned n ot o nl y by t h e m eth o d o l o gi cal an d

assum pti o n s m ade ,bu t also by kn owledge c o ncerni n g

lem i n v olved , general kn o wledge whi ch form s t h e ba

o f t h e pro blem u n der i nv estigati on ,i ndi vidu al t alen t for
creative i n ven tiven ess,et c Be th at as it may,
. from th e
t w o perso ns ad o pt s
in the sam e manner,
say t h e same th ing,that is,c om e t o identical re
Thi s refers in part icul ar t o su ch diflicult ,in tricate
c o ntro versi al i ssues as is t h e pro blem o f m eani n g C o n se quen tly ,.

by declarin g th at I wan t t o expou n d t h e M arxist po in t o f view

o n th at i ssu e I wish t o say on ly t hi s that I st art from M arxi st
assu m pti on s I d o n ot in any wi se cl aim th at wh at I S h all say wil l
.

“
be au thenti c M arxism an d that every M arxist at v ari an ce with
me on that su bj ect S h ou ld be an athem atized I fin d it t h e m ore .

necessary t o stress that po in t b ecau se t h e lit erature o f t h e su bj ect

b ased on M arxi st princi ples (prim arily theoreti cal lin gu istic
stu di es,S i n ce M arxi st phil o so phi cal stu dies on lan gu age ,an d in

parti cu lar on meanin g an d t h e the ory o f Signs,are very scan ty)

d oes n ot i nclu de a S in gle it em whic h I wou ld fully en d o rse and on
th e o ther h an d i nclu des item s from whi ch I S h o ul d l ike vig oro u sly
t o disso ci ate mysel f H ence,I have t o ad m it th at t h e pro blem
.

is con troversi al an d t o present my ow n View as o ne o f t h e p os

sible so lu ti ons .

A . M ean ing as a rela tion bet ween m en wh o comm un ica te w ith

one ano th er

I h ave o ften repeated t h e thesi s that all effec tive an alysi s

of t h e S igns an d m ean i n g S h o u ld st art fro m an analysi s o f t h e
 THE M EANI NGS OF
“
M EANI NG ”
26 5

soc a i l pro cess o f co mmu nicati o n or,in o ther words o f S i gn

S itu ati o n. C onsequen tly , I shall b egin from that po in t .

Th e pro blem o f meanin g appears wherever w e h ave t o do with

S igns in t h e process o f hu m an c omm u ni cati on I n t his sense,
.

meanin g is a definite relati o n between men w h o co m m uni cate

“
with one an o ther It is that meani n g o f meanin g with which
.

w e are co ncerned n ow ; o ther m eani n gs o f that term are o u tside

t h e scope o f ou r in terest .

What is mean t when w e say that meani n g is a defini te so ci al

'

relati on ? Thi s mean s m o re or less : som eo ne wants t o i ncit e

so m e one else t o acti o n , t o i nfo rm hi m ab ou t his th ou ghts,feel

i n gs,etc ,an d with that en d in view reso rts t o a S ign
. a gest u re ,

a w o rd ,an i m age ,et c I f t h e i nten de d ef

. fect h as b een achieved ,
i e ,if th e appropri ate th ou ghts have in fact b een conveyed
. .

t o t h e o ther party (as can be i n ferre d fro m t h e reply o r o ther

behavi ou r o f that o ther party),then w e say that t h e meani n g of
t h e S ign h as b een u n derst o o d by t h e he arer Wh at w e call meani n g
.

appears where a co m pli cated so ci al process t akes pl ac e, a pro cess

whic h w e have referred t o ab ove in analysin g t h e c oncept of

S ign- S itu ati on Th e foll owin g elements are in di spensable for
.

t h e o ccurren ce o f that pro cess : ( 1) t w o person s (cl asses o f per

sons) w h o c o m m u ni cat e with o ne an other,that is,w h o t hi n k ;

(2 ) that som ethi n g t o whic h t h e S ign refers ; (3) t h e S i gn by means

o f whi ch th o u ghts are co nveyed Bu t m at eri al o bj ect s o r even t s
.

beco m e signs onl y when they en ter in t o definite intric ate relati ons
with men w h o u se them as signs ; with reality t o whi ch they
are so meh o w referre d (as n am es, pictures, with t h e system
o f signs,i e ,l an gu age ,withi n whi c h they fu n cti on
. . It is onl y .

in su ch a con text that an o bj ect or even t b ecom es a S ign or,in

o ther w o rds,h as a meani n g Thu s,if w e do ,
.

, n o t b eli eve in t h e

mysticism o f i n heren t m eani n gs m ean i n gs as ideal entiti es,in

whi ch their m ateri al vehi cles partici pate, then w e have t o
“
adm it th at for all t h e am bi gu ity o f t h e t erm meanin g (even in
th e n arro wer sen se o f t h e w o rd ,with whi ch w e are c oncern ed
here),it is always a certain system of social relations which is
 SELECTE D PROBLEM S OF SEMANTI CS

i nv o lved S imilarly ,hu m an co gniti on is a soci al relati on ,S i

.

it is rel ati o n between t h e c o gnizin g su bj ect (bu t S haped by

in so ciety) and t h e obj ect o f co gniti on ; what
( in t h e th e o ry o f c o gn iti o n) ,
.et c Th e questi o n practicall y c

in a b etter appreci ati on o f wha t relati on it is whi ch is called

in g,o r what system of rela tions .

There are S pec ific rel ati on s between all t h e elements

S ign- S it u ati o n : between t h e men w h o

an o ther ; b etween m en and re ality ; b

between S igns an d reality ; between S igns

t ain system
as it were ,

plane an d
is alway s hum an comm un icat ion whi c h
It is always in that context that t h e sign-situ ati on ,t h e S ign an d
m eanin g are c om prehensible Th e separati on o f a fragmen t
.

o f su c h rel ati on s (t h e rel ati on b etween t h e S ign an d it s d esign atu m ;

t h e rel ati o n b etween S ign s ; t h e relati on b etween t h e pro ducer

o f sign s and t h e sign s,et c ) m ay be necessary fo r researc h pu r
.

poses an d is o f c ourse permi ssible ; bu t it is n ot perm issible t o

treat su ch a fragment as an i n depen den t who le,S ince this i n v olves,
“ ”
as w e h av e seen ab o v e,t h e d an ger o f v ari o u s fetishi sm s
.

Thu s,m ean i n g is,first ,a relati on or a system o f relati on s

between men o n t h e psycholo gi cal plane We m ay also refer t o
.

a psy ch ol o gi cal aspect o f meanin g ,n am ely t h e relati o n be tween

m en w h o act an d feel ,an d w h o c om mu ni cat e with o ne an o ther,

that is comprehen din gly c onvey t o o n e an o ther their thou ghts
whi ch refer t o som e reali ty in t h e bro adest sense o f t h e term .

A clo ser explan ati on o f t h e sense o f that relati on ,an d an an aly si s

o f it s elem ent s,w o u ld re qu ire v o lu mes . For vi rtu all y each o f
these elemen ts c o u ld be t h e su bj ect m atter o f a separate m on o
graph : b egi n n in g with t h e issu e o f a soc ial in dividu al , . ie ,
. a hu m an

i n divid u al S haped in so ci ety ,who se every step,b oth as regards

acti o n an d th ou ght ,is at o nc e i n divid u al an d so ci al ; throu gh

t h e pr o b lem of reality as t h e su bj ec t o f c o gniti o n an d c om mun i

 SELECTED PROB LEMS OF SEMAN TTCS

To treat meani n g as defin ite in terhu m an relati on s (which,in

my opini on ,is extremely import an t for a correct an alysis o f t h e
c o m pli cated i ssu e) in n o w ay pro t ects u s again st t h e am bigu ity

o f t h e term Fo r,
. st artin g fro m th at the oretical assu mpti o n ,one
“
m ay by meani n g u n derstan d either t h e wh o le of t h e relati ons
wh i ch make u p t h e S ign-situ ati on (t h e process o f semi osis),
o r a fragm en t o f th o se rel ati o ns (t h e rel ati o n b etween t h e sigm
?
a

o n t h e o ne h an d an d t h e o bj ect or t h e th o u ght ab o u t t h e o bj ect o n

t h e o ther) ,o r t h e d e sign atu m o r t h e den o t atu m o f t h e S ign

an o bj ect o f c o m m u nic ati o n regardless o f whether it actu ally

exi sts o r n o t , o r su ch an o bj ect existi n g in reality),o r t h e rel ati o n

between t h e S i gn and t h e system o f S igns (langu age) o r b etween

t h e S ign an d t h e S igns o r an other l an gu age,etc I n t h e literatu re
.

”
o f t h e su bj e ct all these m e ani n gs o f me ani n g appear in m ore

o r less pure fo rm .I n our an alysis,t o o ,w e mi ght draw att en

ti o n t o an am bigu ou s— in thi s sense of t h e w ord— u se of
“ ”
t h e term m e an i n g There is n othin g detrimental in it ,t h e m ore
.

s o S i n ce w e are he re c oncern ed n ot with a ped anti c dist inc

“ ”
ti o n between t h e vari ou s shades o f t h e meanin g o f m eani n g ,
bu t rather with a the oretical View o f t h e fou n d ati on on whi c h all
these m eani n gs rest N ow ,t o explain that aspect o f t h e pro blem
.

re qu ir es t h e ad o pti o n o fso me defin ite st an dp o int on t h e i ssu e o ft h e

o rigin o f me an in g ,th at is ,t h e o rigin o f th at S pecific property

whi ch transfo rms m ateri al O bj ects and events int o S igns,turn in g

these o bj ects and events i nt o extrem ely i mport an t in termedi aries
in t h e comm u n icati o n o f m en am ong th emselves and if it m ay
be S O expressed w ith th emselves (S i nce a ment al m o n o lo gu e

is bu t a form of a di alo gue) .

B . Th e or igin f meaning
o

Th e pro blem of th e i gin

or of m eanin g ,of t h e fact ors con

tribu tin g t o that o rigi n ,is imp ort ant n ot o n ly for t h e explan ati on
o f t h e thesi s th at m eanin g is a d efin ite so ci al rel ati on ; it is e qu ally

i m po rt an t for a pro per i nterpretati on an d so lu ti o n o f t h e very

di ffi cult i ssu e of t h e relati on between m eani n g an d n oti on .
 THE
“
M EANIN GS OF M EANING ”
26 9

Thi s reveals t h e third plane on whic h t h e pro blem o f m ean in g

is t o be exami ned ,nam ely t h e l o gical pl ane I n thi s c onn ec ti o n
.

I m ust emphasize that b o th t h e ab o ve appro ach t o t h e problem

an d my fu rther expl an ati o ns o f t h e o rigi n o f m eani n g d evi at e

considerably from cu st o m s prevaili n g am on g lo gi ci ans Objec .

ti ons whi ch mi ght possibly be rai sed o n that sc ore wou ld n ot be

j u stified ,since a one-S ided fo rmal lo gical analysis of su ch pro blems
as that o f m eani n g is c ert ai nly detrim en t al t o t h e i ssu e at st ake .

This is testified by su ch au thorities fu lly rec o gnized in l o gic ci rcles

as Ru ssell an d Wittgenstein .

In hi s well-kn o wn w ork pu blishe d in 19 19 , On Pro positi o n s

rb
o etw
ee
n What They Are an d Ho w They M ean , Ru ssell thu s assessed
t h e con tribu ti o n o f l o gici an s t o t h e an alysis o f m eani n g :
“
Lo gic i ans,so far as I kn o w ,h ave d one very little t o wards
‘
expl ain in g t h e n atu re o f t h e rel ati o n c alle d m eani n g ,n o r are
’

they t o blame in thi s,since t h e problem is essenti ally o n e fo r

syc h l gy ”
52
p o o .

M any years later ,when his li fe w as already drawi n g t o a cl o se ,

Wittgenstein wrote :
“
23 It is interestin g t o c o mpare t h e m u ltipli city o f t h e t o o ls
in lan gu age and o f t h e ways they are u sed ,t h e mu ltipli city o f
kin ds o f word and sentence,with what lo gic i ans have said ab ou t
t h e stru ctu re o f lan gu age (inclu din g t h e au th o r o f t h e Trac ta tus
.

Logico
What these t w o statem en ts have in c om m on is t h e u n der
st an din g o f t h e fact that t h e appro ach t o t h e pro blem s o f l an guag e,

m eani n g ,etc ,exclu sively from t h e p o int o f view of fo rmal lo gic ,

.

i mpoverishes t h e entire issu e Anyh o w it mu st be said that a pro

.

test against psycho l o gism m ay n ot lead t o separatin g t h e issu es

o f m en s psychi c li fe fro m psych o lo gy Far less m ay it lead t o
’
.

a sep arati on o f i ssues o f so ci al li fe fro m that li fe an d it s m an ifes

t at ion s in hu m an act i o n .

6 2 In B R ussell,L ogic
. and Kno wledge ,p . 90
2.

53 L . Witt gen stein ,Ph ilosop hical In vest igat ions,p . 12

.
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF S EM ANTICS

In as ki n g ab ou t t h e origin o f meanin g,w e ask ab o u t th e

o rigin o f th o se i n t erhu m an rel ati o ns whi ch appear in t h e c o m

m u nic at ion process,w e ask h o w it happen s th at m ateri al o bj ect s

and even t s perform t h e fu ncti o n o f vehi cl es o f hu m an th ou ght s,

em o ti o ns,et c This is p ar excellen ce a psych o l o gi c al and epist e

.

m ological questi on ; it is in princ iple outside t h e sphere o f i nterest

o f t h e l o gici an s w h o either abstract from t h e probl em o f m eani n g

o r t ake it as given Bu t h o w can o ne d evel o p t h e theo ry o f t h e

.

sign with ou t first answeri ng t h e qu esti on ,wh at are S i gn an d

m eaning? An d in tu rn ,h ow can on e an swer that qu esti on with

ou t first i n vestig atin g th e or igin o f S ign and m ean in g ,that is

withou t t acklin g problem s bel on gin g t o epi stem ol o gy ,psycho l o gy

an d so ci olo gy ? O f c ou rse,n ot ev ery di sc i plin e c o nc erned with

si gns an d m eanin gs mu st h an dle these pro blem s in all their aspects ,

but n o di sc ipline,in clu di n g fo rm al l o gic ,m ay aspire t o a fu ll

c omprehensi o n o f su ch pro blem s if it passes o ver in S ilence t h e

fu n d am en t al questi ons .

I n reply t o t h e qu esti o n posed ab o ve (what are S ign an d m ean

in g?) it m u st be made clear that t h e origin o f m eanin g is c onnected
with t h e soci al practical activity o f men ,as shaped in hi sto ry,
activity an in separable part o f whic h is t h e pro cess o f thi n kin g .

Let u s recall here that in conformity with what h as b een

said in t h e precedin g c hapter con cernin g t h e rel ati on of the

verb al S i gn t o o ther types o f S igns when I refer S imply t o

m eani n g I have in min d t h e m eani n g o f t h e pho ni c l an guage
an d o f t h e verb al S igns, whereas t h e meanin gs o f other S i gns are
treated as d erivative with respec t t o signs o f t h e ph onic langu age,
as specific t ransl ati o ns o f t h e l att er In vi ew o f t h e in separable,
.

o rg anic lin ks b etween l an gu age an d thin kin g ,t h e questi on as

t o t h e o rigi n o f meanin g is i ntim ately c onn ect ed w ith t h e ques

ti on as t o t h e origin o f hu m an tho u ght processes But then that

.

qu esti on lets in all th e i ssu es o f epistem o lo gy an d t h e related

aspec ts o f so ci al li fe H ere again I mu st regret that I S h all n o t be
.

able t o rai se all t h e i ssu es i nv o lved by t h e pro blem w e are in terest

e d in , bu t S h all h ave t o c onfine m yself t o t h e principal o nes

.
 SELEC TED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

c o ncern e d with imple,one-directi on al relati on ,fo r m eani n g

any s

is in a sen se a pro du ct o f t h e co gni tive process o f refl ecti on in t h e

hu m an min d o ft h e o bj ect t o whi ch t h e S ign refers Bu t at t h e sam e .

time it is an elem ent ,an d even an i n stru m ent ,o f that process,S ince
witho u t t h e S ign there is n ot on ly n o co mm un icati on ,but n o
p ro c e ss o f thi n ki n g an d c o gn iti o n in gen er al (in parti cul ar,becau se
withou t t h e S ign ,an d especi ally t h e verb al S ign ,it is i m possible
t o att ai n t o that level o f generaliz ati on an d ab st racti on whi ch
is n ecessary for thi n kin g i n term s o f ideas) .

Thu s at t h e ro o t o f t h e origin o f meani n g there is t h e sam e

f lizi g fl ti f lity 64 as in t h e case
p r o ce ss o a g en e r a n re ec o n o rea , .

o f thinki n g in t erm s o f ideas AS in t h e case o f t h e co gn itive

“

p r oc es s,t h e p ro ce s s o f reflecti o n , t h e practi cal experi ence o f hu m an

so ci al hi st o ry rests at t h e roo t o f t h e o rigin o f m eani n g .

M an ac qu ires kn owledge o f reali ty by infl uen cin g an d t rans

’

form in g it Thi s thesis,whi c h is t h e prin cipal assu mpti o n o f

.

M arxist epistem olo gy ,m ay appear t rivi al Bu t let u s b ear in min d .

-

that if w e accept it ,then that i mpli es t h e reco gniti on o f at least

“ ”
t w o su ch phi l osophi cal t rifles as t h e exi sten ce o f m ateri al reality

an d t h e reflecti o n o f th at reali ty in hu m an co n sci ou sness These .

are theses whi ch are i n fre qu en tly t o b e m et with in con tem p orary

philosophy Fr om t h e p o i n t o fVi ew o f M arxist phi lo sophy ,

. it is an
un con t est able fact th at practic al experi enc e is at t h e ro o t o f t h e

process o f hu m an c o gniti o n ,in t h e sense o f it s o rigin ,it s g o al ,

an d t h e crit eri o n o f it s t ru th alike C o nse quen tly , . that phil o sophy
ac qu ire s a n ew vi ewp o i nt on t h e o rigi n o f t h e m ean i n g o f S ign s

(verb al S igns ab o ve all) and discovers a new aspect o f su ch origin ,

64 Wh en w e h av e t o do w ith a n am e o f an emp ty class,th at is a name th at

h as a design atu m ,bu t no real den otat um ,e g , w h en reference is m ade t o
. .

su ch im aginary j t
o b ec s as fau n s,dev ils,cen taurs,etc ,or t o ab stract pro .

p erties,su ch as h ero ism ,h ere to o th ere is a reflec tion ty,alth ou gh

o f re ali

in in direct w ay I deas
an . of im agin ary j
o b ect s co n sis t o f fragmen ts o f reality ,
an d abstract pro perties are re flec tion s of p rop ertie s,rela ion s, atti t tu des,
beh av iour,etc .
,th at are co m m o n t
t o e lem en s o f a set o f Obj ects,i e , in di
. .

v idu al m ate rial j

o b ec ts (see pp . 219
 THE MEANI NGS O F M EANI NG
“ ”
273

soc a i l con diti o ns in t h e fo rm of co gnitive an d sem anti c

are b ased o n hu m an soci al practic e and,c on diti oned

by that practice in a mu lti ple m ann er,d ev el op o n it s b asis .

When practice i n tervenes in sem antic rel ati ons,it is accom

pani ed by t h e hi st o rical elem ent as o ne o f t h e i m port an t fact o rs
o f t h e o rigi n o f th o se rel ati on s . We are here concern ed with
a pro blem whi ch is perfectly well kn o wn t o li n gui sts an d anthr o

p o lo gis t s w h o stu dy lin g u i stic meani n g I f m eanin g is genetically

.

con diti o ned by s oci al practi ce ,then hi st ori cal ch an ges in th at

practice m u st have repercu ssi ons in t h e field o f sem antic relati on s

which it co n diti on s This is confirmed by lin gu istic sem asi o l o gi cal
.

stu dies whi c h o ften b ase o n thi s fact their hypo theses concern in g

th e ev o lu ti on o f li n gu i stic m eani ngs (thi s is especi ally t rue o f t h e

soci o l o gi cally— minded tren ds,su ch as M eillet s scho ol) Thi s is
’
.

also a n atural expl an ati on o f t h e the si s co ncerni ng t h e n ati on al

specific features o f l an gu ages, whi ch refers ab o ve all t o thei r

sem an ti c aspect in t h e b road ,li n gui sti c sen se o f t h e term .

Only su ch a gen etic appro ach t o t h e problem o f m eani n g,

whi ch en ables u s t o i n terpret it as S pecific i nterhum an relati on s
givin g rise t o th e reflecti on of t h e o bj ective reali ty in human
min ds,con diti oned by practical hu m an activity ,makes it pos
sible t o so lve t h e qu esti on o f t h e arbitrary n ature of t h e S ig n an d

o f c onven ti on ali sm in li n gu i sti c m atters Th e questi on is in terest

.

in g n ot onl y fro m t h e lin gu i stic bu t also fro m t h e philo sophical

point o f View (Th e l att er i ssu e,whi ch h as wrou ght so m u ch
.

havoc in phi l osophy this refers ab ove all t o neo -p ositivi sm

bro adly un dersto o d pr o v e s m o st t elli n gly th at t h e geneti c

aspect m ay not be disregarde d in pro blem s o f m eani n g) .

Attenti on w as directed in t h e previ ou s chapter t o t h e pro blem

’
of t h e arbitrary n atu re o f t h e S ign D e S au ssure s thesi s that there
.

is n o n atu ral lin k b etween t h e lin gu i stic S ign (in clu din g it s sem an
t ic aspect) an d t h e reality t o whi ch th at S ign refers, is,as w e kn o w,

in conformity with t h e phil osophi cal st an dpoin t kn o wn since

t h e tim es o f Pl at o . Th at stan dpo int w as su pported exp ressis
verbis by M arx when h e wro t e in Cap ital in connecti o n with t h e
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTICS

ana lysis of v alu e : Th e n am e o f a thi n g

thin g di stinctis so m e
”
from t h e o f th at thi n g 6 5 But that co n cept h as
qu aliti es .

n othi n g in comm o n with t h e vi ew that lan guage is a game

with ru les fixe d by con venti on , an d co nsequently som ethi n g

that m ay be chan ged in an arbitrary fashi on (reference is here
m ade t o n atural lan gu ages) Thi s is u n derst o o d by li n guists
.

as well as by s oci o l o gi sts an d psyc h o l o gi st s w h o are i nterested

in t h e stu dy o f l an gu age problem s I S h all refer here t o t h e opi ni on

.

o f t h e S ovi et psych o l o gist who se j u dgem ent in these m att ers

I ho ld in very high esteem ,n am ely S L R ubinsh t ein . .

Si gn is fixe d arbitrarily ,t h e w ord h as it s o wn hi st o ry ,o win g t o

”
whic h it lives it s ow n li fe,i n depen dently of u s 66 D e S au ssu re , .

as a li n gu i st w h o w as i ntereste d in t h e stu dy o f actu al so ci al

co nditi ons,also m ade an expli cit reserv ati o n agai nst i n terpret

ing his opin i ons in t h e S pi rit o f conventi on alism S u ch an i nt er .

p ret at io n h ad it s say o nl y as regard phi l o so p hy .

C . M eaning and n o t ion

In o r er d derstan d well what w e mean when w e speak

to un

ab o u t m eani n g ,it is necessary t o analyse t h e relati o n b etween

t h e verb al S i gn an d noti o n ,and th at fo r t w o re aso n s Fi rst ,it wi ll .

“ ”
help u s t o u n derst and better t h e meanin g o f meanin g S econ d , .

it will enable u s t o u nco ver cert ai n deeply ro o te d ideali sti c vi ews

o n t h e rel ati o n between m eanin g an d n o ti o n ,vi ew s whi c h ,as w e

S h all see ,c an b e enc o u n t ere d even in M arxi st c i rc les .

Theoretically ,there are t w o possible so lu ti o ns t o that p ro blem :

e ither t h e m ean in g o f a wo rd and a n oti o n are t w o dif feren t
phen om en a b etween wh i c h su ch o r other relati ons m ay exi st ,o r
w e have t o do with t h e sam e phen o men o n exam i n e d fro m dif

65 K . M arx, Cap ital, Vol . I , Fo reign Langu ages Pu blish ing Hou se,
M o sco w 19 5 4,p . 10
0.

66C JI PyGHHuI TeiiH,Ocuoeb i o6 rueii

. . n c u xo no u euu [Princ iples of G en
eral Psych ology] ,M ocrce a 1946 ,p 405 . .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

Th e itu ati on is di fferent when it comes t o t h e M arxi sts

S

I f t h e o bj ecti on s raised ab o ve also pertain t o some o f them

then thi s is an interesting fact and,t o say
is wo rth expl ain in g h ow people w h o declare them selves t o be
adherents o f di alectical m ateri ali sm c o me o bj ec tively t o exp o u n d

idealistic views in thi s o r that versi on An d I .

an d consider t h e present con tro versy t o be a

D ocu m ent ati on t o that co nt ro versy can be fou n d e g , . .

t sev s S emasiologia 6 7 and in articles by Kovt un an d

’

salo nit sky6 8 ,w h o rel ate th e vari o u s o pini o ns held by S o vi et

au th ors on t h e i ssue I wi sh t o em phasiz e th at (except fo r a few

.

som ewh at sec on d ary p o in ts) I fu lly agree b o th as regards

his critici sm and t h e formu lati on of his own views with t h e
“
o pi ni o n o f P S Pop o v ,expou n de d lu cidly in hi s artic le
. . Zna
”
ch eniye S lov a i po n iat iye 6 9 .

Let u s b e gi n with t h e questi o n as t o whether in fact ,when

w e speak o f meanin g an d n o ti o n ,w e speak o f difl eren t phen o
.

m en a and categories, phenomena and categ ories bel on gin g

t o difi eren t spheres o f hu man activity ? S u c h an idea is su ggested
’

by t h e m aj ority o f th e au thors men ti oned in th is c onn ec ti o n .

Let u s t ake Zv egintsev as an ex ample :

In all those c ases when t h e S ign o f e qu ality is placed b etween
n o ti o n as a l o gi c al c ateg o ry an d meanin g ,wo rds are d eprive d

o f all th o se specific c haracteristi cs whi ch t ran sfo rm them i n t o

elements o f lan guage

“
As h as been po inte d ou t already ,t h e fo rms o f t h e m u tu al
relati o n s between t h e tw o phen o men a,cl o sely i nter-conn ecte d

n oti o n an d w o rd S h o u ld be u n derst o o d as t h e re l ati o n

67 S ee e .
g pp
. . 110
—112,138 et passim .

[O n M eanin gs o f Words] in
”
63 ll . C . KOBTyH,,
,O snat IeHIm cJI OB a

Bonp o cet fl abucosnauun 19 55 ,N9 5 ; C A (DeccAJI OHm IRHn, 06 3 0p Ji m e

“
. .

”
p aTyp EI Iro Bon pocaM CBSIBI/I assrxa n M EIIII JI eHnsI [A R ev iew o f th e Liter
ature Co n cern in g t h e Connections Betw een Lan gu age an d Th ink in g] ,in Bo

np oc sz a s bzxos u anufl , 195 3,N9

69 Bonp ocbt a sbmo suauua , 195 6 ,MI 6 .
 THE M EANI NGS or M EANI NG

of i n fluen ce,and n ot as one fu ncti onin g i nstead of,o r

mu t u al
in place of,t h e o ther It is precisely in t h e m u tu al i n fluence of
.

word and n oti o n that t h e fo rmati on an d devel opm ent o f b oth

noti on an d t h e mean i n g o f t h e w o rd t akes place,bu t each o f these
phen om en a is su b ordinat ed t o its ow n regu l ariti es,fo ll o ws it s
ow n path , S O that they cann ot be ex am i n ed as e qu iv alen t ph e

n om en a
”7 0 .

I pron oun ce hear pronou nced t h e word h orse an d at

or

t h e sam e ti m e I experien ce a th o u ght connecte d with that fact .

They say that when I experi ence that act o f thou ght I un der
“ ”
st an d t h e m ean ing o f t h e w o rd h o rse ,bu t th at there also ap
“
pears in it t h e n o t ion h orse AS t h e ab ove qu o t ati o n from
Zv egintsev s w ork sh o ws,there are au th ors (pro b ably t h e m aj or
’

ity) w h o assert in additi on that in suc h cases w e have t o do with

phen omen a which ,alth o u gh som eh o w i nterc onnected ,are dif
feren t o ne from an o ther .

While still for t h e tim e bein g leavin g un decided t h e issu e

o f t h e identity o f t h e m e ani n g o f t h e w o rd an d n o ti o n ,w e m ay

st ate that in b oth i n t erpret ati o n s w e h ave t o do with i n t ricate

rel ati o nshi ps o ccu rrin g in t h e c o gn itiv e process an d in t h e c o m

m un icat ion pro cess Bu t these relati o nshi ps are always c o n

.

n ected with hu m an psychi c li fe ,they are co gn itive relati o n s .

Any attem pt t o o verstep t h e fram ework o f su ch rel ati ons lead s

as w as t h e case o f H u sserl di rect ly t o t h e m et aphysics o f
Plat oni c ideal entities C o nse quently ,wh oever cho oses t o av o id
.

Plat o nism m u st ask hi m self: wh at is t h e di fferen ce b etween n o

ti on an d meani n g if in b o th cases w e have t o do with t h e relati on
of re fl ecti o n by t h e m i n d o f t h e o bj ective reality by m eans o f

S i gns? B efore w e pass t o c onclu si o n s , let u s hear those w h o d efen d

t h e thesi s th at n o ti o n an d m ean i n g are di f ferent categ ories .

There are t w o prin cipal vari ati ons o f their argum ent ati on .

St artin g fro m apparen tly o pposin g po siti on s they are in fact

b ased o n a c om m o n fo u n d ati o n .

70 B . A . 3Bem HueB ,Cemacuo noeufl [S emasio logy] ,p 142

. .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTICS

S u ch au th o rs as Zv egint sev in h is S em as io logia qu ot ed

or G orsky in h is ti cles pu blished in Voprosy filos ofii 7 1,
ar

t h at th e di fferen ce c o nsists in t h e fact t h at a scien t ific

is rich er t h an t h e o rdin ary (un iversally accept ed ) m ean i
w o rds) S in ce it co n tai n s all t h e essen ti al traits

i n clu di n g t h e regu larities whic h go vern su ch

do n ot deny that or din ary m ean in gs o f wo rd s co i n cid e with
o rdin ary (ev ery- day) n o ti on s,b u t t h e exi st ence o f sc ien tific n o ti o n s
elim i n at es,in t h ei r eyes ,t h e p o ssibility o f t reati n g n o ti o n s an d

m ean i n g s as e qu iv alent c at eg ori es Th e adheren ts o fS im i lar o pi n i on

.

o cc asi on ally add th at w o rd s live lon g an d t h ei r m e an in gs (t h ey

claim ) d o n o t c h an ge ,whereas n o ti o n s are ch an geab l e an d gro w

ri cher as sc i en ce an d t h e w o rld sci en tific kn o wled ge d evel o p .

A critic ism o f suc h o pini o ns c an be fou n d in K o vt u n s article

’

q u o ted ab o ve ; I fu ll y agree with his fun d am ent al argum en ts .

Thu s t h e argumen t ati on o f tho se w h o wo u ld separate n o

ti on s from m eanin gs is b ased principally on t h e cl aim that in
each o f these p hen om en a w e h ave t o d o with so m e o ther co gu i

tive co ntent I n c onfo rm ity with t h e reaso ni n g add u ced ab o v e,

.

th at conten t w o u ld be broader in t h e case o f n oti o n s Let t hi s .

be ill u strated by a q u ot ati on from S em asiologia :

“
I f w e identify n o ti on as a l o gi cal catego ry w ith t h e m e an
in g o f a w ord ,thi s m ean s that w e assu m e t h at in t h e m e anin g
o f a w o rd is refl ec te d t h e en tirety o f general an d essen ti al t rait s

o f a d efini te c l ass o f o bj ect ,wit h d u e c o n siderati o n o f t h e in t ri

cat e c onn ecti on s o f,an d rel ati o n s b etween ,t h ese t rait s ,as es

t ablish ed by sc ien ce at a given l ev el o f it s d evel opm en t I f t h is .

11 II I o pcrcmi , K 06 O 6 p a3 0B aHrI n II m
”
' ‘
71 B o n p ocy n o uxr r
. .
p a3 Bn TnE .

[ Concern in g th e Formation an d D ev elop me n t o f Concepts] , in Bonp o c bi

é uno co gbuu , 19 5 2
"
, N9 4, an d O p o n y s ss rxa B n o 3 u amn r [O n t h e
R Ole o f Lan gu age in t h e Pro cess o f Co gni tion] ,ibid 195 3,N9 2 I t m u st .

be added th at G orsky h as ch an ged h is Op in ion an d n o w defen ds th e v iew , w h ich

in my eyes is a c orrect o ne ,th at th e meanin g o f a w ord co in c ides w ith t h e

content o f t h e con cept ; see h is
“
POITB fl BBIKa B n o sn amm
” fill,
When he
[Th e R Ole
o f L an gu age in th e Proce ss o f C o gn itio n ] , in t h e c o llect io n s u me u u e
u . 13 bIR [Thinkin g an d L angu age] , M ocRB a 19 5 7 ,p p
‘ ‘
82 ,85 . .
 SELEC TED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

d oes n o t ,at that m oment ,have in min d a s cien t ific n oti on 0

h orse an d d o es n ot develop in his mi n d all t h e essenti al
ist ics of that anim al ,as h e u n d ou bt edly
horse,its di seases,its anat om y ,et c .

n o ti on s (in t h e sense o f b ei n g very co

ti ons There are also

.

o f sc ien tific term s It is o bvi ou s an d e asily

.

th at scientific n oti ons di ffer by t h e breadth ,depth and

S i o n with whic h they reflect reality from th ose c on t en t s

appear in o rdi n ary m ean i n gs o f w o rds Bu t in n o case is it .

sible t o fin d essen ti al di f ferences between a scien tific n o ti on

t h e m eani n g o f a sc ientifi c term .

Th e sec on d ty pe o f argu m ent ati on in fav ou r o f t h e di ffer

between n oti on an d m eani n g starts; as indicated
an o pp osite p o siti o n : it s adherents cl aim th at t h e m eani n

a w o rd is bro ader than n oti on since it i n clu des em o ti onal ,aes

thetic ,etc ,elements whi ch have n o part in n oti on 7 3 Here,t o o ,

. .

sc i en tific n oti o n ,a pro d uct o f sci en tific ab st racti on ,is co mpare d

with o rdi n ary m eani n g o f a wo rd or even with an entirety o f

psychic processes t akin g place in a person s min d in connecti on
’

with a given statement ,with t h e entire em o ti on al , aestheti c,

et c ,c o n te xt o f su ch processes Th o se w h o defen d su c h a vi ew
. .

b ehave like people of who m M arx once said that havin g fo rm ed

an abstract n o ti o n o f a fru it in gen eral ,a n oti o n whic h disregards

t h e c o ncrete S h apes o f an apple ,a pear,et c ,w o u ld like t o t o u c h .

that fru it -in -general ,t aste it ,et c A sc ien tific n o ti on is in fact

.

in a sense sem antic all y bro ader,an d in a sense sem an ti cally

n arro wer than an o r di n ary m ean in g o f a w o rd Bu t let u s .

re peat o nce m o re t h e i ssue ev apo rates if w e com pare h o

Th at o pin ion is defen ded e g by B M Bor ycn c rcE fi in hi s w ork

73 . . . .

BO H nOHE TII e [Word and Co n cept] in t h e collection s uuzeu ue u n s sm

[Thin kin g an d L an guage] ,pp 2

45 if I t is
. . t
w or h w hile mentio nin g th at B ogu
S lav sky also accep st th at a co ncept is exten sion ally bro ader th an t h e
t h e v iew
mean ing of a w ord,an d uses th ese argum ents t o S h ow th at a con cept and t h e
mean in g Of a w ord are t w o differen t c ategor ies,belo n gin g t o v ariou s fields .
 THE M EANI NGS OF MEANING

mogeneou s t g i a sc ientific n oti o n with a sci e

c a e o r es : n tific t erm

and o n ordin ary m ean i n g o f a w o rd with an o rdi nary n o ti o n .

Th e argu men t th at w o rds h ave a l on g li fe an d h ave u nchan g

ing meanin gs, whereas n oti on s are ch an geable an d c o nti nue
to devel op,is e qu ally g rou n dless,fo r it assu m es what h as still
t o be pro ve d a di f
ference between n oti on an d t h e m ean in g o f
a w ord . M ore o ver,su ch an assu mpti o n is n o t ori ou sly wron g
and u n accept able for,e g , .a li n g
. u i st ,w h o kn ows very well th at
meanin gs o f wo rds chan ge as mu ch as n oti o ns Th e stu dy o f s uch
.

chan ges an d t h e law whi ch g o verns them is d aily b read t o h im .

Thu s t h e argum ent ati o n which I have fou n d in t h e literatu re

o f t h e su bj ec t in fav o ur o f t h e thesi s c o ncernin g t h e di f ference
between n o ti ons an d meani n gs o f words turns ou t t o be com
pletely fu tile It wou ld be difli cu lt t o accept con victi on that n o
.

tions an d meani n gs o f wo rds belon g t o di fferent fields an d form

different categ ories Let u s n ow see what are t h e phil oso phi cal
.

c onsequ enc es o f t h e thesis whi ch I am critici zi ng .

It h as b een said b efore that Vi ew that n o ti on an d t h e m ean

in g o f a wo rd are dif ferent categ ories in u sually acco m panied
‘

“ ” “
by statem ents like Th e word realizes t h e n o ti on , Th e wo rd
“ ”
expresses t h e n o ti o n No ti o n lies at th e ro ot o f m e an in g ,
etc D o zens o f ex am ples might be adduced t o su pp o rt th at p o i nt
.

(the criticism c o ntain ed in t h e work by P S Popo v,qu o ted

. .

ab o ve,is ext rem ely i nst ructive in that respect) N o w ,it is h ard
.

t o resi st t h e i m pressi o n that t h e au th ors o f su c h an d S imilar

form u lati on s pay,whether they w an t t o or n ot ,a d ou ble ransom :
on t h e o ne h an d t o li n gu i sti c hy po st ases an d relate d o bj ec tive

idealism , an d on t h e o ther (in directly) ,t o n om i n ali sm I S h all

‘

n o w en deav our t o su b st anti at e m y o pin i on .

AS S tate d ab o ve,t h e m eanin g o f a w ord is t antam o u n t t o

definite i nterhu m an co gn itive relati on s, i nseparably connec ted
with t h e act o f co gni ti on ,an d therefore with a psychic act I say .

“
There are h orses o ver there an d I u nderst and that sen tence
in t h e sam e w ay as d oes t h e perso n I address ; in o ther w o rds ,
I experience t h e u nderstan di ng o f t h e m eani ngs o f tho se w ords .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTICS

Wh at is i m plied ,then ,if e g ,t h e . word ho rses realizes o r

.

“ ”
presses t h e n o ti o n h o rse s ,that that n o ti o n rest s at t h e r
o f t h e m ean i n g o f th at w o rd , et c ? T h e
.

is u n iv o c al : apart fro m m ean in g as a

alw ays appe ar s in s o m e an d so m e o n e s
’

su c h an entity ,n am ely n o ti o n ,which e

indep en den tly of me ani n g,sin ce o therwi se it cou ld n o t

“ ” “
t h e r o o t , be re alize d , be expressed , et c Thi s is o .

idealism o f t h e fi rst w ater,an d bey o n d help .

Th e o pi n i o n that m e anin g is a su bj ec tive ,an d th at n o ti on

is an o bj ective c at ego ry ,is v ery p o pu lar ,an d du e ab o ve all t o
lo gic i ans .

R u ssell h ad en o u gh co u rage t o adm it t o Plat o n izi n g in hi s

“ ”
m athem atical an d lo gic al c oncepti on s b ased o n su c h en tities
as n u m b ers ,c l asses ,relati o n s, et c N o t all l o gici an s S hare his
.

c o u rage ,b u t t h e i n flu ence o f Pl at o n i sm is wid esp read in co n

tem po rary lo gic an d t h e stu dy o f t h e fo u n d ati ons o f m ath em atic s .

Thi s is du e t o t w o cau ses O ne o f tho se c au ses is t h e su ccum bi ng

.

(regardless o f all d ec larati on s an d warni n gs) t o li n gu istic h ypo st a

ses,t h at is t h e c o m m o n su ggesti o n th at where there is a n am e
“ ”
(e g , class
. . n o ti o n , et c ) there m u st b e a re al e ntity d esi gn at
.

ed by th at n am e Th e o t h er is su gg esti on du e t o o n e s o w n m en tal
’
.

c o n st ru cti o n s,a st at e o f b ei n g en t an gled in t h e m eshe s o f o n e s

’

o w n ab st rac ti o n proce ss .

I shall begin n o t with n oti on ,bu t with t h e sti ll m ore glari n g

i ssu e (perhaps b ecau se it is le ss p opu larized) o f t h e t w o fo rm s
o f j u d gem en t : as act s o f j u d gem en t , an d as pro p o siti o n s
(j u d gem ent s in t h e lo gic al sen se) .

Like th e pr ocess o f thi n ki n g, t h e c omm u n i ca ti on pro ce ss

t ake s pl ace n ot thro u gh d etached ,iso lated wo rds,b u t thr o u gh
sen t ence s . C ert ai n ly , in every -day S peec h w e do o ccasi on ally
“ ” “ ”
re so r t t o si n gle w o rd s, .e g , . Av alanc h e l , Lo rd i ,
et c ,b u t the se are o b vi o u sly un d ev elo ped ,abbrevi ated fo rm s o f
.

sent en ce s (in o ther w o rd s,sen t enc e e q u i v alen t s) Th e sen ten ce ,

.

t o o ,serve s t h e pu rp o se o f expressi n g th o u gh ts,an d it is o n ly

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTICS

acco u n s t that every person w h o kn ows En glish u n

fo r t h e fact
st an ds t h e m ean in g o f t h e sen t en ce in questi o n Why is th at
.

There are t w o expl an ati o ns possible O ne of them.

t o a S imil ar form o f experi en ci n g t h e m eani n g o f t h e

o u t in a given sent ence c o nt ext , c haract eristi c o f all

w h o kn o w t h e l angu age i n v o lve d That ph en o m en o

.

fro m it s v ari ou s aspects by gramm ar,t h e physi ol o gy

brai n ,et c But there is al so th e o ther expl anati on : apart
.

t h e c h an gi n g i n divid u al j u dgemen ts, there is som e j u dge

m ent imm u t able in itself,whi c h is some entity an d is,as it
were,t h e st an d ard o f all u tterances an d experiences o f that j u dge
ment This is m et aphysics of t h e Plat onic type ,as en d orsed by
.

m any There are m athem atici ans w h o claim th at it is n o t pos

.

sible t o b u ild t h e set theory with ou t adm itti n g th at cl asses exi st

as real ideal en tities ,an d there are l o gi c i an s w h o m ai nt ai n that

p pr o o siti o ns as real id e a l e n titi es are i n di spensable It wou ld

.

be po ssible t o prove (in my o pini o n ,quite i rrefu t ably) that w e have

here t o do with a myst ificat ion ,that on e s o wn l o gical co nstrue
’

ti on ,o btai ned by abstracti on o f those el ements that are comm on

t o m an y acts o f j u d gem ent ,is transfo rm ed i n t o an i n depen d en t

entity whi c h m o re o ver appears as t h e st an d ard o f th o se ac tu al

acts o f j u dgem ent Bu t all thi s d oes n ot seem ade qu ately c o n

.

v in cin g,so th at t h e u n co nvinced i n clu d e even adherent s o f m a

t erialism .

N ow t h e itu ati on is an al o go u s in t h e case o f word an d n o

S

ti o n ,t h e o nl y di fferen ce b ein g that n o ti o n stealthily perform s

b o th rOles,whi ch in t h e case o f t h e pair : proposi ti on j u dge
m en t are distin gu ished term in ol o gically Y et in t h e case of
.

n oti o n ,t o o ,it is po ssible t o di sti n guish t ermin o l o gi c ally t h e act

o f experi en cin g n o ti o n ,and n o ti o n in t h e l o gic al sen se . Th e

l atter is a pro d uct o f ab stracti on ,a specific c o gnitive and l o gical
c on st ructi o n reflecti n g so methin g which o bj ectively appears,
in reality : comm o n pro perties o r traits,comm on regu larities,et c , .

c h aract eri sti c o f a giv en c l ass o f o bj ect s Bu t n o m at eri al en tity

.

can be a n o ti o n O nl y an ideali st o f a peculi ar kin d ,one w h o

.
 THE M EANI NGS O F M EANIN G “ ”
28 5

hyp o st atizes a pro du ct o f his o w n mi n d an d tran sfo rms it i nt o

an i n depen dent en tity ,Can accept suc h an entity .

What then is t h e ori gi n o f su ch vi ews when held by m ateri ali sts ,

and by M arxists in p artic u l ar? They ari se fromt h e fear o f a n o uri

nalist dist o rti o n o f t h e pro blem Thi s will n o w b e explai ned in

.

more det ail .

AS o ppose d t o c on cept u al realism ,t h e n ominalistic d octri ne

st at ed t raditi on ally th at general c o n cepts are fla tus vo cis ,arbi

trary verb al co nst ru cti o n s B oth m ateri ali sti c ten denci es (negati o n
.

of ideal entities) an d su bj ective- idealistic ten dencies (negati on

of an O bj ective co rrel at e o f n oti ons, e g, in th e case o f B erkeley)
. .

u se d t o refer t o n o m i n alism I n t h e con t empo rary phi l o so phi cal

.

context , neo n omin ali sm o pen e d t h e d o or wide fo r t h e su bj ective

ideali st ten dency Hence,M arxi st phi l o sophers see in a n omin alistic
.

in terpret ati on o f n oti ons (e g ,in t h e i nterpretati o n o f Schlick ,

. .

w h o simply neg ates them ) a d an ger o f su bj ec tive ideali sm An d .

rightly s o . Fo r in th at interpret ati on t h e co gn itive relati o n o f

refl ect ion o f t h e o bj ect by t h e su bj ect disappears , as also d oes t h e

obj ectiv e c o rrel ate o f n o ti o n as a generalizi n g reflecti o n o f re

“

ality ; wh at rem ai n s is t h e fla tus v oeis an d a su bj ective i n t er

pret at ion o f m ent al processes and their pro du cts .

In hi s en deav our t o esc ape th at d an ger,t h e m ateri alistically

m in ded phi l osopher occasi on ally falls int o t h e wide-spread
“

arm s o f c onceptu al re ali sm .

C onse quently ,t h e c o n clu si on s o f these c o nsiderati ons c on

cerni n g what is said t o be a difl eren ce b etween meani n g an d

n o ti o n are as fo ll o ws : n ot o nly are there n o p o sitive argum en t s

in fav ou r o f th e c on cepti o n th at m ean ing an d n o ti on b el on g

t o di fferen t fields ,b u t even a n eg ative argum ent discl o ses cl early

t h e idealisti c c on se qu enc es o f suc h a c o ncepti on .

Y et it s defen ders h ave in min d cert ain real theoretic al pro b

lem s whic h w e d o n o t e li min ate by pro vi ng t h e incorrectness
t

of suc h o r o ther s o l u ti o n s I S it n ot p o ssible ,then ,t o su ggest

.

a rati o n al so lu ti o n o f th at pro blem ,a so lu ti o n free fro m t h e

dan gers o f idealism ? In my o pin i on ,thi s is p ossible .

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

Th e t y b etween anti-psych ol o gi sm an d
c on ro ersv
o gism in m o d ern phi lo s ophy is focu se d ar o u n d t h e

ti on o f psychic processes an d t h e pro d u cts o f su ch It is a .

that spiritu al processes (w e are here i n terested m ainl y in m

“
processes) are alway s e igenp sych isch t h at is,are alway s priv
are always h ic-c i-nun c processe s an d pr ocesses o f a given

vi du al Thu s they b elon g t o t h e S phere o f psychic existence

.

are su bj ect t o psyc h o l o gical an alysi s with o u t whi c h they

be u n derst o o d But at t h e sam e tim e ,it is a fact th at t

.

s om ethin g in th o se pro cesses whi c h goes b ey on d t h e stri ctly

“ ”
private sphere ,th at m en experi ence cert ain th o u ghts in a simi lar
“
m anner,th at priv at e psychic processes i n clu de elem ents whi ch
are so m eh o w t o be fo u n d in all m en w h o k n o w t h e given l an gu age

an d h av e a cert ai n kn o wle dg e c oncern in g t h e w o rld these ele

:

“
m ents are classifie d in t h e cat ego ries o f n o ti on m eanin g
et c. N ow these elem ents,t o o , are so m eh o w connected with

psyc hic li fe an d psyc hic experiences,b u t cann o t be explain ed

ex clus ivel in t erm s o f su bj ec tiv e e xperience I f p syc h o lo gi sm
y .

repre sen t s t h e t en d ency t o t re at t h e pr o d u c t s o f hu m an th o u ght

on l a s e igenp s ch is ch (an d fr o m t h e hi st o rical p o i n t o f vi ew it

y y
d d represent th at t en den cy),then it is a c o ncepti on i n adeq u ate
i
the oretically ,an d is n ot witho u t reaso n expo sed t o t h e attac k s
o f an ti - psyc h o lo gism (by whi ch I do n ot at all w an t t o i m ply
that t h e latter st an dpo int is au t om ati c ally c orrec t an d
fl awless) .

B oth psych o l o gism an d an ti-psycholo gism thu s fin d a real

b asis in t h e an alysis o f hu m an spi ritu al processes an d su c h o f
their pro duct s as n o ti on s,m ean i n gs,etc At t h e sam e tim e ,these
.

t w o t ren ds can su ccessfu l ly exp o se o n e an o ther,e ach p o i nti n g

o u t t h e o ne-sided n ess an d li mi t ati on s o f th e o ther ; co n seq uently ,

b oth are u n accept able t o a sob er researche r Psych ol o gi sm u su ally

.

ad o pt ed t h e st an d po i n t o f su bj ective idealism an d w as th en

helpless in face o f t h e pro blem o f regularity an d c o mm u n icability

o f psyc hi c acts O n t h e o th er h an d ,
. t raditi on al anti-psych olo gi sm
is critici zed by th o se w h o ,in t h e n am e o f sc i en tific so bri ety ,
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTICS

t even be formu lated in mi n d Thus,propo siti o

’
an d can n o o ne s .

an d sen ence t are n ot di fferent categories,o r even disti nct

separate wh o les,in spite o f t h e fact th at pro positi o n s

m ents) are stu died by l o gic and psych o lo gy ,an d S

by li n gu istics an d l o gic Th e thou ght process always app
.

in a v erb al fo rm m ore strictly ,it is always lin gu istic It is n ot

.

tru e that w e experience in depen dently a prop ositi on as our

thou ght ab ou t som ethi n g ,an d som e l an gu age processes in t h e
sense o f u n derst an di n g t h e appro pri ate w ords an d their com bin a
'

ti on s Neither it is true th at t he th ou ght is later on j oine d by its

.

li nguisti c expressi on (sentences with appro pri ate m eani n g) .

A senten ce is n ot any expressi o n o f any th ou ght o r propositi on

because n o su ch S itu ati on is possible in whic h a tho u ght ,o r
a pro positi o n , with ou t w ords (even in o ne s mi n d) d evel o ps
’

firs t and is la ter j oi ned by the word s whi ch express it .

,
N o w what h as b een said ab ou t t h e integ ral thou ght pro
c esses,an d ab ou t su ch i n divi sible u nits o f tho se processes as

-sent en ces refers in t o t o t o such elem ents as n o ti on

p pro o siti o n , ~

verb al expressi o n (that is,a verb al S ign o r a co m bin ati o n o f su c h

S ign s) . I disregard here t h e in tri cate pro blem o f t h e relati on s
b etween propositi o n and n o ti on an d b etween sentence an d word ,
si n ce that transcen d s t h e limits o f our pre sent an alysis I S h all .

o nl y focu s attenti on o n th at aspec t o f t h e pro blem whi c h w as

t h e st arti n g poi n t o f this di scu ssi o n ,n am ely t h e rel ati o n b etween

n o ti on an d verb al expressi o n (a verb al S ign o r a c o m bi n ati on

o f su ch S igns) , t h e relati o n b etween t h e co nten t o f a n o ti o n an d

t h e m ean i n g o f a wo rd (whi ch by w ay o f abbrevi ati o n is called
t h e i ssu e o f t h e rel ati on b etween n oti o n an d m eani n g) .

It is necessary t o b egin with t h e statement that there are n o

separat e acts o f experi en ci n g a n o ti o n on t h e o n e h an d an d ex

periencin g a correspon di n g m ean i n g on t h e other When w e .

“ ”
pron o u nce with c ompre hen si on t h e w ord horse ,t hi s is ao
co m pani ed by a th ou ght pro cess whi c h is t h e process o f u n der

st an din g th at w o rd ,o r t h e p ro cesses o f ex peri en ci n g its m eani n g .

Nothin g else whic h w ou ld be a separate experience o f t h e n oti on

 THE M EANI NGS OF M EANIN G ”

“‘
horse appears in real co gnitive processes I s then n oti o n .

a ficti on , as w as claim ed by , for i nst ance ,Sc hli ck ? B y n o m eans !

I mean by n o ti o n that same pro d u ct o f a gen eralized reflecti on
o f reality which , when exami ne d from t h e poi nt o f vi ew o f hu m an
“ ”
co mm u nicati on ,is called m eanin g .

This statem en t i m plies a num ber o f S ignific ant c o n sequences,

fi rst o f all fo r t h e i n t erpret ati o n o f t h e i nterrelati o n s b etween
“

noti on an d m eani n g (t h e former b ei n g u nd erst o o d here

not as an act o f experi enci n g a n o ti on ,bu t as t h e con t en t o f

a n o ti o n) This re veals their iden t it ,whic h is u su ally veiled by

.
y
differen t termi n o l o gy an d o bscu re d by t h e fact that t h e anal ysis
o f t h e sam e c o gn itive p ro cess is appro ache d fr o m v ari o u s aspect s .

An d wh at are t h e difli cu lt ies whic h m ay arise from t h e fact

that a cert ain ment al pro cess is analysed as t o it s vari ou s aspect s?
Th e issue Of differences in c onten t b etween n oti o n an d m eanin g
is rather S im ple AS h as b een pointed o u t ab o ve ,these di fferences
.

appear on ly when di f ferent co gn itive processes c om e in questi o n

(for instance ,a scientific n oti on di ffers fro m t h e o rdin ary mean in g
o f a w o rd ,bu t d oes n ot di f fer fro m t h e m eanin g o f that word
when u se d as a scientific term ) Thi s po i nt may n ow be c onsid
.

ered elu cid at e d .

There is,h o wever,a seri o u s pro blem still requ i ri n g explan a

ti on h ow is it po ssible t o pass from an i n divid ual act o f ex
periencin g a n o ti on o r a m ean in g t o t h e i ntersu bj ective com
:

municabilit y o f th at act and t o its repetiti o n withi n a l an guage

co m mu n ity ? That pr o blem rests at t h e ro o t o f t h e S pec ul ati on s

o n pro po siti o ns ,n o ti o n s,an d m eani n gs,as id eal o r i n t enti o n al

en titie s,et c
. .

Let u s again b egin with t h e st atem en t that every spiritu al

p r o c ess , an d c o n se q u e n tly e v ery th o u ght p ro ce ss , is i n divid u al,
eigenp s ch isch I n th a t sen se it is su bj ective B u t at t h e sam e
y . .

tim e it is an o bj ec tive pro cess in t h e sen se t h at it alway s i n v o lves

“ ”
t h e relati o n t h e su bj ect t h e m ateri al o bj ect . That cont en
ti on ,which is a very essenti al po i n t in t h e M arxist theo ry o f
refl ecti o n ,will h elp u s so lve t h e pro blem s whi c h i nt erest u s .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTICS

Fi rst o f all ,t h e pro b lem of th e titi on o f psy chi c pr

repe

ses co n n ect ed with d efini t e li n gu i sti c expressi o n s (t h e m e c

o f th at relati o n is di sr egard ed h ere) I f w e em ph asiz e

.

su bj ectiv e aspect o f t h e c o gn iti v e p ro c ess,n am ely t h e

it is eigenp sych is ch (an d this is u su ally d o n e by psyc

t ren d s) ,t h e p ro blem beco m es in fac t i n so lu b l e w it h o
t erferen ce o f s o m e ide al en titi es wh i ch are t h e ideal

all act s o f j u d gem en t ,t h e i n ten ti o n al o bj ec t ,et c Bu t

.

t o t ak e i n t o acc o u n t t h e fact t h at co gn itive acts o f su bj

h ave t h e sam e perceptive apparat u s,acts relati n g t o on e

t h e sam e o bj ect ,are t h e sam e (o r an al o g o u s) fo r m o st n at

re as o n s. On e h as h ere t o agree ful ly with t h e argu m en t ati on

o f t h e n at u rali sts th at t o u n derst an d th at rep etiti o n o f psy c hi c
“ ‘
acts n o tran scen dent al I ’
is n ecessary ; w e m ay add that n o
ideal en tities con stru e d by c onceptu al realism ,n o pro po siti o n s
as real id eal o bj ects, et c , are necessary either
. .

“ ”
When I say There are h o rses o ver there ,an d th o se wo rd s
-

are hear d by so m e o n e w h o u n derst an d s En gli sh ,then b o th o f

u s u n derst an d th o se w o rds as t h e i n fo rm ati o n t h at t h ere are

h o rses in t h e plac e which I i n dic ate B o th o f u s u n derst an d

.

t h ese wo rds in t h e sam e w ay,si n ce w e kn o w t h e v erb al si gn s

co n cerned ,an d these sign s are con n ected i n o u r min d s wit h

co rresp o n di n g p erce pti v e or rep ro d u ctive represen t ati o n s de

v elo ped in t h e proc ess o f a c o gn itive reflecti o n on re ality by o u r

m in ds I n eac h i n di v idu al c ase ,th ese c o gn itive acts i n cl u d e l ot s

.

o f o ther e xperi en ce s c on n ect ed wit h o u r kn o wledge o f t h e o bj ec t

i n vo lved ,an d w ith person al em oti o n s w hich d evelo p as a t eac

ti o n t o t h e gi v en o bj ect (remi n i scen ces,artistic t ast es,di fferen t
syst em s o f v alues , Bu t in each o f t h ese acts there is always ,
apart fro m t h e el em en t s w hi c h acco u n t fo r t h e di f feren ces b etween
them in View o f th ei r Specifi cally i n divid u al n atu re ,an elem en t
which m akes them Si m i lar o w i ng t o which t h e u n d erstan din g
o f t h e giv en w ord s is S i m i lar ,th o u gh no t id enti cal .

“
Thi s appli es n o t o n ly t o a c om m o n u n d erst an di n g by
li sten ers o f a st at em en t m ade h ic c i n un c,b u t also t o th o se c ase s
 SELECTED PROBLEM S or SEMANTICS

It mu st be clearly realize d that t h e defen ders o f t h e

leged di fference b etween m ean i n g an d n o ti on ,w h o t reat cit
t h e form er o r t h e l atter as e igenp sych isch an d
“
transform t h e sec o nd elem en t o f t h e pai r n o
int o som ethi n g whi ch is given i ntersu bj ective
o r o ther entity) ,h ave in fact an

that between ,o n t h e on e han d ,a c oncrete

o f a fu ll e xperien ce) an d , o n t h e o ther, su ch pro duc ts o f c o nsc

co gn itive reflecti on ,whi c h ab st ract fr om m an y fact o rs, as n

ti on or meani n g .

When I u tter t h e sentence Pigs are m amm als an d th

st atem en t is h eard by peo p le w h o un derst an d t h e l an gu age I u ser

but di ffer as t o thei r o rigin ,religi on ,e du cati on ,et c ,then whi le

.

they un derstan d that statem ent in t h e sam e w ay they m ay di ffer

co nsiderably in t h e ways they ex peri en ce it . For t h e psychi c
act o f u n derst an di n g th at st at em ent will i nclu de n ot o nl y thei r

kn owledge o f pig s an d m amm als (di fferin g widely e g ,in t h e . .

case o f a vill age veteri n ary su rgeon an d a L o nd on sales girl) ,

but also their em oti o n al reacti o n s conn ected e g ,with religi o us

. .

preju dicies (a Chr isti an v s a M u sli m) ,aesthetic evalu ati ons an d/or
.

associ ati ons (o n e person m ay thi n k ab o u t a dir ty h o g w al

l owi n g in mu d,an d an other ab ou t an amu sin g ,pin k ,ro llicki n g

piglet) , cert ain person al reminiscences ,et c There is n o d o u bt
.

th at every psychi c act ,i nclu di n g those whi ch are p ar excellen ce

co gni tive acts,h as n o t onl y a c o gn itive co n ten t (in te llec t u al de

sc ri pti o n),bu t also a c o n ten t c o nsisti n g o f per so n al em o ti o n s

(m o ral valu ati o n , aestheti c assessm ent , I f that in tegral

psychic act c o nn ecte d with a given st atem en t is calle d m eani n g

o r n o ti o n (b o th cases can b e fou n d in t h e lit erat ure o f t h e su bj ect) ,

then o f course mean i n g or n oti o n so un derst oo d is tran sformed

“
in t o som ethi n g private n ot o nly in t h e sense o f t h e su bj ective
n ature o f t h e experi en ce i n v o lve d , bu t also in t h e sense o f inc Om
m u ni cability It is n o t t o be wo n dered at ,then ,that in su ch
.

“ ”
a case t o a private m ean in g o r n o ti o n one m ay o ppose its
“
p u b li c p ar t n er in t h e fo rm o f t h e o ther e lem e n t o f t h e pai r
29 4 SELECTED PROBLEM S O F SEMANTICS

ti on Th e said ab stracti on ,and co n seq u ently all n oti on s an d

.

i n gs,always o rigi n at es in t h e i nt ricat e system o f so ci al rel

as perce iv ed by h u m an co nsc i o u sness . A ccordi n g t o
a given t h o u gh t -an d— l angu age pro du ct is i nt erprete d
p o i n t o f vi ew o f t h e th ou ght p roce ss o r t h e l an gu a

(that is , acco rdi n g t o whether w e em ph as

o r t h e o t h er) ,it appears either as a n oti on (t h e con tent o fa n o ti
or as a m ean i n g o f t h e w o rd There is n o other di fferen ce bet w
.

n oti on an d m e ani n g (o f t h e sam e type) .

S u c h an i nt erpret ati o n d o es n o t l ose anythi n g de ar t o

h eart o f t h e gn ose olo gist , t h e lin gu i st or t h e lo gi ci an Th e
.

o gist fin d s here refere nce o f t h e c o gn itive pro cess

o f n o ti o n o r m ean i n g) t o o bj ective reality ;

an d livi n g c o nten t o f t h e c o gni tive process

in t h e m eaning o f w o rds ; t h e l o gici an ,t h e

co nte nt o f a scien tific n o ti o n o r a sc i en tifi c t erm , w hi ch h e
in t h e form o f an ade qu ate verb al o r real defini ti o n . An d
thi s d o es with ou t ideal entities an d t h e n om i n alist interpret ati on
o f w o rd s an d n o ti o ns as t h e fl a t us vo c is .

S o t o t h e con clu si ons

( 1) Th e thesis that n oti o n an d mean in g are di fferen t c ate
go ries with difl erent c on tents is n ot acc ept able , bec au se t h e
argu m en ts whi ch are su ppo se d t o su pp o rt th at t h esis pr ove

t o be in error,an d t h e ad o pti o n o f t h at thesi s w o u ld i m ply ad o p

ti o n o f o bj ective ideali sm .

(2 ) On t h e cont rary ,it is t o be co nclu ded that n o ti o n and l

m ean i ng are identical as t o co nt ent ,an d t h e difference b etw een
t h em c onsi sts o nl y in t h e fact t h at t h e same c o gn itive pro cess
is i n terprete d fr om t w o p o i nt s o f View ,di fferent bu t i n separably
lin ke d with o n e an o ther th at o f t h e th ou ght process in o n e
case ,an d th at o f t h e l an gu age p rocess in t h e o ther .

(3) D i fferences as t o c on tent ,said t o appear as betw een m ean

in g an d n o ti on ,are in fa ct di f ferences b etween a sc i entifi c an d
an o rdi n ary n oti on ,b etw een t h e m ean i n g o f a sci e n tifi c t erm

an d t h e m eani n g o f w o rds as u se d in o rdi n ary lan gu age .

 SELECTED PROBLEMS or SE MANTI CS

t erial event . Th eitu ati on is qu ite di fferent with t h e verb al

s
“ ”
whi ch h ave n o mean in gs behin d them ,are o rg ani cally li
with their respective m eani n gs an d in thi s sense are ,as it i
“ ”
expressed , t ransp aren t t o m eani n g

A ll t h e proper signs (again except for t h e verb al si

o f th at p o i n t will b e m ade l at er) are l in ked with t h e
'

m ean in gs by associ ative lin ks .

This is explaine d qu ite sim ply A s w e kn ow ,proper .

are artifici al signs an d are in a w ay c o n venti o n al D efini t e .

in gs (or n oti on s,if yo u prefer it that w ay) are com bined in a

p osiv e a n d d elib er a t e m ann er with m at eri al sig -
n vehi cles,

is signs in t h e narrower sense o f t h e term Th e sign (in th at .

r ower sen se) an d m eani n g are here au t o nom o u s,as h as

rightly po i nt ed o u t by Zv egin t sev in his c it ed w o rk on t h e sign

n atu re o f lan guage 7 4 ; m o reo ver, they are n ot b oun d by t h e ru les

of t h e system concern ed sy nt ax , That is why th e
form of t h e sign -vehi cle sign in t h e n arro wer sen se) m ay

be ch an ged in th ose cases with ou t i n v o lvin g a ch an ge in m eanin g .

For i n st ance ,there is a ro ad sign in t h e fo rm of a tri an gul ar

b o ard ,yell o w with red edges,with a black cu rve in t h e m iddle .

Wh oever kn ows t h e road signs also knows that thi s m ean s :

“ ”
B eware ! S harp ben d in t h e ro ad ! There is n o thin g t o prevent
us fr o m ch an gin g t h e sh ape an d t h e c o l our o f t h e b oard an d t h e

sh ape an d t h e col our o f t h e cen t ral drawin g ; t h e meani n g o f t h e

“ ”
r o ad sign B eware ! S harp ben d in t h e road ! will n ot be chan ge d ,
pr ovided th at t h e conventi on rem ain s u nch an ge d Th e m ean in g .

“ ”
o f t h e expressi o n B eware ! S harp b en d in t h e ro ad ! is con
v eyed t o u s by t h e sign ad opt ed by a c on venti on Bu t th at m e an in g .

exi sts reg ardless o f t h e giv en fo rm o f t h e sign ,as t h e meani n g

o f a d efini t e verb al expressi o n whi ch w e co m bin e with thi s or

that m ateri al si gn-vehicle th at e xi sts i n depen dently ,au t on om ou sly

an d h as, b esides it s m ean i n g,o ther v alu es as well aestheti c

74 B A BBer mmeB ,Up a6n ema

. . 3 na1< o eo cm u fl 3 b l Ka [Th e Pro blem of

th e S ign -n ature of Langu age] ,M o c rce a 19 5 6 .

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF S EM A NTICS

Psych o l o gi cally ,there is ther w ay fo r an i n fan t t

no o

a l an gu age t h an by w ay o f associ ati on s Th e m eani n gs O f

.

especi all y when it co m es t o ab st ract t erm s,are learne d

child in acti o n co m bi ne d wi th speakin g ,by nu m er o u s

o f spec ific d efini ti o n s in u se .

When an adu lt w h o already kn ows som e lan gu age is learni

a fo reign lan gu age h e also h as t o d o with asso c i ati on s ,bu t

a qu it e di fferen t type I n his case ,there is an a ssoci ati on 0

.

o f fo reign l an gu age w o rds with t h e w o r ds o f h is m o

That is why in t h e i n iti al st age o f learn in g t h e fo rci

h e thi n ks in his n ative l angu age an d translates i nt o t h e fo
lan gu age h e is learn in g He will ,o f cou rse,really kn o w th at
'

(fo rei gn) l an gu age on ly when h e ceases t o tran sl ate an d begi ns

t o thi n k in that n ewly— learned lan guage .

Bu t here ends t h e appli cati o n o f t h e associ ati o n i st theory

t o t h e verb al sign s All att em pts t o i n t erpret t h e m eani n gs o f
.

w o rd s in term s o f that theo ry are com plete fai lures Mean in g .

is then t reate d as t h e im ages,represent ati on s,th ou ght s associ at ed

with t h e sou n ds o f wo rds Su ch w as t h e st an dpoi n t o f R u ssell
.

at t h e tim e o f t h e well-kn ow n disc u ssi on in M ind (h e then c om

p are d l an gu age p rocesses t o t h e d ancin g o f t h e b ears pro v o ke d

by t h e tu n e whi ch form erly u se d t o be played when t h e b ears
w ere pl aced on a h ot fl o o r) ; a si mi lar p o siti o n w as at o n e tim e

held by Wittgen stei n ,an d am on g Poli sh li n gu ists t o o ,e g Szo ber

. . .

I n t h e c ritic i sm o f th at o pini o n ,I agree with t h e argu men t s set

fo rth by Ajdu kiew icz Th e in terpret ati o n o f t h e verb al si gns
.

as s ou n ds with which cert ai n i n d epen d ently exi sti n g th ou ght s

are ass oci at ed is due t o a c o m plet e di sreg ard o f t h e n at u re o f lan

gu ag e processe s an d th ou ght pro cesses N ot only are there n o

.

th ou ghts exi stin g i n depen dently o f speec h soun ds (whi ch is cl o sely

conn ect e d with t h e rOle o f verb al sig ns in t h e ab stracti o n proce ss

o n t h e level o f t hi n kin g in t erm s o f n o ti o ns) ,b u t also there is

n o th o u ght i n depen d en t o f a system o f su c h si gn s ,t h at is t h e

synt ax o f t h e lan gu age c o n cern e d ,et c All att em pt s t o red u ce

.

m ean i n gs o f wo rd s t o asso ci ati o n s w ith im ages o f o bj ect s o r

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMA NTI CS

c o mm o n
’
little in with Hu sserl s i ntenti on alist co ncepti o n It
.

n ot perm i ssible t o l o se o n t h e w ay all t h e lu ggage o f Hu s

m et aphysics,with o u t whi ch t h e i n terpret ati on

o pi n i o ns b eco mes q u ite arbitrary an d alien t o
‘

That is why t h e wo rd i nten ti on h as with Aj

ferent mean in g from that it h as with H u sserl It .

Po li sh au th ors as Ajdu kiew icz and th o se w h o

(CzeZow ski,K ot arbiri ska,and o thers) are in error

'

’
that their views are rel ated t o H u sserl s When w e
“
Ajdu kiew icz really mean s by i n ten ti o n
c onn ecti ons with b eh avi ou ri st semi o tic Aj .

rather a cert ai n readi ness t o use l an gu age

and n ot o therwise ,an d c onse qu ently h e me an s cert ai n psychi c

di spo siti on s Thi s is n ot a phenom en o l o gi cal concepti on ; t h e

.

idea h as n othin g in co m m on with phen om en ol o gy ,bu t plays an

i mport an t rOle with M orris an d o thers Bu t that is a seco n d ary
.

p o in t : m y in ten ti on is n ot t o di scu ss that issue or t o criticize

t h e rel ative vi ews o f Ajdu kiew icz,si nce t h e pro blem un der dis
c u ssion is p ar excellence a psych ol o gi cal o ne , ev en in t h e physi o

l o gical aspect o f that term an d suc h i ssu es are no t decided

by phil o so phi zin g There also com es a m oment in whi ch t h e

.

m eth o d o f im parti n g p re cisi on t o ideas o r n oti o ns en co u nters

it s n atural limi t Su ch is,at t h e m om en t when w e have already
.

perfo rm e d all t h e prelim i n ary o perati on s,that is when w e h ave

rej ect ed all t h e wron g the o ri es ,giv en preci si on t o t h e sense o f

words,et c ,preci sely t h e case of t h e i ssue o f t h e n ature o f th e

.

lin ks between S peech sou n ds an d their meani n gs N o dedu cti on .

c an pro vid e an answer t o t h e qu esti o n in what d oes t h e li n k

between soun ds and mean i n gs,n ow un der i nvestigati o n ,actu al
ly c onsist ? It is a m atter whi ch requ i res experim ent al stu di es,an d
as su ch b el o n gs ab o v e all t o ex peri m en t al p sy ch o l o gy an d t h e

phy si o l o gy o f t h e b rain A philo so pher can at t h e b est ad o pt

.

a c ert ain attit u de t o wards su c h o r o ther prop o sal s as t o h o w

t o so lve t h e pro bl em ,pro po sals su bmitted by su ch experimental

disci plin es,an d that is all I thi nk it reason ab le t o c on fine myself
.
 THE M E A NIN GS OF 30
“ ”
M EANTN G 1

t o th e t t s a emen
t that t h e lin k b etween sou n d an d meanin g in t h e
verb al signs is a co nnecti o n su i generis an d d o es n ot c on si st
in associ ati on For t h e rest ,as h as b een said
. it b el o n gs t o
psycho lo gy and physi o l o gy Cert ai nly ,t h e re su lts o f research
.

in those di sci pli nes are n ot entirely sati sfact ory so far ; in partie
ul ar,it d oes n o t seems po ssible t o accept t h e Pavl o vi an h y

p ot h esis con cern i n g t h e sec o n d syst em o f signals as d efin itively

form u lat ed an d proved ,an d consequ ently as o n e which fu lly ex

plains t h e n ature o f t h e verb al signs an d t h e m ech ani sm o f t h e
functi oni n g o f th o u ght -lan gu age All thi s is t rue But p hil o s
. .

oph ers can o n ly wait fo r further pro gress t o be m ade by ex

perim ent al sciences in t h e field they are i nt erested in .

5 .
-
TI DE LIN G U I S TI C APPR OA C H T O THE I SS UE O F M EANIN G

References t oli n gu i stic m eanin g are fre qu ently fou n d in

th e literature o f t h e su bj ect Th at m ight su ggest th at li n gu istics
.

h as it s o w n ,di sti n ct ,theory of mean i n g This is an o bvi ou s

.

mi sun derstan di n g ,t o be refu ted at t h e ou t set A theo ry o f m ean

.

in g whi ch ab o ve all answers su ch qu esti ons as : What is m ean

ing? How is it c o nn ecte d with sign ?,et c d oes n ot an d canno t
.

vary acc ordin g t o t h e di sci pli ne c oncern ed O n t h e c ontrary , .

every au th o r, regar dless o f hi s spec i ality an d con se quen t approach

t o t h e pro blem ,if h e fo rm u l at es a theory o f m eani n g,always

fo rm u lates it as a general theo ry with u niversal validity .

”
What , then , lies b ehi n d t h e term lin guistic meanin g ?
Sim ply what is in dicat ed in t h e title o f thi s secti on ,n am ely an
appro ach t o t h e i ssu e o f m eanin g fr o m t h e p o i n t o f Vi ew o f lin

guist ic i nterest ,th at is o f th ose qu es ti ons whi ch are theoretically

signi fican t in specifically li n gu i sti c researc h Thi s is as n atural
.

and com prehen sible as t h e fact th at t h e l o gi ci an ,t h e soci ol o gist ,

et c ,i n vestig at es li n g u i stic pro blem s fro m t h e po i n t o f vi ew o f

.

hi s specific i nterest .

What ,then ,a re t h e the o reti cal aspects o f lin gu i stic i nt erest

in t h e i ssue o f m eanin g ? They h ave been ou tlined in a m o st gen
 SELECTED PROBLEMS O F SEMANTICS

e ra l m ann er fi rst part o f this b o o k ,when t h e n atu re

in t h e
sco pe o f sem anti c i n terest s o f li n gu istic s w as t en t atively

plaine d Bu t there ,t h e issu e o f m eani n g w

.

issues i nvo lved ; at present it comes b ack as the i ssue,which m ay

she d additi o n al li ght on t h e q uesti o n s w e are di scu ssin g .

As opp o soed t o t h e phi loso pher an d t h e l o gici an ,t h e lin

gu i st is in prmciple n ot i n tereste d in what m ean ing is,bu t
wants t o kno w wh at happ ens t o m ean i n g ,that is,o f what
what lan gu age u n its) it is an attribu te,in what w ay verb al signs
m ean somethi n g ,h o w m ean i n g ch an ges,e tc I agree with Q u i ne 7 7
.

that it is po ssible t o stu dy t h e re gu lariti es o f so m ethi n g even _

withou t kn owi n g what that som ethi n g is (e g ,ancien t astron om

. .

ers kn ew very well t h e m o vem en t s o f planet s wit h ou t kn owin g

what planets are) .

Accordin g t o Qu in e,there are three princi p al spheres o f t h e

li n gu istic i n terest in t h e i ssu e of m ean in g :

( 1) gramm ar t h e stu dy o f tho se fo rms whi ch h ave m ean i n g ;

(2 ) lexi co graphy t h e stu dy o f syn o nym s, i e , expres

. .

si o n s whi ch h ave sim il ar m e an in gs ; thu s t h e su bj ect m atter o f

lexico g raphy is t o identi fy m eani n gs, that is t o li st pair s o f

syn o nym ou s expressi o n s in a l an gu ag e or in a p ai r o f l an guage s ;

3
( ) se m an ti c c h a n ge s (call e d by de S au ssur e di ac h ro ni c an al

ysis) t h e stu dy o f c han ges in m ean i n gs an d o f re gu l ariti es

in su c h chan ges .

Thi s classifi cati o n seem s t o be particu larly lu cid an d c o n

v en ien t for t h e presen t ati on o f cert ai n gen eral theo reti cal is

su es conn ec t ed with m e an i n g It is o bvi ou s that t h e lin gu i sti c

.

aspect o f t h e issu e o f m ean in g is a speci ali zed m att er whi c h c an

be an alyse d and so lve d o nly by lin gui stic m e an s,appli ed t o

concret e com parativ e m at eri al t aken from t h e field o f lan gu age

phen omena Thu s it is n ot a specific d om ai n o f phil o so phi zin g ,

.

for n o general phil oso phi cal o r lo gical co nsiderati o ns can replace

W v 0 Q u ine, Th e Problem o f M eanin g in L in gu istics in W

77 . . . . v .

0 Q uine,Fro m th e Logical Po int of View ,Cam bridge ( M ass ) 1953

. .
 SELEC TED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

parts of whi ch t h e st em o f t h e w ord ,prefixes,

have speci fied mean i ngs This po int re qu ires a more
.

analysi s Th e i ssue is fu rther c o

.

lin gu ists themselv es there is n o u niversal ag reem en t on t h e

m o st fu nd am en t al appro pri ate pro blem s ; mo reo ver,t h e termi
n olo gy is n o t w ell est abli shed ,an d occasi o n ally sh o ws striki n g

di fferences when t h e wo rks o f differen t au tho rs are com pared .

S tructurali sm ,ph on olo gy ,t h e b eh avi ou rist tren d ,and p syc ho

li n gui sti cs represent in m any respects different st an dpo i nts .

Th e po int is that when w e li sten com prehen din gly t o som e

o n e s speech an d perceive su c h ph o ni c u nit s as t h e syll able ,t h e
’

word an d t h e sentence,then from th e theo reti cal poi nt o f vi ew

t h e p ri nci pal di fficu lty co nsists in d rawin g a strict lin e o f dem arca
ti on b etween t h e wo rd an d t h e o ther lin gu isti c units I n an alysi n g
.

t h e verb al sign s, w e no ti ce a n u m b er o f thei r c o mponen t elements,

ab ove all acc o rdi n g t o so m e au th o rs t h e p ho nem es,t h e
m orphem es an d t h e sem antem es Whereas t h e ph on em e is t h e
.

least phoni c u nit in t h e system o f a given l an guage (an d as su ch

is n ot merely identical with a sou n d) ,an d t h e problem of its
“ ”
m ean in g is c onfined t o defini te fu ncti on s withi n that system ,
o wi n g t o whi ch it serves t o fo rm an d t o di sti n gui sh w o rds,t h e

m orphem es an d t h e sem antem es clearly perfo rm sem an ti c fun c

ti o ns B y t h e sem antem es I m ean here (fo ll o win g t h e defin iti on
.

given by Ven dryes) tho se lan gu age elem ents t h e m eani n g o f whi ch
coi n c ides with t h e c o nt en t o f t h e given n o ti on ho rse),
an d by t h e m o rphem es, those elements whi ch are n on-in depend
en t parts o f w o rds and ex press relati o ns ho rse-s) That
.

termi n ol o gy m ore or less co incides with t h e di fferenti ati o n in to

st em s o n t h e o n e han d an d af fi xes and flexional elem ents o n th e
o ther It is n o t my i nt en ti o n t o ent er here i n t o t h e det ail s o f
.

lin gu i stic co ntro versi es (whether factu al o r termin ol o gical) arou nd

su ch m att ers Wh at is im p o rt ant fo r u s is t h e disti ncti o n m ade
.

by t h e gramm ari an s b etween t h e speci al categ o ri es o f m eanin gs :

lexical and gramm atical (whi ch is a result o f t h e dist in cti on o f
sem ant em es an d m o rphem es in w o rd s) .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF SEMANTI CS

on th e t s ren g th of the or d er of wo rd s onl y ,relati o n s betw e

the wo rds in a sen en ce 7 8 t
A r Ole s im i lar to that of t h e m o rph em es is p lay e d by
”
wo rds as an d , o r et c ,calle d sen ten ti al co nju nct io .

tical with senten ce-fo rmi n g fu n cto rs o r o perat o rs)

i n defin ite articles t o be fo u n d in cert ai n l angu age
“ ”
an d a in En gli sh) an d o ther auxi li ary w o rds
“
verbs in su ch fo rm s as I have com e They di ffer from t h e
m orphem es in th at fo rm ally they are separate words ,wh erea s t h e
m orphem e s are always syllables or stri n gs o f syll ables org ani c ally
connecte d with a w ord Thi s di f ference ,ho wever ,is pu rely form al ,
.

sin ce au xili ary w o rd s c an appear o nly in t h e co m pany o f o ther

‘

wo rds an d add t o t h e me an i n g o f su ch Th e separat io n o f them .

is a sec o n d ary i ssu e ,whi ch is b ei n g so lve d in v ari o u s m anners

in t h e v ari o u s ethn i c (n atu ral) lan guage s,an d can be explai n ed
o n hi st ori cal g ro u n d s .

Th e questi on raised ab o ve le ads t o t h e divisi on o f lan gu age

signs in t o au t osem an t ic an d syn sem an t ic Th at divisi on ,w hi ch .

h arks b ack t o Ari st o tle s divi si on o f lan gu age si gns i nt o cat ego re
’

m ati c (tho se whi c h c an pl ay t h e r Ole o f su bj ect o r predi cate in

a sen te n ce) an d syncat ego re m ati c (th ose whi c h can n o t i n dep en

dently perform suc h fu n cti ons) ,h as been i ntro du ced by An t o n

M arty7 9 Th e divisi o n i nt o au t osem ant ic an d syn sem ant ic sig ns
.

d oes n o t c o in c ide wit h t h e Ari st oteli an classificati o n ,or with

t h e di vi si o n i n t o w o rds an d su ch w or d p arts as m o rp hem e s .

Nevertheless ,it is t h e sam e ide a o f di sti n gu i shi n g b etween th o se

signs whi ch in a given lan g u age an d si gn sy st em h ave in dep en

dent m e an in gs, an d t h o se wh i ch c an perfo rm thei r sem an ti c

78 Let draw n fro m L ogic and L anguage by B F Hu ppe

u s take an e amp le
x . .

J K amin sky,N ew York 19 56 ,p 7 7 : K eep th e h o me fi res bur n ing

“
. .

Fire s keep t h e h o me bu rn in g K eep fire s bu rn in g t h e h o m e Keep h o me

”
th e b ur n in g fire s .

79 S ee a bo v e all h is Unt e rsu ch ungen zur Gr undlegung der allg e m e inen

Gram mat ik an d S p rachp h ilosop h ie ,Vo l . 1, Halle a . S . 19 08 .

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

Un iversal mean in g is ti on ; t h e fu ture will s

an b t
a s rac

whether an d h ow far it is u seful and appli cable t o concrete

guist ic pro blem s M y perso nal protest again st t
.

o f th at n o ti on is b ase d o n t h e i m po ssibili ty o f

ments th at are di fferen t qualitat ively, n amely

content an d em o ti o n al (styli sti c) sh ad es In .

m ost i m port an t is p r incip al m eani n g ,that

by a context ,whereas t h e rem aini n g (p
elem ent s o f t h e c o n t ext t o t h e sem anti c elements

m ean in g 80
”

I ag ree with those w h o co nt rary t o t h e u niversa l com

pl ai nts (especi ally am on g t h e l o gici an s) concern in g t h e i m per
fect ion o f lan gu age due t o t h e am bigui ty o f it s expressi on s
assert th at n o t on ly t h e am bigui ty but also t h e v agu en e ss of

verb al signs is a n ecessary phen omen on ,even advan tage o u s

from t h e po i n t o f vi ew of t h e com mu nicative effectiveness o f
lan gu age “ This is n ot t antam o unt t o an approval o f o bscurity ,
.

si nce v agueness an d o bscu rity are t w o differen t n o ti ons Where .

as t h e v aguen ess o f an exp ressi on is du e (1 repeat here t h e id ea

“ ”
of M B lack from hi s essay o n V agu eness ) t o t h e reference
.

o f t h e S ig n t o m any o bj ects in t h e field o f referen ce ,o b scurity

ari ses fro m t h e asso c i ati o n o f a li mit e d n u m ber o f altern ativ e

mean in gs with t h e sam e ph onetic form Thu s t h e po in t is t o .

en able t h e hearer (t h e i nt erpret er o f t h e S ign) t o m ake a selecti o n

am on g th o se alt ern a tive m ean i n gs,a selecti o n achi eve d thr ou gh

t h e context in whi c h t h e sign st an d s O bscur ity is related t o t h e .

t x
co n e t,a s B l ac k say s in hi s C rit ica l T M a k ing
” Th is is a cor .

rect co ncept ,bri n gin g ou t t h e b ro ader ,theoreti cal sen se o f t h e

i ssu e o f con text .

8 0B on oc w fl 3 bZK03 HaHufl
p ,19 5 5 ,N9 3 .

81 S ee ab ov e all M ax B lack,L anguage and Ph ilosop hy (th e essay on

an d Critical Th inking by t h e same au th or ( New York 19 5 2,

t
t h e ch ap er on A mbigu ity Th e sa me issu e is discu ssed by Bertrand R u ssell
”
in Th e Analysis of M ind an d in an essay also e n t itled
“
Vagueness .

82 Cf e
g ,p 198
. . . . .
 M EANINGS MEANIN G 30
“ ”
THE OE 9

Lingu istic t di es on m eanin gs o f words have n ot only sho wn

s u

th at words take of defin ite m eanin gs (that is,t h e ch o ice o f o ne

of t h e m an y p ossible m ean in gs is m ade) only in a c o nt ext which

establi shes a de finite u ni verse o f di sc o urse ,bu t h ave led also t o

th e extremely interesti n g heo ry o fsem an ti c field an d t o experi m ent al

t
meth o ds o f t h e m easurem ent o f meanin gs .

Th e theory o f sem antic field c an be t raced b ack t o ,ab ove

all ,Germ an traditi o n (H erder,H um b o ldt) an d in c o ntemporary

lin gui stics is associ ated with t h e n ames o f L Weisgerber,J ost .

Tri er,Porzig,Ipsen an d o thers From t h e philosophi cal point

.

of Vi ew it h as b een d evel o ped by Karl B u hler (Sp rach theorie,

Jena It s id eas are aim ed chi efly again st an i so lated stu dy

o f l an gu age elem en t s an d em phasize t h e i nteg ral n atu re o f

langu age system s and t h e i n fluen ce o f co ntext on t h e m eanin gs

o f expressi ons That rati on al id ea is ,h owever,o verl aid by thi ck
.

strat a o f ideali sm ,especi ally in t h e German t raditi o n (Weis

“ ”
gerb er,Tri er) Accordi n g t o Tr ier,lan gu age
. creat es reality .

“ ”
Sem antic field is a part of t h e lexi cal st ock o f a given l an gu age,
“ ”
i ntern ally c o herent and strictly delin eated from o ther fields
“ ”
with whi ch it is in co nt act How such fields ,e g ,o f joy,gar
. . .

ment s,weather,et c ,are formed

. that depen ds o n t h e spirit
”
of t h e language co ncerne d I n t hi s w ay
. sem antic field s m ake
u p a pi cture o f t h e w o rld an d a scale o f v alues in a given l an guage .

That eviden tly idealisti c concepti on ,permeated by t h e H egeli an

“ ”
idea o f t h e spirit of t h e n ati on ,is striki ngly co rrelated with
those ph ilo s ophical theories o f lan gu age whi ch from t h e posi
“
ti ons o f conven ti on alism m ake thi s o r that perspective o f t h e
” “ ”
world depen d on t h e cho ice o f l an gu age .

Th e m etho d o f in vestigatin g mean i n gs by bu ildin g sem anti c

”
fields h as b een appli ed t o concrete lan guage by t h e schoo l of
Tri er,Wei sgerb er and Porzig A s a m atter o f in fo rm ati on ,I shall
.

menti on here an o ther,experim ent al ,m eth od o f stu dyin g t h e

meanin gs o f expressi ons,whi ch h as been developed in t h e United
St ates by O sg o o d and h is col b la orat o rs 83 Th e central idea o f
.

8 3 Ch E O s o o d G J S u c i & O H Tann enb aum ,The M easurement

. .
g , . . . .

f M eaning,Urbana
o 19 5 7 .
 SELEC TED PROBLEMS O F SEMANTI CS

that m etho d i t in analysin g m eani n gs by a sem an tic

c o ns s s
”
ferent ial : m ean in gs are est abli she d n ot on t h e stren gth
abst rac t lexi cal o perati ons,bu t o n t h e b asi s o f

research as t o h o w a given word i s u n derst o o

b ei n g actu ally u sed by those w h o Speak h e lan gu age in questi

t
That meth o d t o o ,alth ou gh n ot b ased on t h e co ncepti on o f
“ ”
sem an tic field ,st arts fro m t h e assum pti o n that c o n t ext

fluences meani n g .

Th e li ngui sts distin guish still o ther categorie s

m eanin gs They speak o f etym o l o gical m eani n g ,as
.

actu al m ean in g ,whi ch is i m p ort an t for t h e stu dy

o f l an guage ; fu rther, they

from c ommu ni cative meanin g , t h e issu e here bei n g whet
em o ti o n al elem en t s b el on g t o t h e verb al sign s,or n ot ,et c
.

Fi n ally ,t h e largest an d t h e m o st i mport an t secti on of

lin gu istic stu dy o f mean in gs co vers in vestigati
c han ges in meanin gs an d t h e regul ariti es t o whi ch they are su b

ject ed These m atters are of great significance for t h e en tire stu dy

.

of lan guage as a wh ole , sin ce they reveal it s hist o ric al an d soci al

n atu re . They are,h owever,con siderably speci alized ,an d t h e

reader is therefo re referred t o w o rks dev ot ed t o th ose pro blem s .

M y in tenti on h as b een only t o give general i n fo rmati on o n m at

ters m ay have a wider theo reti cal si gni ficance .
 SELEc rED PROBLEMS OF SEM A NT I CS

make declarati ons whi c h y differ o n e from an other,bu

n ot o nl

are i nc om patibl e o ne with ano ther ; that ari ses fro m

plicity o f aspects o f t h e phenomen on u n der in v est igat

diversity o f int erests o f th e vari ou s di sciplines cone
t o differences in st an dpoin ts (m ai nl y philo so phic al ,
very few peo ple in thi s c o nnecti on c all a spade a sp
,
cern in g t h e pro blem s o f l an guage It is very i m po rt an t there fore ,
.

t o analyse t h e comm uni c ative fun cti o n o f l an guage preci sely

from t h e po in t o f view o f it s phi l osophical i m pli cati o ns .

1 L AN G U A GE A N D
. LA N G U A G ES

I h ave t o begin by m akin g plain what I m ean by lan guage

“ ”
an d by S peec h O therwi se I sh ou ld risk seri ou s mi sun derst an d
.

in gs which might c onsiderably diminish t h e v alu e o f further

an alysi s . I m ean here neither an all-rou n d an alysis o f tho se
phen o men a t o whic h these terms are b ein g applie d as nam es,
n o r t h e an alysis o f t h e m any p o in ts o f View represen ted in t h e

literature o f t h e su bj ect I m erely want t o i mpart as m u ch preci

.

“ ” “ ”
si o n t o t h e t erm s lan guage an d speech as will make it pos
sible t o di sc u ss free ly t h e co gnitive and t h e c o mm un ic ative func

ti o n o f lan guage .

We are interested here ab ove all in t h e phoni c l an gu age,

whi ch by reason o f some o f it s properti es is lan gu age p ar ex
cellen ce an d li es at t h e ro o t o f all o ther c om m un icati o n system s

in civilize d soci eties Th at is why ,in View o f it s fu ncti ons an d

.

un iversality ,it is un derst o o d as l an guage t ou t cour t ,if n o o ther

qu alifica ti on s are added t o i n di cat e that some o ther special

lan guage is m ean t in a given parti cul ar case .

We kn ow from t h e fore go in g c onsiderati on c oncerni n g t h e

sign s that v ari ou s fact ors co m e i nt o play in t h e an aly si s of

lan guage ; t h e aspects o f that analy si s m ay also be di fferent ,

an d as a resu lt t h e defin iti o n s o f l an gu age m ay v ary S o m e au
.

thors lay stress o n t h e ph o neti c ,an d o th ers o n t h e sem anti c,

 TBE CO MMUNI CATIVE FUN CTION OF LANGUAGE

aspec t of l an guage Th e vi ew-po int s o n lan gu age differ as between

.

th e gramm ari an ,t h e literary hist ori an ,t h e lexico grapher,t h e

soci o l o gist ,and t h e psyc h o l o gi st , an d last bu t n o t least t h e m an

in-th e-street w h o is n o speci alist in any o f t h e soci al sciences .

Every one o f them can ,and o ften d oes,give his o w n ,parti al

defin iti on of lan guage These parti al definiti ons are often per
.

t in ent an d correct Y et M ari o Pei1 is right in st ati n g that precisely

.

because o f t h e perti nence and co rrectness o f all those parti al

defini ti ons,lan gu age as a phen omen on is somethi n g m ore than
each o f su c h defin iti ons i mplies B oth t h e ph onic an d t h e sem antic
.

aspect , b oth t h e grammatical forms an d catego ri es an d t h e fun c

ti on o f th e in termedi ary in t h e hum an process o f communica
‘
ti on ,taken separately ,are n ecessary ,bu t n ot sufli cient ,con '

dit ions for t h e em ergence of lan gu age processes .

In hi s b oo k o n t h e o rigin o f lan gu age,Rév ész2li sts its vari o u s

defini ti ons Th e list is m ade so m ewhat at ran d om ,bu t it en ables
.

a cert ai n typ o l o gy : som e au th o rs emph asiz e t h e S ign aspect o f

lan gu age an d it s arbitrary n at ure ,o thers,in c onnecti on with

it s S ign n atu re stress t h e expressive functi on o f lan gu age ,o thers,
it s den otative functi on ,still o thers ad opt psyc ho l o gist ,i n tenti on
ali st , o r b ehavi ou rist st an dp o i nts3 An exhau stive defini ti on .

1 M . Pei,Th e S t o ry f L anguage ,L o n don 19 5 7

o .

,
2G . R ev esz,Th e Origins and Preh ist ory of L anguage,Lo n don 19 5 6 .

3 Here is a fo otn ote from Rev esz,o p ,pp. 2

cit
1 6 —.127 w h ich inclu des
.

selected defin ition s of langu age as giv en by t h e v ario u s au th o rs :

EBB IN GHA US : L angu age is a system of con v en tio n al sign s th at can be

t
v olun ar ily produced at any time . CROCE : L an gu age is ar ticulated,limited
soun d organized for th e purp o se o f exp ression D rI rR I CH : Lan gu age is th e
'
.

totality o f expressiv e abilit ies o f in div idu al h u man bein gs an d an imals c a

p ah le o f bein g un ders o o d t by at least

th er indiv idual E I SLER : Langu age
one o .

is an y expression o f experien ces by a creature w ith a so u l B E RDMANN : . .

Lan gu age is no t a kin d o f commu n ication o f ideas bu t a kind o f th in kin g

stated or form ulated thin kin g L an gu age is a to ol,
. an d in fact a too l or o rgan

o f th inkin g th at is uniqu e t o u s as h um an beings FROBEs z Language is an .

o rdered sequ ence o f w ords by w h ich a speaker expresses h is th ou gh ts w ith

t h e in tention o f m aking th em kn o w n t o a h earer J HARR I S : Words are t h e . .

symbols o f ideas both general an d particular : o f th e general ,primarily,as

 SELECTED PROBLEMS -
OE SEMANTI CS

wo uld be cu mb ersome and o verl oaded ,and it s value more t h

.

d ou btful Th e defini ti on ou ght t o brin g out n ot all aspects o f

.

pro blem ,bu t it s aspects fro m som e di stinct point of view ,

m ost im port an t aspect s an d th o se connect e d with o bj ec tive
.

re q u irement s o f researc h One o f suc h aspec t s in my opi ni on

.

o f extreme i mpo rt ance is t h e soci al aspect o f l an gu age as an

sen tiall y an d immediately ; of t

t h e par icu lar,only secon daril y,accidentally
an d m ediately HEGEL : Langu age is t h e
. th eoretical act o f intelligen ce in its
true sen se ,for it is its ou tw ard expression J E SPER SEN : Language is h uman .

activ ity w h ich h as th e aim o f co mmun icatin g ideas an d emo tion s JOD L : .

Verbal langu age is th e ability o f man t o fash ion ,by means of combined
tones an d soun ds based o n a limited numbers of elements,th e total stock of
h is p erceptio n s an d con ception s in th is n atural tone material in su ch a w ay
th at th is psych o logical process is clear an d compreh en sible to oth ers to its
least detail KAIN z : Lan guage is a structu re of signs,w ith th e h elp of w h ich
.

t h e representation of ideas an d facts m ay be ef fected,so th at th in gs th at are

n o t present, ev en th in gs th at are co mpletely irnperceptible t o th e sen ses, m ay
be represented D E L AGUNA : Speech is th e great medium th rou gh w hich h uman
.

co - o peration is brou gh t ab o u t M ARTY : L an guage is an y intention al u tteran ce

.

o f soun ds as a S ign o f a p sych ic state P I L LSBUR Y- M EADER : Langu age is a .

mean s o r in strumen t for th e commu n ication of th ou gh t,in clu din g ideas

an d em o tio n s D E SA U SS URE : L an guag
. e is a system o f signs expressiv e o f

ideas S CHUCHAR D T Th e e ssence of lan gu age lies in co mm unication SAP IR

. . .

Lan gu age is a purely h um an an d n on- in stinctiv e meth o d o f commu nicating

ideas,emo tio n s an d desires b y m ean s of a system of v oluntaril y pro du ced
symb ols .

To th is I S h ou ld th er definitions w h ich ,in

lik e t o add a n u mber of o

my Opin ion ,are mo re imp ortan t th an many o f th ose qu oted by R ev esz :

CAR NAP : A langu age ,as e g English ,is a system o f activ ities or rath er,
. .
. .

o f h ab its,i e ,disp o sitions t o certain activ ities,serv in g m ain ly for th e pu r

,
p os es O f c o mm u n icatio n an d Of c o -ordinatio n o f activ ities am o n th e m em bers
g
o f a gr o u p G ARD I NE R : A S a fir st appro ximation let us defin e speech as th e
.

u se , betw ee n m an an d m an ,o f articulate soun d- sign s for th e commun ication

o f th eir w ish es an d th eir v iew s ab ou t things M ORR I S : A lan gu age in th e full .

se miotical sen se o f th e term is an y in tersu bj ectiv e set o f S ign v ehicles w h o se

u sage is de termin ed by syn tactic al , seman tical, an d pragmatical ru les S Z OB ER : .

We sh all call ph on ic lan gu age th e set o f soun ds u sed fo r t h e purp ose o f estab
li sh in g co mmun icatio n t
wi h o ne s
’
milieu or repro du ced in o n e s min d fo r
’

t he purpose of clearl y realiz in g o n e s ow n

’
th ou ght .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

of b oth t h e co gnitive pro cess an d su bj ective em o ti on al,v o

t io n al,et c ,experi ences
. .

Th e di sti ncti on b etween lan guage and speech rests

easily o b serv able facts Th e theoretic al aspect Of t h e i ssu e
.

been raised in co ntem porary literatu re onl y by de S au ss

alth ou gh in t h e termi n o l o gical sense all t h e l an gu age

here t o ou r cu ltural circle an d it s traditi ons) ,b eginnin g with

distincti on b etween Yxcii c o oc and Aéyog in Greek an d lingua
'

“
s erm o in Latin , accept t h e di f ference b etween lan guage as
“
a system o f li n guisti c facts an d speech as t h e n am e o f a type

of acti o n . Fo ll o win g de S au ssu re ,that theoretical di sti nct i on

h as been ad opte d in all c o ntem porary li nguistics Gardiner .

disti n gui shes between speech as an activity with clearly u tili

t ari an en ds in view,an d l an gu age as a preci se kn o wledge pertainin g
t o c omm u ni c ati o n by m eans o f verb al signs4 Th e di f . feren ti a
ti o n h as b een ad opted in t h e M arxist literature o f t h e su bj ect ,
lin gui stic,psych ol o gi cal , etc In hi s Psychology (in Ru ssi an)
.

S L Ru binsh t ein defin es speech as lan gu age fu ncti o ni n g in t h e

. .

c o nt ext o f i n dividu al c o nsci o u sness,an d com pares t h e di f feren ce

between speech an d l an gu age t o t h e di fference between in di
vidu al an d soci al consci ou sn ess .

Th e defin iti on o f t h e phoni c l an gu age I have su gg e st e d ab ove

can easily be exten de d (with cert ain m o dificati o ns) t o c o ver

“ ”
o ther lan gu ages Th e hu m an process o f co mm uni cati on t akes
.

place n ot onl y by m eans o f t h e ph oni c l an gu age , bu t also thr ou gh

o ther m eans o f c omm un i c ati on ,either au xili ary o r su b stit u tive

in relati o n t o t h e ph onic l an guage I n my o pini on ,it is unneces

.

“ ”
sary ped ant ry t o re serve t h e term lan gu age for t h e ph oni c
lan gu age,as h as been su ggeste d by e g ,Leonard B lo omfield . . .

“ ”
AS re gards t h e t erm speec h ,ou r direct lin gui stic i ntu iti on

in du ces u s rather t o reserve it for t h e acti o n o f co mmu ni cati on

by m eans o f t h e ph o ni c lan gu age,an d t o u se it in o ther cases
o nl y by w ay o f a m et aph or when w e say that t h e features
4 A G ardiner,The Th eory
.
f Sp eech
o and L anguage,o x
ford 19 5 1,p 6 2
.
,
 THE COMM UNI CATIVE FUNCTI ON OF LANGUAGE 3 17

face tell u s som ethi n g ,

’
of one s By contrast ,t h e term lan
”
guage is u sed t o den o te vari ou s systems o f comm un icati o n ,and
in this case lin gu i sti c i ntu iti on en ables u s t o speak equ ally o f t h e
phon i c lan gu age an d t h e l an gu age o f gestu r es ,sy m b ol s,col ours,

etc Th e p o in t is n ot t o st rive for so m e ped an ti c u n iv o cality o f

.

“
t h e term lan gu age u n attainable in practice,but t o disti n gu ish
th e vari ou s meani n gs o f that t erm accordi n g t o a given c o nt ext ,
an d t o realize prec isely t h e di f feren ces b etween su ch m eanin gs .

Conse qu ently ,as in t h e case o f t h e ph oni c lan gu age,w e m ay

say that by lan gu age w e m ean e ver s t m f i f defin ite
y y s e o s gns o a

type wh ich serves the p urp ose of h um an comm un ica t ion ( i n cl u di n g

th e comm uni cati on o f b oth t h e c ontents o f acts o f c ogniti o n and

of em o ti o n al ,etc ,experi ences) and wh ich in cer tain cases ma
.
y
ser ve to formu late th ough ts in th e p ro cess of cogn ition (th at is,

in th e process o f reflecti o n o f o bj ective reali ty in its su bj ective

min ofthesubject, co gni ti on) Tw o elemen ts requi re explan ati on here : ( 1) t h e n a
"
.

ture o f t h e preference fo r t h e system o f verb al S ign s as co m pared

with o ther systems o f si gns ; and (2 ) t h e n ature o f t h e di fference
between those t w o cl asses o f systems as co ncerni n g their role
in thou ght processes AS w e sh all see,these tw o i ssues are inter
.

First o f all it m u st be said that if arti culated so un ds an d verb al

Signs h ave co m e t o fo rm t h e fou n d ati o n o f t h e sy stem o f t h e
“ ”
phoni c language, whi ch h as thu s risen t o t h e st atu s o ft h e n atural
-

lan gu age ,this h as been due t o t h e p articular usefulness o f that

l an guage in t h e th o u gh t and comm un icati on processes,and n ot
t o t h e fact that on ly t h e verb al sign s c an perfo rm that fu ncti o n .

Th e b est pro o f that t h e l atter is n ot t h e case is t o be foun d in t h e

fact that cert ai n people w h o are physically han di capped u se
other syst ems o f si gns ; fo r in st ance ,t h e deaf-m utes u se a lan gu age
of gestu res,an d t h e bli n d ,a t actile l an guage . Th e fact that in
both cases w e have t o do with a l an gu age learned especi ally fo r
th e purpose ,an d t aken o ver fro m tho se w h o u se t h e pho nic
lan gu age and translate t h e catego ries o f t h e l atter in t o a l angu age
of gestu res o r t ou ch ,d oes n ot alter t h e fact t h at o ther syst em s
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

of S igns are in a po siti on t o repl ace verb al S igns (w e have t o

there with situ ati ons in wh ich verb al sign s are inaccessible
t h e persons concern ed) in b o th t h e tho u ght

c ati on process . Nevertheless,verb al s

S i gns in t h e p o ssessi on o f su ch practi c al v alu es

sco pe with , and in , whi ch they reach t h e bearer

depen den t o n li ght (in dispen sable in t h e case of all t h e vi
sign s) n o r o n di rect cont ac t (i n dispensable in t h e case o f all

t actile signs),and,fin ally ,immense possibilities for formin g c

bin at ions and di fferenti ati on in sh ades,et c .

These pro perti es have raise d t h e phonic lan gu age in

histo ry t o t h e rOle o f the natural lan guage th e signs o f whi ch have
bec om e transparent t o meanin g We thin k in terms o f that
.

lan gu age an d w e are u nable t o thi nk otherwise ,becau se from

o u r earlie st chi ldho o d soci ety incu lcates in u s t h e ability t o t hi n k

in terms o f lan guage E very other sy stem o f S igns is thu s either

.

au xili ary in rel ati on t o th e ph o ni c l an guage faci al and

o ther gest u re s whic h accompany speech ,etc ) or is a spec ific
.

su bstitu t e fo r th at l an gu age,a t ransl ati on o f it i n t o an o ther

syst em o f sign s (all t h e c o des, ever suc h syst em m u st then

y
in turn be t ranslate d in t o t erm s of t h e ph onic l an gu age That .

is Wh y these o ther lan gu ages are u su ally means o f c o mm uni

cati o n u n der defin it e c irc um st ances,but n o t an in strum en t o f

tho u ght Theoretically,t h e latter altern ative is possible t o o ,an d

.

therefore th e defini ti on states th at in cert ain c ases th ose ot her

l angu ages l an gu ages o f gest ures, tou ch, et c ) may serve
.

t o form u l at e th ou ghts in t h e process o f co gni ti on I n reality,

.

this is o bserved o nl y in c onn ecti o n with those disab ilities whi ch

m ake it i mpo ssible fo r t h e persons aflect ed t o ad opt t h e ph onic
'

l anguage in t h e c ou rse o f th e soci al edu cati onal process I n .

o rdi n ary cases, that pro cess account s fo r t h e fact th at w e are

u nable t o free o u rselves fro m t h e h abit o f thi n kin g in terms o f

(phoni c) l an gu age Even in t h e case o f b rain inj uries c au sin g

.

aph asi a,thin ki n g in t erms o f verb al signs d o es n o t disappear

co m pletely .
 SELEC TED PROBLEM S OE SEMANTI CS

penden t y t t h e sam e tim e ,

s s em s ; at they m ay resort t o t h e metaphor
‘ ’
o f callin g these sy st em s l an guages This m et aphor is d an gero u s,
.

si nce it m ay l ead t o t h e n o ti on th at su ch syst ems c an liberate

u s from u ncert ai n ti es or diflicult ies whi ch i n here in t h e w o rki n

g
”
o f l an g u age 5 .

Thi s qu otati on sho ws that L B l o omfi eld . an emi nent

au th o rity o n lin gui sti cs ,t o wh om neo -positivi st s eag erly refer

“
S im ply refu ses t h e n am e o f lan gu age t o t h e vari o u s deduct ive

calcu li an d system s Th e p o i n t is i nteresti n g in th at for m any

.

a m athem atici an an d l o gi c i an these calcu li an d syst em s are

p rec i se ly l an gu a g es p a r e x c e llence , where as t h e so -

calle d n atur al

(p h o n i c) l an gu a ge is t re at e d by th em ra th er laconi cally b ecause

o f t h e am bigu ity and lac k o f precisi o n o f it s expressi on s .

These may seem t o be extremely radical form ul ati o ns,but

only b ecau se I h ave drawn c o nclu si ons from wh at im p licitly

resu lts fro m cert ai n o pin i ons actu ally t o be met with Bu t thi s
.

is an i nessenti al po int ,since w e are n ot quarrellin g either ab ou t

words o r ab o u t t h e ho n ou r and t h e m o ral authority of this o r
that l an gu age What is at st ake here is a mu ch more im portant
.

poi nt ,phil o so phical in natu re ,whi ch may in n o case be disre

garded : t h e un derst an di n g o f t h e rel ati on b etween t h e formalized
lan gu ages an d t h e natural l an gu age,t h e un derst an din g o f their
derivat ive n atu re in relati on t o t h e lin gui sti c hinterlan d in t h e
fo rm o f t h e n atural lan gu age on which ,as t o o rigin and in ter
pret at ion ,they are b ased .

We shall n ot be concern ed here with t h e am bigu ity o f t h e

expressi o ns b el on gi n g t o t h e n at ural l an g uage an d t o their l ac k

o f preci si on , o r with t h e c o ntrasti n g properties o f t h e form aliz ed

lan gu age s This i ssu e will be raise d again later o n Bu t here I

. .

sh ou ld lik e t o p o i n t o u t that th at am bigu ity ,whi c h is a sho rt

c omi n g o f t h e n at ur al l an gu age fro m t h e p o i nt o f vi ew o f cert ai n

research pro cedures ,is at t h e same ti me it s fort e fro m t h e p o int

L B lo o mfield, L in gu istic Aspect of S cience ,in I n ternational Ency clo

”
5 .

p edia of Unifie d S cience,V o l 1,Pt 1,U niv ersity o f C h icago Press,195 5 ,

. .

pp . 228-2
29 .
 THE COMMUNI CATIVE FUN CTI ON OE L ANGUAGE

of vi ew o f t h e co mm u ni cati on process : it s great flexibility en a

it t o rise t o t h e occasi on when it h as t o serve as a m eans o f exp:
si o n in t h e soci al process o f c om mu ni c ati on .

Th e p oi nt n ow un der discu ssi on is v ery simple,but also v

import ant As menti oned in P art I ,at t h e st age when t h e ph o
.

lan gu age already exists,all other lan gu ages,in particu lar 3

pro du cts o f hi gh spiritu al cu ltu re as t h e form alized calcu li

t h e ded u ctive system s,som etimes call ed fo rm alized langua

can ,and d o ,devel o p onl y on t h e b asi s o f t h e n atural (ph o

lan gu age as specific translati o ns and interpretati on s o f su

” “
I n i m partin g precisi on t o su ch term s as lan gu age , spec
an d lan gu ages w e have come t o face cert ain factu al proble
”

which in dicate t h e path o f fu rther analysis These are ab .

all t h e t w o g reat i ssu es in t h e theo ry o f l an gu ages whi ch h

been co vered by t h e defin iti on o f lan guage su ggested abo

an d n ow re q u ire further discu ssi on :

( 1) th e relati o n between think i n g in terms o f lan gu age,a

reality ;

(2 ) t h e relati on between th ink i n g in term s o f lan gu age,a

t h e c o mm un i ca ti on process .

2 L AN G UAGE
. AN D RE ALI TY

Is th e lan gu age in which w e think somethin g c oncerni

reality when w e learn wh at th at reality is like ,is t h e l an gu a

by which w e i n form o thers ab ou t w hat w e thi n k ab ou t that

ality with wh i ch w e b eco me ac qu ai n t e d ,someh o w c onn ect

with that reality ? Or i s it a pro duct o f an arbitrary proce

An answer t o t h i s qu esti on is in dispensible for t h e so lu ti on
any i ssue c o ncerni n g S ign ,m eani n g ,c om muni cati on ,et c Ev e .

theo ry o r phil osophy o f lan gu age is concerned exp licite o r imp

c ite with t h e rel ati o nshi p b etween l an gu age an d reality .

Tw o extreme st an d poi nts are t o be fo un d in t h e literat u

, 9
15
5 o f t h e su bj ect in thi s c onnecti o n On e o f them st art s fro m c o
x(lim P
»
o e
rss !
.
 SELEC TED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

v ention ali st assu m p ti ons and m aintain s

that lan guage is a
u et o f an arbitrar rocess ,and it s ru les are m ade in t h e
y p
w ay as t h e ru les o fany gam e Th e o ther st an d po in t is that lan
.

is an im age of r

t h e stru c tu re o f re ality referre d t o in

that lan gu age ,and that this
is why language can i nfo rm u s ab ou t that reality In my opini on , .

b oth these st an dpo i nts are erroneous an d hamper a proper u n der

st an di ng o f t h e rOle o f lan guage and it s m ec hani sm .

Th e concept o f l an gu age as a g ame o f chess w as co mm o n

am on g t h e n e o -posit iv ist s It h as been held by Hem pel ,Ajdu
.

kiew icz,C arn ap,Ayer,an d o thers There were,o f co urse,dif.

feren ces b etween t h e st an dpoints o f t h e vari ou s phi losophers

an d l o gi ci ans,bu t t h e essenti al po i nts o f that c oncept were co m
m on t o all o f them , It w as t h e convi cti on that l an gu age,li ke
.

“
l ogic (cf Carn ap s n o t ori ou s prin ciple o f
.
’
c an b e

c onst ru cte d in an arbitrary man ner by ad opti n g ad libitum su ch

o r other assu m pti ons , ru les, et c , as in t h e case o f devisin g a gam e

. .

While rej ectin g such su ggesti o ns (j ust becau se lan gu age is one
o f th ose elements o f cu lture whi ch are m o st resist an t t o all - arbitrar

iness an d n ovelty) ,it is w orth while t o analyse what w as their

o rigi n .Person ally ,I am c onvin ced th at t h e deci sive r Ole w as

played by an an alo gy with dedu ctive system s an d by t h e con

fu si on o f n atu ral l an gu ages with form aliz ed lan gu ages I n th e .

case o f a fo rm aliz e d l an gu age o ne can an d m ay in fact b eh ave

in an arbitrary w ay,c ho ose axi om s,transform ati on ru les,et c , .

at will Bu t t h e erro r co nsi st s in a m ech ani cal t ransfer o f what

.

”
is valid for t h e langu ages o f deductive theories on t o an an aly
sis o f natur al l an gu age s Thi s is an error,first o f all,b ec au se
.

they perform diflerent fun cti on s an d have diflerent m echani sm

o f thei r o w n And n ow t o t h e principal arguments for su ch
.

a po in t o f view First ,every game presuppo ses a kn owledge

.

o f it s rules ,whi ch are fo rm u l at ed in a ph oni c l an gu age Th e .

depen dence o f a gam e on langu age is u ni n direct ion al S ho u ld .

w e then ch o o se t o treat l an gu age as a gam e ,an d verb al S igns as

co u nt ers h an dled in c o nfo rm ity with t h e ru les o f th at g am e,w e -

 SELE C TED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

is t h e same as t h e stru ctu re of reali ty h as n o c ompre hensible

m eani n g . That is so becau se rea lity d oes n ot i t
cons s o f any

e em en s
l t or parts t o c orrespon d t o t h e elem en ts o r parts of

t
sen ences u ttered .

Lan gu age is n ot an arbitrary g am e in which verb al signs serve

as c o u nt ers, n o r is it a pict u re, o r a direct m appin g , o f t h e stru e

ture o f reality Thu s w e m ay n ot detach l an gu age fro m re at

.

and fro m it s reflecti o n in t h e hum an mi n d ,an d w e m ay n ot

treat l an gu age expressi ons as a picto ri al analogon o f reality .

How then is that rel ati on t o be in terpreted ?

There is a very fin e form ul ati on by M arx :
“
S peech is as o ld as c onsci ou sness,speech is a practi cal,
re al consc i ou sn ess whi ch exists b oth fo r o ther pe o ple an d for

myself An d speec h com es t o bein g ,like consci o usn ess,o nly

.

”
from t h e n eed ,t h e necessity o f cont act with o ther people 3 .

Th e i nterpret ati o n o f lan guage as an organon ,an in stru m en t

that serves communi cati on purposes (an i nterpretati on which
is in conformity with t h e st arting p oint o f our an alysis o f t h e
i ssues o f t h e Sign,m ean in g ,an d lan guage) h as been kn o wn in
t h e literature o f t h e su bj ect , especi ally writt en from t h e lin gu isti c

m f 9 We are n ot i nterested
p o i n t o f vi ew , si n ce t h e ti e o A r i st o tl e .

here in t h e origi n o f lan guage,or in t h e issu e as t o whether t h e

n ature o f lan guage as an organon requi res a pu rposive o r a c au sal

interpret ati o n Our fo cal i ssu e is that o f t h e relati on between

.

l anguage on t h e on e han d ,an d t h e thou ght pro cess an d t h e

reality referre d t o in lan guage ,o n t h e o ther .

Let u s b egin with t h e relati o n between lan guage an d thin k

An aspec t of that i ssue w as rai sed in t h e precedin g chapter

in t h e di scu ssi on of t h e re l ati o n between t h e verb al S ign an d

no ti on . A defence w as m ade there of the thesi s that th e m ean i ng

8 K . M arx,F En gels,Die deutsche I deologie,in

. Werke,Vol . 3,Berlin
19 5 8 ,p . 30 .

9 By w ay o f example I again refer t o R ev esz,o p .

pp . 97 fl .
 THE COM M UNI CATI VE FUNCTI ON OE LANGU AGE

of a verb al S ign an d n o ti o n are c o inciden t C an that thesi s also

.

be d efen ded when it com es t o t h e rel ati on b etween l an gu age

an d thin ki n g ? I n m y o pi ni o n ,yes Tru e,elem ents o f sensory
.

percepti on do appear in t h e th o u ght process (n ot o nly as a geneti c

‘

fo u n dati on o f thi n ki n g in t erm s o f ideas,bu t also as elem ent s

which accom pany that process),bu t t h e same can be said as
regard s experi enci n g t h e c o n ten t o f lin g ui sti c pro cesses On t h e .

other han d , t h e thesi s c on cerni n g n on -li n gu istic thi n kin g is b ased

on an essenti al m i su n derst an di n g Th e fact th at t h e psy c h o
.

lo gic al an alysis o fth ou ght pro cesses reveals in them represent ati ons
of vari ou s types whic h accomp any thi n ki n g in terms o f id eas

thinkin g by m eans o f verb al si gns),an d t h e claim that that

represent ati o n al aspect o f thi n ki n g is indep en den t o f li n g u i sti c

pro cesses,are t w o di fferent thin gs Th e claim referri n g t o t h e

.

p o ssibility o f s o m e fo rm o f n o n -li n gu isti c t hi nki n

g (as far as
peo ple are co n cern e d ,w h o are able t o m ake u se o f t h e ph o ni c

lan gu age) can be su pported o nly by th ose w h o b eli eve in c ogni

ti on with o u t t h e in termedi ary o f S ign s,w h o believe in so m e
direc t c o gni ti on or percepti on I ag ree with R u ssell 10 that o nly
.

a mystic c an assert an ythi n g o f th at kin d In sc i en ce ,and in t h e

.

light o f it s criteri a,su ch an opin i on is u ntenable .

M ore fre qu ently ,a m ore cau ti ou s View is t o be encou ntered

in th e literature o f t h e su bj ect It is st ated ,for ex am ple,th at
.

thinki n g an d l an gu age do n o t fu lly c o incide,but fo rm an i ndi

vi sible whole c onsistin g o f t w o di stinct elements Fo r i nst ance, .

R evesz says that there is n o speech pro cess with o u t thin ki ng,
an d vice versa,th ou ght cann o t e xi st with ou t lan gu age Never .

t h eless,h e h o lds th at thi n ki n g em braces certai n n o n -li n gu isti c

elem ents,an d co nse qu en tly that t h e c o ncepti o n o f th o u ght an d

langu age as a S in gle i ndivi sible fu ncti on is u n ten able Thi s o pin i o n , .

of c o urse , is b ase d on t h e assum pti o n th at t h e pro cess of thi nki n g

10 I nAn I nquiry in t o M eaning and Truth ,Lon don 19 5 1,p 341,Bertr an d .

R u ssell is righ t in c allin g mystics su ch th inkers as B ergson an d Wittgen stein ,

wh o main tain th at th ere is kn ow ledge th a t is u n co mmu n icable by w ords,and
use w ord s j ust t o con v ey th at idea.
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTICS

inclu des certain elements that cann o t be expressed in

Here again ,w e mu st po int o ut ,t o decl are that cert ain
em oti on al st ates,et c ,conn ect ed with t h e pro cess
.

are dif ficult to exp ress ; an d t o m aint ai n that there

thou ght processes o r som e em oti o n al st ates, etc .

with t h e former,which are essen ti ally inexp ressible

m un icable are t w o di fferent thin gs Su ch an attitu de is
.

difli cult t o ad opt as that which Revesz rej ects t o gether with
asserti on ab o u t t h e b asic du ali sm o f l an guage and thi n kin g .

Bu t t h e prin ci pal i ssu e,whic h is o f particu l ar in terest fr om

t h e phil o so phi cal po int o f Vi ew,is c onnected with t h e relati o n

between lan gu age an d reality referre d t o in speech That pri n cipal

.

i ssu e,ho wever,is n ot separated from t h e forego in g ; on t h e contra

ry, it can be so lved only in connecti on w ith that forego in g issu e .

Th e first p o int t o be explained is as t o wh ich relati o n w e h av e

in min d here : t h e relati o n b etween reality an d l an guage treated
in abstracti on fro m think in g ,or t h e relati on b etween reality
and l an gu age t reat ed j oi n tly with thi n kin g . Wh at depen ds o n
a pro per i nterpre t ati on o f that pro blem is n o t onl y t h e p oi n t

from whi ch w e see t h e i ssu e n ow u n der considerati on ,bu t also

t h e p ossibility of so lvi n g that i ssue When w e treat l an gu age as
.

a pro duct separate d from thi nk in g ,o r when w e i n terpre t t h e

process o f thi n ki n g in t h e n omin alist spir it and t reat it s pro du cts

as fl a tus vo eis (these are but t w o di f ferent form u lati ons o f a st an d
po int e ssenti all y t h e sam e) ,then w e assum e that lan guage is o f
an arbitrary n ature an d thereby w e d en y th at there sh ould be

any o ther rel ati on b etween lan gu age and reality except t h e re lati on

of deno tat ion o f cert ai n o bj ects by c ert ain v erb al sign s on t h e

prin ci ple o f conventi o n Th e m u tu al relati onshi p b etween lan

.

gu age and reality co mes t o light only when ,havi ng un dersto o d t h e

unit
y o f l an guag e an d thi n ki n g ,w e sp eak o f a rel ati o n b etw een

re ality an d n o t m erely lan gu age , bu t th ou ght-lan gu ag e Th e proper

.

issue,h owever,is n ot t h e relati on between reality and lan gu age

“ ”
in itself ,but t h e relati on b etween re ality an d t h e hum an p rocess
of cogn ition ,whi ch anyh o w t akes pl ace in a lin guisti c form (in
 ‘

SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

the i ssu e is m ore o ften t o m ake on e s st an dpoi nt kn own t h

’

t o achieve u niversal ag reem ent ,whi ch is practically im possib

A nd there w ou ld cert am ly be far fewer fo ll owers o f t h e
v ent io n alist so lu ti o ns o f t h e pr o blem s o f l an gu age an d it s

t o re ality if w e co u ld st ri p t o t h e very end t h e false

po sitivist decl arati on s ab ou t rising ab o ve t h e t raditi on al contro

versies in phil o sophy ,if w e cou ld sh ow t h e phi loso phic al i mplica
ti on s of c onventi onalism ,an d fo rce th ose concerned t o declare
themselves either in favo u r o f o r against such implicati on s In t .

t h e hist o ry o f phi lo so phy there have been few pe ople w h o h ad

b o ldness enou gh co nsci o usly t o preach solipsi sm ; an d there

are n o t m any n ow w h o wo u ld Op enl ea c h su bj ective ideali sm
y p r

(if n o t fo r o ther reasons,then b ecau se they wou ld fear t o lo se

sci en ti fic p re stig e in e xt ra- hi l o so hi cal ci rcl es
p p )
.

Th e issu e o f t h e relati on between th ou ght -lan gu age an d

reality can also be form u l ate d thu s : D oes t h e an alysi s o f lan

guage enable u s t o u n derstan d some regu larities in t h e extra

li n gu istic wo rld ,an d may w e c onse quently treat lan guage au ~

t on om ou sly, in abstracti o n from extra-li n gu i sti c facts ? S uch

a form u l ati on seem s t o be a h appi er o ne in th at it approac hes

“
t h e sam e i ssue in a m o re con crete m ann er, less phil o so phi cally
so t o spe ak .

Tw o answers c an be given t o th at qu esti o n On e den ies an y

.

rel ati o nshi p b etween lan gu age an d extra-v erb al reality ,in t h e

sen se that l an gu age is sh aped aft er t h e m o del o f th at reality

(th e den i al bei n g j u stified in vari o u s ways) ; t h e other adm its t h e ex

ist ence o f su ch a relati on (also resortin g t o v ari ou s m otivati on s) .

Th e deni al o f t h e existence o f rel ati on s between lan gu age

an d extra- verbal reality in t h e sense o f t h e possibility o f
fin di n g in lan guage in fo rmati o n ab ou t t h e real world is b ased ,
as h as b een m enti o ne d ab o v e,on v ari ou s argum ent s .

Fi rst o f all,there is a c onvicti on ab ou t a possibility o f so m e

di rect co gniti on ,su pp osed t o be t h e t ru e co gni ti o n Acc ordi n g
.

t o b o th Bergso n s in tu iti on ism an d Hu sserl s theses, t ru e

’ ’

co gniti o n is a direct act an d is n o n -lin guisti c . Thi s is typi cal

 THE COMM UNI CATIVE F UNCTI ON OE LANGUAGE 329

o n alism with a mystical tinge ,w hi ch discredits linguistic

an d o pp oses to it so m e
ther m o de o f co gniti on :
o

o f t h e o bj ect ,i nt u iti o n wh ic h in a sin gle

“
act m akes it p ossible tru ly t o grasp that o bj ect an d t o u n der
st an d it Thi s deni es rel ati o ns b etween lan gu age (whi ch is sai d t o
.

di sto rt t h e pi cture o f reali ty) and reality ,in t h e sen se o f a re

flecti on o f th at reality by l an guage .

A simi lar approach is ch aracteristic o f th ose (alth ou g h t h e

st artin g po i nt is di f ferent) w h o like H u m b o ldt in t h e past
“
or Le o Wei sgerb er n ow believe that language expresses t h e
spi rit O f t h e n ati on which shapes t h e visi on o f t h e world in
di fferen t mann ers accordin g t o t h e vari ou s linguistic system s .

This refers t o a rel ati on with reality ,bu t such a relati on that
is a deni al o f t h e thesis th at lan gu age,t o gether with hu m an
c o gni ti o n ,is sh ape d u n der t h e i nflu ence o f that reality whic h

is t h e o bj ect o f c o gniti on : it is claim ed that lan guage sh apes

rather than reflec ts,reality .

Fin ally ,o ther appro aches t o t h e den i al o f a connecti on be

tween lan gu age an d reality lead throu gh differen t vari ati ons o f
n eo - n o min alism whi c h w o u ld h ave u s b elieve that n ot o nl y it is

possible t o stu dy lin gui stic fac ts as au t on om ou s phen om en a,

bu t also that o nl y su c h an an alysis is legitim ate S o -calle d l o gical
.

at o mi sm , in t h e form at o ne tim e represen ted by B ertran d Ru ssell ,

u se d t o break u p reality i n t o facts-at o m s which l an gu age c ann o t

stu dy with ou t an appropri ate apparatu s an d whi ch it co nse quen t

ly di st o rts Th e deni al o f su ch a c onnecti on w as also reac hed

.

by w ay o f so mew h at di v ergen t tho u gh si m ilar path s by ne o

p o sitivi sm ,whi ch perfecte d t h e thesis c oncern in g t h e au t on om y
o f l an gu age as t h e o nly o bj ect o f phi l o so phi c al an alysi s This
.

w as t h e peak o f sem an tic phil o so phy It is c h arac teristi c that

.

Russell ,wh ose views are co n st an tly ev o lvin g ,is n ow criticizin g

ne o - p ositivi sm fo r denyi n g t h e co nnecti o n b etween lan gu age an d
r e ality ,a d eni al w hi ch is an ex ressi o n o f a s ec ific
p p agn o s

t icism Thi s critici sm is qu oted here bec au se I thi n k it t o b e

.
 SELEC TED PROBLEMS OE S E MANTI CS

espec a i lly v alu able,si nce it comes fro m t h e man w h o w as one

o f t h e co -fo u n ders o f t h e tren d h e n ow criti cizes .

“
I pro po se t o c on sider whether anythi n g ,an d,if so ,what ,can
be i nferred from t h e st ructu re o f l an gu age as t o t h e st ru cture
o f t h e w orld There h as b een a t en dency ,especi ally am on g lo g
.

i cal positivists, t o treat l an gu age as an i n depen den t realm ,

whi ch can be stu di ed withou t re gard t o n on-lin gui sti c o ccu rrences .

To som e ext ent ,an d in a limit ed field ,this separati on o f l an guage

from o ther fact s is po ssible ; t h e det ached stu dy o f lo gical synt ax
h as u n d ou btedly yi elded v alu able resu lt s Bu t I thin k it is easy
.

t o ex aggerate wh at can be achi eve d by synt ax al one There is, .

I thin k ,a di scoverable relati on between t h e stru cture o f senten ces

an d t h e st ru ctu re o f t h e o ccu rrences t o whi c h sen ten ces re fer .

I do n ot thi nk t h e stru ctu re o f n on -verb al facts is wholly u n

kno wable,an d I b elieve that ,with su fficient cau ti o n ,t h e pro p
ert ies o f l an gu age m ay help u s t o u n derst an d t h e stru ct ure
”
o f t h e w orld 11 .

As already i n di cated ,t h e i nterpret ati on o f t h e relati o n be

tween l an gu age an d re ality o n t h e level o f thou ght-lan guage m akes
it im perative t o ad opt a defini te phi l oso phi cal stan dpo i n t Th e .

co ntro versy arou n d that i ssu e m u st b e b ase d on gen eral phi l o

so phi cal foun d ati o n s an d is in fac t t h e co nt ro versy ab ou t t h e

relati o n b etween t h e process o f co gn iti o n an d reality .

I mu st decl are th at I see a possibility o f so lvi n g t h e problem

w e are here con cerne d with only in t h e light o f t h e theory o f

reflec ti o n ,in t h e specific sen se o f t h e t erm , as i m part e d t o it

by M arxist phil osophy .

In View o f exi sti n g di st orti on s o f,and mi sun derst an din gs,

in n o n-M arxi st circles,co n cernin g t h e theory o f reflec ti on ,in
particu l ar in view o f t h e erroneo u s identificati on o f t h e M arxi st
theo ry o f reflecti on with a theory o f t h e sam e n am e as held by
m ech ani sti c m ateri alists,t h e presen t an alysis sh ould be su p
plem en t ed with an exp ositi o n o f t h e fu n d am ent al theses o f t h e

11 B R u ssell,An Inquiry into M eaning

. and Trut h,p . 341 .
 SELECTED PROBLEM S OE SEMANTI CS

an d meani ng Th e specific
. verb al S ign co nsists abo
n a ure o f t h e
t
all in it s breaki n g away fro m a pic to ri al fu nc ti o n ,so th at it

in a positi o n t o perfo rm spec i al fu ncti o ns in t h e process of ab

“ ”
st ract io n an d t o b ec o m e transparent t o meani n g Th e reflec .

ti on o f reality in l an gu age d oes n ot con sist in t h e rel ati ons between

part s o f t h e sentence correspon din g t o relati o ns b etween so me
elem ent s o f reality D ivisi o n o f reali ty i nt o elem en t s is so m ethin g
.

artific i al ,u su ally in itsel f a pr o du c t o f abst racti on M oreo ver, .

divisi o n o f a senten ce in t o parts di ffers accordi n g t o t h e vari ou s

li n gu i stic systems, whi c h fact prevents n either t h e c o gniti on
o f reality n or t h e c o mm u ni c ati on process c o ncern e d with su ch

co gniti o n (altho u gh ,as w ill be seen l at er,cert ai n co m pli c ati o n s

m ay ari se on thi s po int) Th e reflecti on o f reality in lan gu age,

.

“ ”
t he m o dell i n g o f l an guage by reality ,also d oes n ot c o nsi st
“ ”
in lan gu age bein g an im age o f re ality in t h e sense o f direc tly
m appin g that reali ty by t h e form o f li n guisti c expressi on s (thei r
sou n ds) One cann o t reason ably den y t h e thesis c oncernin g t h e
.

arbitrary natu re o f t h e l an gu age signs, u n derst o o d so th at there

is n o n ecessary lin k between t h e sou n ds o f wo rds an d t h e thi n gs,

rel ati o n s,acti on s,et c ,t o whi ch th ose w o rds refer,u nl ess o n e
.

also disregards t h e hi st o rical an d s oci al co n diti o ni n g o f t h e o ri gin

of t h e v ari ou s expressi o ns” Thu s t h e theo ry o f refl ecti o n d oes

.

n ot requ i re ren u nci ati o n o f t h e thesi s c on cerni n g t h e exi sten ce

o f c o n venti on al elem ents in l an gu age (w h o co u ld re aso n ably

deny it re qu ires o nl y that l an gu age S ho u ld n ot be re

duced t o a pro du c t of c onven ti o n , di ssoci ate d from reali ty
an d c o n sequ ently fro m t h e essen ti al fun cti ons o f hu m an c o m

mu ni cat io n ,that is,fu ncti o ns whi c h lie at t h e ro o t o f l an gu age .

Lan gu age an d t h e S ign s o f l an gu age perform their fun cti o ns

o f reflecti n g reality ,o f c on veyin g i n fo rm ati on ab ou t th at reality ,

et c. n o t by any pict o ri al simi l arity t o reality o r by b ei n g an

12 A differen t idea,n amely th at of th e so -

c alled Laut bilder, is rep

t Vo m Wesen de s sprachlich e n Zeich en s ,

”
resen e d e .by E u gen L erch :
g
.

in A ct a L ingu ist ica,1939 ,Vo l 1,N O 3,an d E mile Benv en iste : N ature du
. .

lin gu istiqu e ,in Act a L inguist ica,19 39 ,Vo l

”
sign e . 1,N O . 1
.
 THE COMM UNI CATIVE F UNCTI ON OE LANGU AG E 33 3

analogon of th e t
s ru c u re t of
that reality ,bu t by w ay o f thei r
sem anti c aspect whi c h co i nc id es with wh at is called t h e c o nten t

of t h e th ou ght proc ess Ho w all thi s occu rs,can be explai ned

.

(as i n dicated ab o ve) on ly by su ch speci alized disci pli nes as

physi o lo gy ,psycho lo gy ,etc It will su ffice here t o st ate t h e speci f
.

ic natu re o f t h e verb al signs and explain where t o l o o k for m o re

detailed i nfo rmati on .

Bu t t h e theo ry o f reflecti o n is n ot co nfin e d t o t h e rej ecti o n

of con venti on ali sm an d t o st atin g th at l an guage ,S haped u n d er

t h e i nflu ence o f co gn iti o n o f e xt ra-li n gu i sti c o bj ective reality ,

gives a reflec tion of that re ality in a defin ite sense o f t h e word .

That theory also t akes i nto acco u nt t h e di alec tics o f t h e relati o n

'

between thou ght-l an gu age and t h e co gniti on o f re ality ; an d

in turn th at di alectics (co nfi rm ed bey on d all d ou bt by li n gu isti c s,
anthr o p ol o gy ,et c ) c o nsi sts in th at thou ght -
. lan gu age, S h aped
as a reflecti o n o f re at in t h e process o f hu m an co gni ti o n ,is
also (m ai nl y o wi n g t o t h e e du cati on al pro cess which c o nvey s

throu gh l an gu age t h e accu m u l ated experience o f t h e past gen

erat io n s) an organon ,an i nstrum en t whi ch shapes t h e m ann er

o f perceivi n g an d c om prehen di n g th at re ality This di alectics

.

is o f rem arkable S ignifican ce in un derst an di n g t h e proper rel a

ti on between tho u ght-l an gu age and extra-li n gu i stic reality That .

is why it will n o w be an alysed in g reater det ail .

Let it be b orne in mi n d that t h e su bj ect m atter o f o ur an alysis

is not t h e rel ati o n b etween lan gu age an d thi n kin g ,an d vice versa,
bu t t h e relati on between tho u ght-lan gu age an d t h e process
o f hu m an c o g niti on Th e resu lts o f research o bt ained by su ch
.

disci plines as devel opm ent al psycho lo gy ,psycho pathol o gy and

cu ltu ral ant hr o p o lo gy m ay she d so m e light on th at i ssue Eac h .

of these di sci pli n es c l arifies som e aspect o f t h e c o gnitive fu n cti o n s

an d o f t h e di alecti cs o f t h e m u tu al rel ati o n s b etween th o u ght

lan guage an d t h e process o f ac qu i rin g kn o wledge ab o u t reality .

Th e pro blem s o f devel opm ent al psych o l o gy o f t h e c hild will be

disregarded here,since th at di sci pline gives prid e o f place t o t h e
infl uence o f t h e soci al p rocess o f educati on ,an d thu s shifts t h e
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE S EMANTICS

t
s ress t o pro blem sthat di ffer from those w e are princi pally c on
cerned with O n t h e o ther h an d ,
. t h e i ssues o f psycho path o l o gy
an d cu lt ural anthro po l o gy m ay,in m y o pi ni o n , play an impor
tant rOle in advan cin g t h e an alysis o f t h e problems which interest
us here .

As regards psych opath ol o gy ,w e sh all be i nterested m ainly

in t h e cases o f ap hasia,i e ,t h e l o ss o f capacity for li n guistic
. .

thi n kin g in thi s or that fo rm ,fo ll owin g i nj u ries t o t h e brain “ .

These researches are pri nci pally conn ected with t h e n am e of

Head an d n ow have an am ple literatu re devo ted t o them Of .

co urse ,t h e d et ails are t h e d o m ai n o f t h e speci ali sts,an d t h e

ph ilo sopher can on ly stu dy cert ain general resu lts o f research .

Fi rst o f all,it m u st be re alize d that aphasi a d oes n ot elimi n ate

th e fun cti on o fthi n ki n g ,bu t rather m o di fies it ; neither, in princi ple,
d oes it put an end t o lin gu istic fu ncti ons,alth o u gh these,t o o ,
un derg o a m o difi c ati o n These m o di ficati on s are o f S peci al theo
.

ret ical i nt erest , si n ce they reveal t h e i n t er-

rel ati on ship as b etween

th ou gh t -l an gu age an d t h e co gnitive process Th e extrem e fo rms .

o f aph asi a (verb al an d sem an ti c) co nsi st ,in t h e fo rmer c ase ,

in th at t h e patient thinks and u nderst an ds wh at h e is t o ld bu t

h as l ost t h e ability t o fo rm words,an d in t h e latter h e u tters
w ords,bu t d eprived o f their sem anti c fun cti o n ,i e ,h e u tters . .

sou n d s o r sequ en ces o f sou n ds,bu t not w o rds,n o t v erb al signs

"

sensu s tricto Theoreti cally m ost i n terestin g ,h owever,are t h e

.

i ntermedi ate cases (synt acti c an d,in particul ar,n o min al aphasi a)
when t h e patien t retai ns t h e ability t o S peak an d thi n k at least
in part ,bu t in a m o difie d form Ob serv ati on of su ch con diti on s
.

en ables us t o g ai n a d eeper i n sight i n t o t h e mech an ism o f t h e

di alecti cs o ft h e elem ents whi ch determi ne t h e process o f co gniti on .

13 H Head in hi s Ap hasia
. a nd Kindred Discarders of S p eech ,N ew York
19 26 ,Vols 1 . 2,differentiates betw een v erbal aph asia (disfunctio n in w ord
formation) ,syntactic aph asia (disfunction in c o m b in in g w ords in to gram
m at ically correc t w h ole) , nominal aph asia (disfu nctio n in u sin g w ords as

general n am es ),an d sem ant ic aph asia (disfun ction in associat in g w ords w ith
th eir co rrespo n din g meanings) .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

i n dividu al wo rds,t h e n ominal w ords do n ot o ccu r t o h im He .

cann o t even u n d erst an d what w e m ean by n am i n g b ec au se th at

presu pp oses t h e ab stract attitu de , whi ch h e cann o t assu m e .

That fin ds i ndirect co nfirm ati on in t h e fact that t h e patient c an

fin d w o rds in connecti o n with o bj ec t s if h e h as such w ords which
fit t h e c o ncrete situ ati on Th e patien t w h o cann o t apply t h e word
.

red t o difl erent nu ance s o f re d,e asily pro duce s w o rds suc h as
‘ ’

‘ ’ ‘
strawberry red an d sky blue , in rel ati o n t o c orrespon din g
’
et c , .

c o l o rs He can do it b ecau se h e h as suc h i n divid u al w o rd s at his

.

c omm an d Th e param ou nt im p ort ance o f t h e kin d o f lan gu age

whi ch appears in n ami n g b ecom es evid en t throu gh o ther charac
t erist ic m o dificati o ns o f that l an gu age o f t h e pati ents whi ch

also are com prehensible They are t h e resu lt o f t h e i m p ai rm en t

.

o f t h e po wer o f abstracti o n and are parallel with m o dificati o n s

”
in t h e behavi ou r o f patien ts in general 14 .

G o ldstein say s th at t h e l angu age o f t h e patien t w h o su f

fers from n omin al aph asi a is transfo rm ed i n t o a specific au t o m at
o n whi c h reacts t o defin it e , c on crete situ ati on s H ence t h e li mi ted .

u se o f su ch part s o f speec h as co nj u n cti o n s,arti cles,adverbs,

etc ,whi c h re qu ire a hi gh level o f ab stracti o n 15 Th e w ord s th at

. .

n o rm ally fu n cti o n as general are u sed by t h e patien ts as n am es

o f co n crete O bj ects or e ven ts Thi s is so b ecau se o f t h e associ a

.

ti on ofth e word used with a c on crete situ ati on ,w itho u t un derst an d

ing by t h e patients as pro ved by experim en ts o f t h e ge n eral

ch arac ter o f wo rds Thi s appli es,fo r i n st an ce ,t o su c h a wo rd

.

“
as thi n g G o ldstein even c laim s that t h e u tteri n g of words
by pati ents su flerin g from aphasi a d oes n ot m ean u sin g a lan guage,
t h e sign s o f which h ave defin it e m eani n gs .

An other in t eresti n g fact t o whi c h G oldst ei n refers is th e

loss o f ability t o u n derst an d m et aph ors,pro verbs,et c ,whic h .

is also c onn ect ed with t h e l o ss o f t h e capac ity for ab stract com

prehensi o n o f verb al sign s .

”
14 K . G oldstein , Th e N ature Of Lan gu age ,in L anguage An I nquiry
.

int o I ts M eaning and Fun ct io n (ed . R . N A n sh en ) ,

. N ew Yo rk 19 5 7,pp 23—2
4 . .

15 I bid .
,p 2
. 5 .
 THE COMM UNI CATI VE FUNCTI ON OE LANG UAGE 33 7

Goldstein l i foll ows

’
s co nc u s on is as
“
If iders their (t h e pati ents A S ) con diti on
’
o ne cons . .

c m t h e aspect o f t h e w orld in which t h e p ati en ts live ,o ne can

their w orld is co rrespondi n gly chan ged What appear .

t o u s as o bj ects in an o rg ani ze d w o rld are for them co m plex

sense experien ces o f an in dividual si n gular charact er W hi ch can
be reacted t o in a defin ite w ay bu t whic h are n ot connected with
each o ther in a system ati c u nit One c an say th at they h ave n o.

‘
world Th e c han ge mani fests itsel f in t h e ab ove-menti oned
’
.

m o dificati o ns in t h e patien ts l an guage and in t h e l oss o ft h e w orld ,

’

and thi s in di cates th at they are dep rived of the essen tial ch arac ter

istics of m en Th e w ords o f t h e patients h ave lost the ir sym

bolic functi o n an d with that th e ability t o work as me di atin g agent
between sense experiences an d t h e world in whic h m an alon e
can be m an Th e ch an ge in t h e pati ent s p erso n ality ,which ex
’
.

clu des hi m fro m t h e n o rm al hu m an comm u n ity ,bri n gs t h e es

sent ial S ignificance o f t h e sym b o li c po wer t o t h e fore an d with

”
that t h e S ign ificance o f t h e sym b oli c ch aracter o f lan gu age 16 .

What c onclu si ons can be drawn from researches o n aphasi a

appr opri ate t o t h e i ssu e o f t h e m u tu al relati o ns between th o u ght

lan gu age an d t h e process o f c ogniti on ?

Fi rst o f all, defin ite lan gu age-an d-th o u ght fun cti ons are
co nsequences o f d efini t e c o gni tive abilities,abi liti es t o perfo rm

analysi s an d synthesi s o f t h e d at a su ppli ed by sensory percep

ti on Thi s is qu it e clear from t h e po in t o f vi ew o f t h e physi olo gy

.

of t h e brai n ,an d is a fac t o f remark able S ignific an ce n o t o nl y

as stressi n g th e physi o l o gi cal fo u n d ati on s o f th ou ght pro cesses,

but also as em phasizin g t h e u ni ty o f t h e l anguage-and— thou ght
functi ons For t h e im pairm en t o f cert ai n lin gu isti c abilities,
.

this or that fo rm o f aphasi a o bvi ou sly resu lts in t h e i m pai rment

o f c orresp o n di n g abiliti es t o thin k Th e stu dy o f aphasi a pro
.

vides sc ien tific evidence o f t h e fact that abstrac t thi n ki n g in

16 I bid .
,pp . 28—2
9 . N o te t h at t h e au t h o r uses a sp eci c fi termin o lo gy : the

m ean s h ere w h at w e
” ”
w o rd sym b o l call th e v erbal S ign .
 SELECTED PROBLEM S OE SEMANTI CS

terms o f c o n cepts is im possible withou t lan gu age This is a point

.

o f ext rem e i m port ance , whi ch fu lly acco un ts fo r a philo sophi cal
stri ctly ,epi st em o l o gi cal i nterest in researches o n aphasi a .

Bu t o u r i nt erest lies m ainly in t h e i ssu e o f t h e u nity o f t h e

lan gu age-and-th ou ght fu ncti o ns Th e stu dy o f aphasi a shows
.

that there is n o abstract thin kin g withou t lan guage Are w e, .

then ,n ot j ustified in acceptin g t h e hypothesis that whenever w e

do n ot have t o do with any im pairm ent o f t h e physi olo gical func
ti o ns o f t h e brain ,it is only t h e lac k o flan gu age whic h cau ses t h e
lack o f ab stract thi nki n g ? Th at hypothesis,so import an t for th e
c o nfirm ati o n o f th e thesi s o n t h e u n ity o f l an gu age-an d- thou ght
fun cti ons,can be ver ified either by means o f d at a su ppli ed by
devel opm ental psych o lo gy,o r by analysis o f t h e kn own cases
o f som e di sability whi c h h as m ade it im po ssible t o t each a c hi ld

a p h oni c lan gu age Thi s is n o l on ger a d om ain o f ph ysiop at h o l

.

o gy, S i nce t h e brain is fu ncti on i n g n orm ally ,bu t t h e cases u n der

investigati on are similar in so far as in b oth grou ps o f cases
(altho u gh for difl erent reasons) one oft h e fu ncti ons o f t h e pro cess
o f co gniti on h as b een elimi nat e d fo r a l o n g ti m e Th at is why
.

t h e case o f Hellen Kell er,d eaf-m u te an d blin d s in ce h er birth

an d t au ght t o u se a Speci al l an gu age and writin g ,is o f particu l ar

i nterest .

Helen Keller describes in h er mem o irs h ow S h e di sco vered

lan gu age and verb al S igns an d h ow that discovery h as in fluence d
h er th ou ght processes :
“
We walked d own t h e path t o t h e well -h ou se,attracte d by
t h e fragrance o f t h e ho n eysuckl e with whi c h it w as c o vere d .

S ome one w as drawi n g water an d my teacher placed m y h and

u n d er t h e sp ou t As t h e co o l st ream gushe d o ver my h an d sh e
.

sp elle d i n t o t h e o ther t h e w o rd water ; fir st sl o wly ,then rapidly .

I st oo d still ,my whole attenti on fixed u pon t h e m o ti o n o f h er

fingers S u ddenly I felt a mi sty consci ou sness as o f som ethin g
.

forg otten a thrill o f ret u rn i n g th ou ght ; and so m ehow t h e

m ystery o f l angu age w as revealed t o me I kn ew then that w -a-t-e-r

.

m ean t t h e w on derfu l c o o l so m ethin g th at w as fl o win g o ver m y

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTICS

ence i n flu ence t h e w ay o f thi n kin g t h e sy stem o f thou ght-lan

gu age),an d vice versa,that th e histo ri cally d evel o ped sy stem o f
th ou ght-l an guage infl u ences t h e who le o f m an s practi cal expe
’

rience and,c onse quently ,h is c o gnitive pro cesses as well ? There

can be no d ou bt th at thi s is an i ssue o f i mmen se i m p o rt ance

for phi l osophy in general ,and fo r epistem o l o gy in parti cu lar .

There can also be n o d ou bt that all actu al research that can

she d light o n th at issue m u st be e agerly wel co m ed by t h e

phil o sopher interested in t h e pro blem o f lan gu age,an d especially

by t h e M arxi st phi lo sopher in vi ew o f his predilecti on t o ap
p ro ac h ep i stem o l o gi c al i ssu e s fro m t h e p o i n t o f vi ew o f h is

t o rical an d so ci o l o gi cal an alysis That is why ,even if t h e an

.

t h ro po lo gical d at a so far at ou r dispo sal are t o o scan ty t o all o w

any fin al an d sweepi n g generaliz ati on s (an d I m ay an ti ci pate fur

ther discu ssi on by st atin g that thi s is t h e case) ,it is n ot p o ssible

t o rej ect a p riori o r treat disparagin gly t h e hyp otheses b ased

on su ch d at a .

At one time, Levy-B ru hl form u lated a h ypothesis, b ased

o n t h e stu dy o f t h e psy ch ol o gy o f pri mitive peo ples (i n clu di n g

t h e stu dy o f their lan guages) ,o n t h e exi stence o f pre-l o gi cal

thi n kin g and,c onsequently ,a-l o gical thi nki n g Th at hypo thesi s,
.

b ased c hiefly o n beliefs o f primi tive peoples (th e pro blem o f

so -c alled partici pati o n ),b eliefs whi c h seem t o vi o l at e t h e prin

ciple o f l o gi cal c o nsi sten cy ,w as n o t o nly p o o rly su bst anti at ed ,

bu t also largely arbit ary B y n ow ,it h as been alm o st u niversally

.

rej ect ed M arxist c riti cs,

. when c orrectly att acki n g it s weak po in ts,
rai sed , am on g o ther thin gs, t h e o bj ecti on that th at theo ry helped

t h e c o l o ni al p o wers t o j u sti fy id eo l o gically con quests o f peoples

supp o se d t o be o n so l ow a level that they even co u ld n o t thi n k

lo gically An d that o bj ecti o n w as u n d ou btedly c orrect But t o st ate

. .

fact s confirm ed by research and t o interpret them in t hi s or that

w ay are t w o di f feren t thin gs Ju st ified fear o f a wro ng i nterpret a
.

ti o n h as in m any i nst an ces led t o an inco rrect deni al o ffacts an d

t o t h e rej ecti o n o f i ssues resu lti n g therefro m An d t h e hypo thesi s
.

o f Levy - B ru h l i nclu ded m any thin gs that were in terestin g an d

 THE COMMUNICATIV E FUN CTI ON OE LANGUAGE 341

g d further i nvesti gati ons Fi rst o f all

a e th i s h ad been
.

before bu t w as particu larly stressed in t h e works o f Levy

'

o f abstracti o n in t h e thin ki n g o f primitive

in t h e t h i n ki n g o f what are kn o wn as
reflecti o n in respective

cann o t be d en ied o r disregard ed ,

refu l i n vestig ati on ,an d sec o n d ly ,

al (an d phi lo sophi cal) S i gni ficance .

nS b etween l angu age and thin ki n g

and st rictly speaki n g con necti o n s b etween thou ght-lan gu age

and co gn itive processes,h as b een m ore bro adly and di f ferently
form ulated in what is term e d t h e S api r-Wh orf hypothesis .

Whereas t h e ideas o f Levy -B ru hl have at o ne time an d an other

been m u ch discu ssed in M arxist literatu re,t h e theory o f S apir
and Wh o rf h as been m en ti o ne d by M arxi st au th o rs o n ly in ex

cept io nal cases 19 Y et in th e West th at th e o ry already h as a c o m

.

prehensive literatu re Factu al dat a are still n ot su fficien t en o u gh

.

t o permit a definite apprai sal o f that theo ry ,but it cert ai n ly

sh o u ld not be passed o ver in silence” .

Levy -B ru hl b ased h is hyp othesi s concerni n g a pre-lo gical

type o f thi n kin g in primitive peoples n ot on ly o n t h e analysis
of such phen o m en a as wh at is kn o wn as parti ci pati on ,bu t also

on c on creti sm in thi n kin g ,a l ac k o f gen eral n am es,peculi ar

19 O ne o f th e excep tion s is O . C . AxmaHOB a w h o in h er w ork O tt ep xu

no o mn e u p yccxo u nexcuxono zuu [N ote on G eneral an d R u ssian Lexi
oolo g y] ,M oc a 19 57 ,h as dev oted a few pages t o rep ort o n th e S apir-Wh orf
h yp oth esis Y et h er criticism goes so far (w h ich ,in my opin ion ,is wro n g)
.

th at it practically amounts to a complete rej ection o f th at h ypoth esis .

20 E g ,Paul Hen le in his “L an gu age,Th ou gh t an d Cu lture”,w hich is

. .

th e fir st ch apter o f a c o mpreh en siv e collectiv e w ork un der th e same title

says o n t h e Wh orf h yp oth esis :

“
(ed Pau l Hen le,Ann Arbor
. On ly
after m an y more stu dies o f th is sort w ou ld it be p o ssible ev en t o su ggest w hich

features of a grammar migh t in gen eral be expec ted to correlate w ith a cu lture .

Th is is n ot ,o f cou rse,t o con demn th e in v estigations w h ich h av e been m ade,

bu t merely to p o int o u t th at th ey stan d at t h e begin n in g of a v ast in quiry .

M ore data are requ ired befo re it is ev en p ossible t o formulate specific h yp o th

”
eses ; bu t thi s is o ften t h e case at th e start o f a new science (op cit ,p . . .
3 42 SELE CTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

s s ems o f coun
y t tin g,et c ; all thi s w as su pposed t o pro ve
.

“ ”
prim itive thin ki n g w as diflerent , an d at t h e sam e tim e o f a 1

order .N ow ,his hypo thesis h as been dest royed by

l o gical (and lin gu istic) researches Th e S apir-Wh orf .

h as n o thi n g t o do with Levy-Bruhl s,as c an be pro ved

’

ment m ade by S apir, w h o openl y di sagrees with Levy-B ru hl

'

“
Th e lowliest S ou th Afri can B u shm an speaks in th e forms
o f a ri c h sym b o lic syst em th at is in essence perfectly com parable

t o t h e S peec h o f t h e cu ltivate d Fren chm an It g o es with o ut .

sayi n g th at t h e m o re ab stract con cepts are n ot n early so plent i

fu lly represented in t h e l an gu age o f t h e savage,n or is there t h e

ri ch termi n o l o gy an d t h e fin er d efiniti on o f nu ances th at re flect

t h e hi gher cu ltu re Y et t h e so rt o f lin gui stic devel opm ent that

.

parallels t h e hi st o ri c growth o f cu lture and whi ch,in it s

st ages, w e asso ci ate with literature is, at best , bu t a superfici al thin g .

Th e fun dam ental gro un dwo rk o f lan guage t h e devel opm ent

o f a clearcu t ph o neti c system ,t h e S peci fic asso ci ati o n of speech

el em ents with c onc epts,an d t h e deli cat e provisi o n for t h e form al

expressi on o f all m anner o f relati o ns all thi s m eet s u s rigidly

perfected and system atiz ed in every lan guage kn own t o u s M any .

p rim itive languages have a form al ,a la ten t luxuriance

r ichness

f
o exp ress ion ,tha t eclip ses anyth ing kn o wn to th e languages of
-

modern c iviliza tion

”
21
.

idea that l an gu ages o f primi tive peoples are n ot only

Th e
n o t i nferi or t o l an gu ages o f c ivilize d peoples bu t even in som e

respec ts su peri o r t o them is t o be fo un d in Wh orf s w orks as well

’
.

Thu s t h e concept difl ers from that o f Levy-Bruhl B o th are con

‘

nect ed o nly by t h e comm o n m eth o d o f stu dyin g th ou ght pro ces

ses throu gh t h e i n t erm edi ary o f li n gu i sti c p hen o m en a

'

Th e b asi c id ea o f t h e S apir-Wh o rf hyp othesis can be fo un d

earli er in t h e w o rks o f F B o as, w h o as early as 19 11 wro te in th e
.

intro du cti on t o t h e Handbook of Am erican Indian L anguages :

21 E S ap ir,L anguage th e
. . An I nt roduct ion to S t udy f Sp eech ,N ew
o

York 1921, p . 2
2 ( italics A .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SE M A NTICS

wo rlds ,n ot merely t h e sam e wo rld with di fferent labels attached

We see an d hear an d o therwise experien ce v ery largely as w e do
becau se t h e l an guage hab it s o f o u r c omm u n ity predi spo se certai n
c o i ce o f i nt
”
23
h s er pr t ti on
e a

An d in his essay o n C o n cept u al Cat eg o ri es o f Pri mitive

”
Lan gu ages S apir adds :
“
Th e rel ati on between lan gu age and experience is often
m i su n derst o od Lan gu age is n o t merely a m ore o r less system
.

ati c i n ven t o ry o f t h e v ari o u s it em s o f experi ence which seem rele

van t t o t h e i n dividu al,as is so o ften n aively assu m ed ,bu t is al so

a self-co n t ai n ed ,c reativ e sym b o li c o rg aniz ati o n ,whi ch n o t o n ly

refers t o ex peri ence l argely ac qu ired with ou t it s help bu t actu ally

d efines experi ence for u s by reason o f it s fo rm al completeness

an d b ec au se o f ou r u ncon sc i o u s proj ecti o n o f it s i m plicit ex

t t i i t t h fi ld f x i ”
24
pec a o n s n o e e o e p er ence .

S apir s b asic idea can be su m m arized thu s : lan gu age is an

’

active fac t o r in sh api n g o u r i m age o f t h e wo rld ,whi ch i m age

co n sequ en tly v ari es acc o r din g t o t h e syst em o f l an gu age whi ch

w e u se .

That idea h as been assim ilate d by B enj am in Lee Wh orf w h o

h as m ade it t h e fo u n d ati o n o f hi s rese arches o n t h e lan gu ages
o f Am erican I n di an t ribes , in parti cu lar th at o f t h e H opi Wh orf .

asks hi m sel f t h e que sti o n : h ow d oes t h e difl erent iat io n o f sys t em s

o f lan gu age i nfl uen ce t h e difl erent iat ion o f o ur i m ag es o f t h e

wo rld ? Thi s leads t o an o ther i m po rt an t i ssue : what accounts

ferenti ati on o f lan gu age sy stem s, and in parti cu lar,
fo r t h e di f
wh at is t h e rOle in that respect o f t h e soci al m i li eu in wh i ch pe o ple
w h o u se di f ferent lan gu ages live ?
Th e fi rst i ssue h as b een an alyse d by Wh o rf in t h e lig h t o f
t h e d ata su ppli ed by t h e H o pi lan gu age (t h e S apir-Wh orf hy po th

esi s w as fu rther i ll u m i n at ed by t h e st u dy o f o ther A m eri c an

I n di an lan gu ages, e g , Ho ijer s re searches on t h e Nav aj o

. .
’

23 L angua e ,19 2
9 ,V o l (q u o ted after
5 E S ap ir,Cu lt ur e , Language
g . .

and Personality , Berke l ey 19 57 ,pp 68 .

34 S cience ,19 3 1 (qu o ted t

a f er Henle ,o p . c it .
,p .
 THE COMMUNICATIV E FUN CTI ON OE LANGUAGE 3 45

lan gu age) B o th Wh o rf an d o ther scholars seen t o confir m

.

Sapir s thesis c oncern in g an active m

’
. i le o f lan gu age in shapin g
ou r pict ure o f t h e w o rl d ,whi ch ,if i nterpreted in a m o derate w ay,
sh ou ld n o t give rise t o o bj ecti o n s o f a philosophi c al n ature .

When fo rm u lati n g h is thesis,S apir ou tli ned a pro gramme o f re

searches whic h were expected t o c onfir m it He in t en ded a co m .

pari n b etw n I d Eu ro pean languages on t h e one hand an d

so ee n o -

American In di an an d Afri can o n t h e other That pro gramm e .

h as b een implemente d by Wh orf,wh o se c onclu si on is that t h e

difl erences b etween t h e v ari ou s In d o -Eu ropean lan guages are
so S light as c o m pare d with th o se b etween any In d o -Eu ro pean

lan gu age and t h e H o pi lan gu age,that t h e former m ay be treated

as a h o m o geneou s grou p,whi ch h e h as called S AE (S tan d ard

Average European) N ow , when c omparin g t h e S AE gro u p

.

with t h e H op i lan guage, Whorf h as advanced t h e follo win g

pro blem : wh at is t h e relati o n b etween t h e given system o f lan gu age ,
on t h e o ne h an d , an d percepti on , o rg an iz ati o n o f experi en ce

an d b eh avi o u r patterns,o n t h e o ther?

That porti on o f t h e wh ole i n vestigati on here t o be reported

m ay be su mm ed u p in tw o qu esti on s : ( 1) Are our o w n concepts
‘ ‘ ‘
o f time , space an d m att er given in su bst an ti all y th e sam e
’ ’ ’

form s o f experience t o all m en ,o r are they in part co n diti o ned

by t h e structu re o f parti cu lar langu ages? (2 ) Are there traceable
afli ni t ies b etween (a) cul tu ral an d b ehavi oral n orm s, an d (b)
”2
large-scale li n gu istic patterns? 5
As a resu lt o f hi s researc hes,Wh orf com es t o t h e co nc lu si on
that t h e lan gu age system influ ences t h e w ay in whi ch w e perceive ,
experi ence an d b eh ave Th e syst em o f t h e H o pi l an gu age c o n
.

di t ion s t h e percepti o n of reality as even ts,an d n ot as t hi n g s i nter

preted st atically ,an d also con diti o n s a specific i n terpret ati o n
o f tim e : in t h e H o pi lan gu age there is n o gen eral categ o ry o f
“ ”
tim e (in thi s co nnectio n Wh orf d raws a cert ai n analo gy with
Einstein s theory o f relativity)
’
.

25 B L Wh orf, Th e R elation of Habitu al Th o u ght an d B eh av ior t o

. .

Lan gu age in B L Wh o rf,L anguage ,Though t and Reality,19 57,

. .
p 138 . .
 SELEC TED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTICS

At t h e ti m e ,t h e H opi lan gu age is capable o f acco u nt

sam e

in g fo r an d d escribi n g correctly ,in a pragm ati c o r operati on al

sen se ,all o b serv able phen om en a o f t h e u n iverse H ence,I fin d .

it g ratu it ou s t o assu m e that H o pi t hi n ki n g co ntain s any such

‘
n o ti o n as t h e su ppo sed i n tu itiv ely felt fl o wi n g o f tim e ,or th at
’

t h e i ntu iti o n o f a H o pi gives h im thi s as one o f his d at a Ju st as it .

is possible t o h ave any n u m b er o f geom etri es ot her th an t h e

Eu clid ean wh i c h give an equ ally perfect acco u n t o f space co n
figu rat io ns,so it is po ssible t o h av e descripti o n s o f t h e u n iverse,
all e qu ally v alid ,t h at do n o t con t ain ou r famili ar c ont rast s o f

ti m e an d space Th e relativity viewpoin t o f m o dern physi cs is

.

'

o n e su ch v iew ,co n ceived in m athem ati cal t erm s,an d t h e H o pi

Weltanschauung is another and qu ite difl erent one,nonmath e

m at ical an d li n gu i sti c 26
”

I n c onnecti on with his hypothesi s,Wh o rfformulat es a nu m b er

o f d et ailed pri n ci ples,tw o o f whi c h st an d ou t .

On e o f them is t h e prin ci ple o f linguis t ic rela tivism ,in c on

form ity with whi ch peo ple perceive reality in t hi s o r th at w ay
accordi n g t o t h e cat eg o ri es o f th o u ght i m po sed o n th em by

l an guage He says
.

“
Thi s fact is very significan t for m o dern scien ce,for it m ean s
that n o in divid u al is free t o describ e n atu re with abso lu te im
p arti ality bu t is co n strain e d t o certain m o des o f in terpret ati on
even whi le h e think s hi m sel f m o st free Th e perso n m o st n early
.

fr ee in su ch respect s w o u ld b e a lin gui st fami liar with very m an y

wid ely di fferen t lin gu i sti c system s As yet n o li n gu ist is in any
.

su ch po siti o n We are thu s i nt ro du ced t o a n ew principle o f

.

relativity ,whi c h h o ld s th at all o bservers are n o t le d by t h e sam e

p hy si c al e vid e n c e t o t h e s am e p i ct ure o f t h e u n iverse ,u nless

their li n gu isti c b ackgro u n d s are sim ilar,o r can in som e w ay be

calib rate d 2
”
7 .

26 B L
. . Wh orf, An A merican I ndian M o del o f th e Univ erse in B L
. .

Wh orf,Language, Th o ugh t and Reality ,p 5 8 . .

27 B L Wh o rf,“S cience an d L in gu istics”,in B

. . . L . Wh orf,Language,
Th ough t and Reality,p 214 . .
 S ELECTED PROBLEMS OE S E MA NTICS

scan ty rain fall,arid agri cultu re that co u ld be m ade su cce

only by t h e u tm ost perseverance (hen ce t h e v a lue of
an d repetiti o n) , necessity for c ollab orati o n (hence
o n t h e psyc h o lo gy o f t eam w o rk an d o n m ent al

co rn an d rai n as pri m ary criteri a o f v alu e ,nee d o f ext ensive

p r ep ara tions an d pre cau ti on s t o assu re crops in t h e po or so il

an d precari ou s cli m at e, keen rea liz ati o n o f depen den ce u p on

n at ure fav ori n g prayer an d a reli gi ou s attitu de t o ward t h e fo rces

o f n atu re ,especi ally prayer an d reli gi o n di rected t o ward t h e

ev er-n eede d blessi n g,r ai n these thin gs i n teracted with H opi

li n gu isti c pattern s t o m old them ,t o be m o lded agai n by them ,
an d so little by little t o S h ape t h e H o pi w o rld-ou tl o o k 2
”
9 .

That qu ite m ateri alist i nterpret ati o n o f t h e specific m ental

fe atu res reflected in t h e H opi l an gu age,fi n ds it s c o ncretizati on
in th e vari ou s form s o f t h e i nflu ence o f environm en t u pon lan
’

gu age,in parti cu lar u pon v ocabu lary It is by di fferen t livi n g con

.

dit ion s an d t h e resu ltin g n eeds that Wh orf explains t h e fact

that t h e Eskim o , for i nst an ce ,h ave very m any term s fo r t h e vari ou s
kin ds o f sn o w ,whi ch w e call by o ne an d t h e same term ,an d whi ch
t h e Azt ecs c alled by t h e sam e term as ice an d co ld In thi s h e
“

fo llows S apir w h o in t h e sam e w ay explaine d t h e large n u m b er

an d t h e co ncret e ch aracter o f t h e w ords u se d t o d en ot e t h e

vari ou s m arine creatu res in t h e N o o tka l an gu age,plants an d t o po

graphi cal featu res in l an gu ages o f desert peoples,etc S imi lar .

expl an ati on s are reso rted t o when it c o m es t o t h e l ac k o f w ord s

den otin g cert ain co l o u rs in t h e lan gu age o f Navaj o In di ans,an d,

o n t h e o ther h an d ,t h e v ari ou s term s u sed by them t o d en o t e

t h e vari o u s sh ades o f black ,whi ch h ave n o speci al n am es o f

thei r o w n in o u r l an gu age Wh o rf, like o ther con tem po rary

.

sc ho l ars, expl ain s t h e c oncret e c h aract er o f l an gu ages o f pri mitive

peo ples n ot by a l ower ment al level in th o se peoples,bu t by dif

ferent li vin g c on diti on s From all this it fo llo ws c learly that in
.

em ph asi zi n g t h e i n flu en ce o f l an g uage on hu m an percepti o n

29 B . L . Wh orf, Th e R elation of Habitu al Th o u gh t an d B eh av ior to

Language
”
,in B . L . Wh orf,Language,Th ough t an d Reality,pp 15 7—15 8
. .
 THE COMMU NI CATI VE FUN CTI ON OE LANGUAGE 3 49

Whorf d oes n ot claim that co gni ti on is som eho w u nilaterally

con diti oned by l an gu age ,but also n oti ces t h e o ther aspec t o f

th e i ssue,n amely t h e fact that l an g u ag e is shaped by reality ,by

t h e c on diti o ns o f m at eri al existen ce o f a given soci ety .

These comm ents o n t h e S apir-Who rf hypo thesis are an en

deav our t o present it s principal ideas I think that worth d o ing
.

in view o f t h e phil oso phi cal si gnificance o f th ose ideas an d t h e

fact that they are little kn own in P o lan d .

It is also i nteresti n g t o n o te a co incidence between Wh orf s ’

pri nci pal ideas an d t h e resu lts o f researches c on du cted qu ite

i n depen dently by o ther scholars In particu l ar,I S hou ld like t o
.

draw attenti o n here t o t h e stu di es by M alin owski concerni n g

“
th e Tro bri an d people ,an d ab o ve all his splen did wo rk , Th e
Pro blem o f M eanin g in Primitive Lan guages
In t h e li ght o f wh at h as b een said here on t h e relati on be
tween lan gu age an d reality ,it is w orth retu rn in g t o t h e issu e o f t h e
con venti onali st con cept o f l an gu age as an arbit rary syst em o f

ru les,t h e co ncept o f lan guage as pl ay .

P sych olo gical , psych o path olo gical , an d an throp ol o gical re

searc hes fo rce u s t o rej ect th at c oncept as bei n g at v ari ance with

facts ; th o se facts S ho w th at lan guage is c onnected with reality

by th e relati on o f reflecti on , u n derst o o d in t h e speci al sense
o f t h e t erm ,alth o u gh at t h e sam e ti me l an gu age play s an active

rOle in m o u ldi n g o u r co gni ti on an d o u r i m ag e o f t h e w orld .

Reality S hapes lan guage ,which in tu rn sh apes ou r i m age o f

reality Wh at then is t h e o rigin o f radically c o nven ti on ali st c o n
.

cept ion s whi ch sep arat e l an gu age from reality ,an d consequ en t

ly tran sform it in t o t h e sole o bj ec t o f phi lo sophi cal an alysi s?

Tw o m ain cau ses m ay be menti on ed here :

( 1) Th e c orrect desire t o em phasize t h e active rdle o f language

'

in t h e pro cess o f co gn iti on an d in S h apin g o u r i m age o f t h e

wo rld Thi s is t h e rati on al c o re o f those con cepti o ns whi ch
.

e g , Ajdu kiew icz s radi cal c o n ven ti o n ali sm st ress t h e rOle

’
. .

of t h e v aryi n g c o n ceptu al app aratu s in pro d u ci n g v aryi n g per

spect iv es o f t h e wo rld.
 SELECTED PROB LEMS OE SEMANTI CS

(2) Th e in correct transiti o n from that thesis t o t h e asse

c oncern in g t h e arbitrary n atu re o f t h e ch o i ce o f thi s o r
c o nceptu al syst em ,an d c o nse quen tly o f t h i s o r th at i

t h e w o rld
. There is here a c on fu si on o f n atu ral l an guages with
”
form alized
“
lan guages (referred t o ab o ve) ,and also a desire
t o escape fro m t h e am bigu ity o f every-day l an guage t o an arti
“
ficial ideal lan gu age (a poin t t o be di scu sse d later o n) .

As reg ards t h e cl aim th at lan gu age sho u ld be an alysed an d

that lan guage shou ld be m ade t h e on ly su bj ect m atter o f phil os
ophical an alysi s , w e m ay draw t h e fo llo wi n g c onclusi ons
fro m t h e fo reg oing i nvestig ati ons
C ont rary t o t h e co m m o n c onventi o n alist opinion ,t h e an alysis
o f l an gu age is neither an au t on om o u s n o r a su f ficient t ask
.

It is n ot au to n om ou s S ince t h e c o ncepti o n o f lan gu age as

a play , o f lan gu ag as an arbit rary pro du ct ,
e is in com plete contra
di cti on with facts,wh ich testify t o intricat e relati onships b etween
lan gu age an d reality ,an d t o t h e shapin g o f th o u ght-l an gu age
in t h e process o f reflectin g re ality in hu m an c onsci o u sn ess .

Thr ou gh t h e stu dy o f lan gu age as an in teg ral so ci al phen om en o n

w e de sire,in t h e l ast analysis ,t o learn so m ethi n g ab ou t reality .

For whi le w e rej ec t t h e idea Of t h e struc ture o f lan gu age as an

an alogon o f t h e stru ctu re o f reali ty ,w e su ppo rt t h e thesis c o ncern

in g a specific reflecti on o f reality by tho u ght-langu age Thu s t h e

.

an alysis o f l an gu age leads t o ( l ) u n derst an din g o f t h e c o g nitive

process, an d (2 ) acqu irin g kn owle dge ab ou t cert ain aspects

o f obj ective reality ,i n clu din g soci al real ity .

Th e an alysis o f lan gu age is also n ot su fli cien t fr om t h e p o in t

o f vi ew o f ac qu irin g kn o wledge ab ou t reality . Lan gu age is n o t
t h e o nly o bj ect o f an alysi s in general ,an d phi l o so ph ic al an alysis

in particu lar In dee d ,it is an im port ant o bj ect o f research ,and

.

that n o t o n ly becau se o f t h e d an ger o f parad o xes and antinomi es,

bu t chi efly becau se throu gh t h e i ntermedi ary o f lan guage an alysi s
w e m ay arrive at o ther epi stem o lo gical resu lts It is an o bj ect
.

o f parti cu lar i m po rt an ce fo r phil o so p hical i n vestigati o ns ,sin ce

phi losophy o f fers generalizati o ns o f t h e research resu lt s o f t h e

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTICS

3 . LA N G U AG E AN D E F FE CTIVE CO M M UN I CATI O N

D istin gu ishin g in lan gu age it s c o mm u n ca

i tive fu n cti o n
whi ch i t in co n veyi n g th ou ght contents,and t h e
c o ns s s

o f fo rm u latin g th ou ghts ,whi c h c o nsi st s in th at w e

in som e l an gu age (so m e au th ors are o f t h e o pin i on that this

is actu ally o ne an d t h e same functi on ,since speechless thin kin g
is i nterpreted as a di alo gue with o neself) ,w e sh all n ow con
cen t rat e att en ti on o n a speci al aspect o f t h e co mm un icative

fun cti on We shall be interested in effec tive c omm unicati on ,

.

that is,comm u n i cati on whic h resu lts in an actu al unders tanding

between at least tw o persons,o ne o f whom u ses a cert ain lan gu age
in o rder t o c onvey t o t h e other h is th ou ghts o r em o ti on s,an d
that o ther person u pon perceivin g th e given sign s of that l an gu age
unders tands them in t h e same w ay as his i n terl ocu t o r thi n ks an d

accept s them as su c h Fro m t h e soc i al p oi n t o f vi ew ,

. it is extreme
ly im portan t t o kn o w t h e cau ses o f success an d failu re in t h e
process o f hum an comm u n icati on , i e , t o kn o w what assi sts
. .

and wh at h am pers th at process .

Th e understanding o f sign s,t h e u n derst an din g o f lan gu age,

is t h e b asis o f c omm un icati on In order t o u n derst an d a S ign
.

w e m u st perce ive it an d at t h e sam e time experi en ce a psychi c

act , either su ch as in t h e c ase o f ph o nic speech when t h e v erb al

“ ”
S ign is transparen t t o m eani n g ,or su ch as in t h e c ase o f all
o ther S ign s ,whi c h in so m e w ay o r an o ther are t ran sl ated in t o

a ph oni c l an guage I n t h e latter case ,

. w e have t o do with a co m -

pli cate d psychic pro cess whi ch i nclu des assoc i ati o n ,i n feren ce ,
et c These ,
. h o wever,are m atters o f interest m ainly t o t h e psycho l
o gist an d t h e d o m ain o f psych o l o gic al research They are dis .

reg ard ed here ,t o gether with t h e wh o le co m plex o f acc o m p any

ing i ssues (u nderst an ding as an act ,u nderst an din g as a disposi

ti on ,et c) We shall brin g out on ly one aspect ,whi ch will lead
.

u s t o t h e pro per su bj ect m atter o four st u dy : t h e di stin cti o n b etween

t h e u n derstan di n g o f t h e S i gn an d t h e un d erst an din g o f t h e

in ten ti on of t h e u ser o f t h e S ign .

 THE COMMUNICATIVE FUNCTI ON OE LANGUAGE

Let u s co ns ider an exam ple ,b orrowed from M art in ak : t h e

little son o f t h e st ati on m ast er ,w h o h as o ften watched h is father,
goes t o t h e rai lway t rack ,waves t h e red flag and thu s st ops t h e
o ncomi n g t rai n . Th e en gi n e d river h as u n derst o o d t h e S ig n ,
but h e h as n ot u n derst o o d t h e int enti on o f it s u ser Fo r t h e child
.

did n ot wave t h e flag in order t o st op t h e t r ai n ,S ince h e did n ot

even realize t h e co nse qu en ces o f th at act .

Thi s is a t rivi al ex am ple,whi ch sh o ws that conventi o n al

S igns ,co nfirm ed by t raditi o n ,h ave ,fro m t h e so ci al
p o i nt o f
view,O bj ective mean in gs which need n ot co in cide with t h e in
tenti on s o f t h e people w h o u se tho se S i gns witho u t kn o win g
t h e c onventi on in qu esti o n Every perfo rm an ce o f cert ai n ao
.

ti ons with whi ch someone,withou t ou r kn owledge,h as con n ect ed '

a cert ai n con ven ti on al m ean i n g ,m ay serve as an ex ample .

Th e distin cti on b etween th e u n derst an din g of t h e S i gn an d t h e

un d erst an di n g o f t h e i nt enti on o f t h e u ser o f t h e S i gn ce ases t o
‘

be t rivi al when o ne comes t o an alyse -t h e diflerence b etween

u n derst an din g cert ai n am bi gu ou s or v agu e t erm s an d u n der

st an din g t h e i nt enti on o f t h e au th or o f th o se t erm s We have

.

here t o do with a vast ran ge o f possible m i su nderst an din gs,

from t h e si m plest ,in whi ch w e do n o t kn o w whether t h e m an
“ ”
w h o says brak yes t m ukh is u sin g t h e Po li sh o r t h e Ru ssi an
lan gu age,a differen ce whi ch c om pletely chan ges t h e m eani n g
o f t h e sen t ence (t h e ex am ple is t aken fro m K o t arbirrski an d
’

“ “ ”
m ean s in Po lish there are n o fli es or flies are lacki ng ,an d
“
marri age is eatin g flies in Ru ssi an) ,t o t h e m o re c o m plicated ,
in whic h am bi gu o u s w ords an d h om onym s appear in t h e t ext
formu late d in a given lan gu age,which m ay resu lt in a wro n g
i nterpret ati on o f t h e S peaker s i nten ti ons An o ther cau se o f
’
.

mi su nderst an din g m ay be vagu e expressi ons whi ch ,in vi ew o f

t h e l ack o f ex act d efin iti on s,adm it o f v ari ou s i nterpret ati o n s .

A m o re com pli cated pro blem c on si sts in distin gui shi n g

between t h e u n derst an din g o f m ean in gs o f expressi ons and t h e
reco gniti on o f co nvi cti on s c onn ect ed wit h th o se expressi o ns .

In o th er wo rd s,w e have here t o do with a di stincti o n b etween

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OF S E MA NTICS

c o mm u n ca
i ti on in t h e sense v yin g mean ings o f expr
o f co n e

si o n s an d c o mm u n i c ati o n in t h e sen se o f co n v eyin g c on v ic t io

I f, in c ontradi stincti on t o m i su n derst an din g s, w e

c om m u n icat ion is a pro cess o f pro duci n g S igns by .

an d o f perceivi n g th ose si gns by t h e o

by the sam e unders tanding o f those si gns by b oth partie s,then ef

fect ive comm un icat ion consists in su ch a process provided ,m o re
o ver, that t h e sam e u n derst an di n g o f t h e signs is accom panie d by
th e same con v ict ions When t w o m en w h o h ave lo st thei r w ay
.

in a fo rest discu ss whi ch w ay they sh ou ld go in o rder t o fin d

their w ay,an d when fin ally on e o f them says We m u st n ow
turn t o t h e right ,b ec au se accordi n g t o t h e m ap that is t h e onl y
w ay t o re ach N then t h e comm en t N ow they u n derst an d
”
one an o ther (or,m ore stri ctly , thou gh mo re artifici ally in
“
En glish : N ow comm un i cati on is est ab lished b etween th e m
may be t aken either in t h e sense th at they b oth i nt erpret in t h e
sam e w ay t h e m ean i n g o f t h e st at em en t th at they h ave t o t u rn

t o t h e right (fo r there might be n o u n d erst an din g b etween them

if one o fthem h ad a po o r kn owled ge o fhis co m pan i on s lan gu ag e) ,
’

o r th at they h ave ag reed as t o t h e c ho i ce O f thei r w ay I n co n .

formity with t h e t ermi n olo gy su ggested , that secon d case is

c alled ef fective co mm un i cati on I n o rder t o est ab lish effec tive
.

co m m un i cati o n it is n ecessary first t o est ablish co mm un i cati on in

t h e sen se o fan id entical u n derst an din g o f m ean i n gs o f expressi o n s .

Am on g t h e o b st acles whi ch ren der hu m an comm un i cati on

difli cu lt ,i e , whi ch cau se cert ain expressi o ns t o be u nderst o o d
. .

in di fferent way s by t h e comm un i catin g p arties,t h e pri nci pal

o n es (if it is assu m e d th at t h e p arti es co n cern ed kn o w well t h e

lan guage they are u si n g) are : am bigu ity an d vagueness o f ex

p r ess i on s an d lingu is t ic hyp os t as es Th

. e m eth o d o f p reci si n g
t h e m eani n gs o f expre ssi on s,whi ch is so m eti m es called sem anti c

analysi s,is i n t en d ed t o rem o ve suc h sh o rt co m i n gs in hu m an

speech . I f t h e requirem en t t o reso rt t o sem antic an alysi s d oes

no t go b ey o n d th o se lim it s,i e , . if it is c onfin ed t o t h e re quire
.

m en t o f m aki n g t h e m eanin gs o f expressi ons m o re precise ,then

 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

T h i n gs bear a different aspect when it comes t o t h e vagu en ess

o f w ords Th at i ssue ,
. ext remely i n teresti n g fro m t h e phi lo so phical

p o in t o f vi ew an d di scu sse d by m any au thors,h as n o w a co m

e he n siv e lit erat u re an d h as sti m l at e d m an y f til id s 30
p r u er e ea .

M ax B lac k different iat ies b etween general an d vague words

an d describes th at di f ference thu s :
Th e fin ite area o f thi s field o f appli cati on o f t h e wo rd is
a sign o f it s generality,while it s v aguen ess is i n di cat e d by t h e
”
finite area and lack of S pecificati on o f its b oun dary 3 1
B lack practically repeats t h e form u lati o n o f M arty , w h o
wro te
“
Wh at w e mean by vagu eness is t h e phen omen o n that t h e
field of app lica t ion of cer ta in names is no t s tr ictly o utlined 32 ”

M arty referred t o n am es o nl y ,whereas B lac k ri ghtly ex

t en ds t h e pro blem t o cover w ords in gen eral Th e po int is that .

a v ague w ord is su c h a general w o rd with n o strictly o u tlined

“
field o f appli cati on Such words always h ave som e b oun dary
.

area con cerni n g whi c h it can never be st ate d with c ert ain ty that

a giv en w o rd is,o r is n ot ,appli cable t o it M arty s exam ples

’
.

“ ” “ ” “ ” “ ” “ ”
are : ab o u t a hu n dre d , sweeti sh , greenish , big , sm all ,
” “ ”
qu i ckly , sl owly ,et c .

I f w e disregard sc ientific term s,t h e m eani ngs o f whi ch are

est abli she d by c o n ven ti o n ,v agueness is a pro perty o f practically

all w o rds That property is a reflecti on o f t h e rel ative ch aracter

.

o f all c l assificati on whi ch t akes t h e fo rm o f general nam es or,

m o re bro adly ,o f gen eral w o rds T hi n g s an d phenomen a that .

30 Th e
pro blem o f v ague w ords w as stu died b y Peirce (cf W B G al
. . .

lie,
Peirce and Pragmat ism,E dinburgh 19 5 2,pp 173 . Penetratin g remarks
on th e su b ec j t are t o be foun d in Un tersuchungen z ur Grundlegung der all

gemeinen Grammat ik Sp rachp hilosop hie by Anton M art y (Vo l 1,Hall e

und .

a S 190
. . 8,pp 5 2 B ertrand R u ssell h as dev oted t o th at pro blem his w ell
.

”
kn o w n stu dy Vagueness (Australasian J ourn al of Ph ilosop hy,V o l 1,
“
.

an d M ax B lack,a w ork un der th e same title

M B lack, Vagu eness B lack,Language
“
31 . in M . and Ph ilosop hy ,p 3 1 . .

3 2 M ar ty,o p . cit .
,p 5 2
. .
 THE CO M M UN I CATIVE FU NCTI ON O E LANGUAGE 35 7

bel on g t o o bj ective reality are much ri cher and mu ch m ore

m any -sided than can be rendered by any classificati o n ,an d by t h e
wo rds which express su ch a classificati on I n o bj ective reality ,
.

there are t ransiti on s b etween t h e cl asses o f thin gs an d o f phen o

men a,represent ed by w o rds,and these t ransiti ons,these b oun d
”
ary phen o m en a , acc ou nt fo r t h e fact whi ch w e call t h e v agueness

o f w o rds Su ch is t h e mean i n g o f t h e st at em ent that t h e v agueness

.

of w o rds i s an objec t ive phen omen on B lack reso rts t o a dif

.

ferent argum ent ati on

“
V aguen ess is clearly an o bj ective feature o ft h e series t o which
”
th e v ague sym b o l is appli e d 33 .

That is why t h e on ly w ay t o avoid vagu eness of words is a

c on venti o n whi c h st ri ctly o u tlines t h e b o u n d ari es o f t h e field

t o whi ch a given w ord refers (alth o u gh n o su ch strictly ou tlin ed

b ou nd aries exist in re ality) Sci en ce o ften resorts t o preci si n g

.

terms by w ay o f an arbitrary conven ti on For i nst ance,w e m ay

.

ad opt ,for cert ai n pu rpo ses ,t h e co nventi o n that wat er fl o wi n g

in it s n atu ral b ed n ot wider than n metres sh all be calle d a riv u

let an d if t h e bed be wider than 11 met res , then it S hall be called
”
a river , et c C an th at be u sefu l in practi ce ? O f c ourse ,
. t h e im

po rt ance o f su ch defini ti ons,whi ch in pri nci ple are qu ite arbitrary ,

cann o t be d o u bt ed Bu t ,as h as been said ab o ve,reality do es
.

“ ”
n ot divide it sel f i nt o suc h sh arply o u t lined com part men ts,

an d t h erefore it can b e said th at a com p lete elimi n ati on of

t h e vagu eness o f wo rds w o ul d m ake our l an gu age a great deal

poorer Thi s is n ot a declarati on ag ain st precisi on in m akin g

.

st at em en ts,an d ag ain st t h e en de av o u r t o eli m i nate t h e v agu eness

o f w o rd s an d t h e resu lti n g m i sun derst an din gs,bu t it d oes draw

att enti on t o t h e o bj ective li m it s o f su c h a pro cedur e It I S o nl y

.

ag ai n st thi s b ackgrou n d that w e can fully u n derst an d th e fail ure

“
o f t h e c oncepti on o f an ideal lan gu age .

“ ”
Phil osophical l on gin gs fo r an ideal lan gu age ari se o u t
o f age - old c o mplai n ts ab o u t t h e im perfecti on and unreli ability

33 M . Black, Vagueness p 42
. .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

of l anguage ,so u rces o f m any m i stakes in hum an co gn iti on:

Thi s,t o o ,gave ri se t o radi cal ten denci es (from Plato t o Berg
“ ”
son) t o o pp o se u nreli able lin guisti c c o gn iti o n t o true n on
li n gui stic co gn iti o n Other t hin kers,like D esc artes in his M e
.

ditat ions,B acon in N o vum Organum ,or B erkeley in hi s Treat ise,

sadly poi n t t o l an gu age as a so u rce o f erro r an d i llu si on s,and

tell u s t o be cau ti ous in usin g l an guage as an instru men t in t h e

process o f co gni ti on S till o thers,w h o ad opt t h e thesis concern
.

in g an an alo gy b etween t h e stru cture o f lan gu age an d t h e stru ctu re

“
o f reality ,see t h e d an ger o f a bad language in t h e fact that
verb ali sm proj ects u pon reality an d acco u nts for it s faulty inter
pret at ion ,an d that w e wron gly t ake properti es o f words t o be
“
properti es o f thi n gs (e g ,Ru ssell in V agu en ess
. . o n t h e o ther
“ ”
han d ,they see th e benefits o f a go o d lan gu age m ainly in that
throu gh b ecom in g ac qu ainted with su ch a language w e beco me
ac qu ai nt ed with reality S uch c onvi cti o ns have given birth t o
.

“
t h e o pini on that t h e b ui l din g o f an ideal langu age woul d be
a w ay o ut fro m all phi l o so phi cal difli cu lt ie s . It is self-eviden t
w h y t h e adherents o f that o pin i on were m ai n ly lo gi ci an s,an d

espec i ally experts in m athem ati cal l ogic Those people w h o

.

were u sed t o han dlin g m athem atical an d l o gi cal sym b ols an d

“ ”
t o co nstru ct form aliz e sy st ems an d su ccu m b e d
d l an gu ages

m ost easily o f all t o t h e tem ptati o n t o m ake an ideal,perfec t

lan guage whi ch wo u ld m ake it possible t o rem o ve all tho se
i m perfec ti ons o f Speech whi ch are sou rces o f erro rs in c o gu i
ti o n Th e m ost o utstan di n g represent atives o f that ten dency were
.

R u ssell an d Wittgenstei n It w as they w h o h ad w o rke d o u t a

.

theory whi ch held that throu gh t h e stu dy o f gramm ar,an d es

pecially o f synt ax ,o f lan gu age,o ne can stu dy reality ,an d thu s
laid t h e theoreti cal fou n dati ons o f t h e ne o-positivist d o ct rine
so fashi on able at a l ater st age c o ncerni n g t h e an alysis o f t h e

lo gical synt ax o f l an guage as the sole t ask o f philosophy Ru ssell

.

an d Wittgenstei n also d evel o ped t h e co ncepti o n th at t h e b u ildin g

o f an id eal lan gu age ,with a perfect lo gic al syn t ax , m i ght lead t o

 S ELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

Th e c o ncep ideal l an guage b ecame b ankru pt prin

ti o n o f an

c ip ally b ecau se o f it s i nseverable c onn ecti o n with t h e asserti on

t h at t h e st ru ctu re o f lan gu age is a reflecti on o f t h e structu re

o f reality Thu s,a perfect lan gu age wo uld h ave t o po ssess
.

a perfe ct st ru ctu re whi ch w ou ld fau ltlessly reflect t h e stru cture

o f reali ty Bu t here is t h e b asi c erro r in th at c o ncepti on ,

. a vi ci o u s

circle in reason in g Th e st ru ct ure o f reality b ec om es kn ow able ,

.

acc ordi n g t o that con cepti o n ,th ro u gh t h e st ru cture o f l an gu age ,

“

but t o be able t o b u ild an ideal lan gu age on e w ou ld have t o kn ow

in advance wh at is t h e st ru ctu re o f th at reality 35 .

Bu t that is n ot t h e m ost i m po rt an t po i n t An other aspect .

o f t h e pr o blem is o f i n t erest h ere : t h e u selessness o f t h e co n

cep tion o f an ideal l an gu ag e (even if w e ab an d o n t h e thesis de

vo ted t o t h e an alo gy b etween th e stru ctu re of lan gu age and that

o f reality) fro m t h e p oi nt of vi ew o f t h e comm u ni cative fun cti o n

o f lan guage It m ay seem parad oxical that comm un i cati on re

.

qui res t h e v agueness o f wo rds But should w e c ompletely elim .

inat e ,by a conventi on ,t h e v agu eness o f w ords then , as h as

already b een said ab o v e , w e shou ld so i m p overi sh o u r l an gu age

an d so restri ct it s c o mmu ni cative and expressive fun cti on ,th at

t h e resu lt w ou l d defeat t h e pu rpo se : hu m an co mm u ni cati o n

wo u ld take pl ace with difli cu lty,sin ce t h e instru m en t by m ean s o f

whic h w e c om m un i cate with one an other wou ld have been inj u red .

In co nn ecti o n with these rem arks which ,I repeat ,m ay so un d

like a parad o x ,I sh ou ld like t o qu o te som e o f M ax B lack s c o n
’

elu si ons c o ncernin g Wittgensteins Trac tatus

“

It is certain that lan gu age is a g reat deal m ore complex

t h an t h e acco un ts su ppli ed by any o f t h e au thors menti oned
in thi s essay w oul d su ggest Th e defect in their answers is no t
.

in t h e character o f their me tho d bu t in t h e fact that thei r fragmen

tary an d approxi mative co nclu si o ns are presen te d as if they were
” 6
co mplete analyses 3 .

35 I M
. . Co pi, Artificial Langu ages in Languag e,Tho ugh t and C ult ure
ed . P Henle
. .

M Black, Wittgen stein Tractatu s

‘
’ ’
36 . s p . 165 .
 THE COMMUN ICATI VE F UNCTI ON OE LANGUAGE 36 1

Ren un ci ati o n o f an
ideal lan gu age and o f abso lu te precisi on
o f st at em ents d oes n ot ,h o wever ,mean a renu nci ati o n o f striv

in g for a maxim um po ssible precisi on We m ay n ot absolu tely .

elim in ate t h e v agu eness o f w o rd s b ecau se that is an o bj ectiv e

property Bu t w e may restri ct it ,an d even t ot ally elimin ate it

.

for cert ain purposes,by m akin g u se o f appro pri ate conv en

ti ons We are in a positi on
. an d that is t h e m ost import ant
po in t t o eli mi n ate t h e am bigu ity o f w ords by i nterpretin g
them in their contexts,by ad optin g defin iti on s that impart preci
si on t o term s, et c We are also able t o redu ce,
. o r even com plet ely

t o elimin ate ,t h e dan ge r o f m isun derst an din gs du e t o lin gui stic

hypostases .

Thi s is an old and comparatively simple issu e ,and yet it

h as b othere d phi lo sophers fo r so lon g This h as been so prob ab .

ly becau se thi s issu e is c ou pled with t h e gre at con tro versies ab ou t

th e world-o u tlo o k ,an d it s so lu ti on depen d s o n t h e st an dpo i nt
ad opte d in those co ntro versies .

There is a very fine statement by J S Mill . .

“
Th e ten dency h as alway s been stro n g t o b eli eve that what
ever receives a n am e mu st be an en tity or b ein g , havin g an

in depen dent existen ce o f it s ow n ; an d if n o real entity answering

t o t h e name co u ld be fou n d ,men did n o t fo r th at re ason su p

pose that n on e existed ,bu t i m agin e d that it w as som ethin g

part icu liarly abstru se an d mysteri o u s,t o o hi gh t o be an o bj ect
”
o f sen se 37 .

We have here with an old i ssue whi ch bears t h e t ra

t o do
dit ional n am e o f t h e cont ro versy arou n d t h e u niversals Bu t .

it is by n o m eans an o bsolete pro blem ,b elon gin g o nly t o t h e

M iddle A ges Far less is it ,as so me au th ors claim ,a pu rely lin
.

guist ic i ssu e It is co nn ect e d with an i mpo rtant on t o l o gical is

.

su e,whi c h is also inv o lve d in t h e co nt em porary fun d am en t a l

phi losophi cal c ontro versy b etween m ateri ali sm an d id ealism ,

37
Q uoted K O gden
after C . . I A Rich ards,Th e M eaning
. .
f M ean
o

ing ,Lon don 1953,p XX I V . .

 SELE CTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

an d which appears in connecti on with t h e vari ou s contro versies

ab ou t t h e pro b lem s an d su bj ect m att ers o f t h e v ari ou s parti cu l ar

di sci pli nes Th e Plat on ism o f Cant o r an d Ru ssell ,reism o rig

.

inat ed by Franz B rent ano t oward t h e en d of his li fe ( Van den

Gegens tiinden des D enkens, 19 15 ; Uber das S ein im un eigen t
lichen S inne,19 17) an d i n depen dently from B rent ano devel o pe d
by K ot arbirrski,are el o qu en t illu strati ons o f that st atement
’

That t h e i ssue is n ot a pu rely linguisti c one,is realize d even by

sci entists w h o are so m ewhat rem o t e fro m m ateri ali sm ,as fo r

inst ance by Willard v an Orm an Quin e,t h e au thor o f one o f t h e

finest w orks pu bli shed si nce Wo rld War II o n t h e n o ti on o f
exi stence an d li n gu isti c hypost ases :
“
It is n o w onder,then ,that ontolo gi cal con tro versy sh ou ld
end in co n t ro versy o ver l an gu ag e Bu t w e mu st n o t j um p t o t h e
.

co n clu si o n th at wh at there is d epen d s o n w o rds T ransl at ability .

o f a questi on i nt o sem an ti cal t erm s is n o i n di c ati o n th at t h e

qu esti on is lin gu isti c To see Naples is t o b ear a n am e whi ch,

.

‘
when prefixed t o t h e words see Naples ,yields a tru e senten ce ; ’

”
still there is n o thi n g lin gu i sti c ab o u t seei n g N aples 38 .

“ ”
Th e co ntroversy o ver t h e i nt erpret ati o n o f t h e words is
“ ”
an d e xi st s is o nl y seem in gly a li n gu istic c on t roversy ,a contro
v ersy o ver w o rd s T o pu t it as cau ti o u sly as po ssib le ,w e m ay
.

say once m o re th at t h e re qu i rem en t o f sem an tic an aly si s,whi c h

m akes u s remem ber that t h e exist ence o f a wo rd (thi s prin ci pall y

applies t o n am es) d oes n o t i m ply t h e e xist en ce o f a c o rresp on d

in g o bj ect in t h e direct sense o f t h e w ord exi sts (that is in su c h

a sense in whi c h w e say th at a h ou se , a t ab le ,or any o ther o bj ect

exists is a co rrect requ i rem ent Th e p o in t is n ot t o elimi n ate

.

general wo rds an d t o devise a speci al lan gu age fo r that purpose,

b ut t o elimi nat e hypo st ases,i e ,t h e d an ger o f co nclu din g er
. .

ro neou sly th at if a general n am e exists then a co rrespo n din g

“
gene ral o bj ect exists as well To escape t h e d an ger o f idealisti c
.

33 W . v. O .
Q uin e, From a L ogica l Po in t of Vie w , Cambridge
19 5 3 .
 SELECTED PROBLEMS OE SEMANTI CS

natu m o f a general n ame ; t aking i nt o acco unt t h e tim e o f even ts

an d t h e c han ges resu ltin g fro m t h e fl ow o f tim e an d c h an ges
“ ”
in extern al con diti ons ; t h e u se o f et c . t o i n di cat e that a de

scri pti o n is never exh au stive) an d t h e pri nci ples o f ant iv erbalism

(t h e statemen t that a n ame is n ot t h e thi n g it den o tes ; t h e u se

o f qu ot ati on m arks t o stress t h e general an d vagu e c h aract er o f

w ords ; th e u se of t h e hyphen t o in dicate that wo rds o ften sepa

rate thi n gs whi ch sh ou ld n o t be separat e d from o ne another

et c ) is c onnected with cert ain d efinit e so ciot echni cs

. .

Th e im port ant po i nt is that whi le w e rej ect th e erroneou s

an d o ften fan t asti c theoreti cal su bst anti ati o n o f th o se prin ci ples

w e sh ou ld n ot l o se sight o f thei r rati on al content A n d m o st

.

im port ant is it t o realize t h e p rac tical significance o f sem an ti c

researc hes M arxist phi lo so phers,w h o always lay st re ss o n th e
.

“
li nks connec tin g theory with practice,greatly abh or ab stracti on
”
ism . AS o ften happens,fear is n ot a g o o d a dviser,an d hence
they o ften eye with su spici on t h e vari ou s disci plin es and re
searches whi c h seem ab stract , thou gh in fact they are m ost cl o sely
co nn ected with practi ce . S u ch is t h e case o f sem antics .

We are now witnessi ng it s rehabili t ati on N o t o nly in lingui s

.

tics,where t h e develo pm en t Of sem anti c researches h as ne ver

faced m aj or diflicu lt ies,but also in lo gic For it h as tu rne d o u t
.

that t h e stu dy o f lo gical synt ax and m etalan gu age have very

practi cal appli cati on s in t h e constru cti on o f translatin g m achines,
mechani cal m em o ry devi ces,et c It is also wo rt h while t o d raw
.

attenti o n t o an o ther field o f appli cati ons o f sem anti cs,un fo r tu

n at ely neglect ed in soci alist c o un t ri es,which is a scien tifi c th eor

y
of p rop aganda . Th e situ ati o n is qu ite parado xi cal : a field o f
soci al activity whi c h is so cl o sely co nnect ed with so ci al an d

class stru ggle h as b een n e glect ed by M arxist sci en ce fo r wro n gly

interpreted d oct rin al reasons All that h as been discu ssed in thi s
.

b o o k an d is co nnected with o ur kn o wledge o f effective co mmuni

cati o n and with i m pro vi n g th at c omm un icati on ,b el on gs t o t h e

theoretical fou n d ati ons o f t h e sci en ce o f m ass pro pagan d a,

a sci ence whi ch in capitali st co un tri e s already h as a v ast litera
 THE COM M UN I CATI VE FUN CTI ON OE LANGUAGE

ture (at least as far as som e aspects o f t h e pro b lem are c o ncer
an d whi ch in o u r c ou nt ries is practic al ly n o n - existent .

That issue ,t o o ,can only be in dicated here ,S ince it req

a separate stu dy ,qu ite di f ferent in n atu re from t h e present b
Bu t t h e actu al pu rpo se o f t h e present b o o k c on sists prec
‘

111 p o i ntin g t o c ert ai n rese arc h pro blems,in o rder t o stim

m o re d et ailed an d bro ader i n vestig ati o n o f them in fu t

 BI B LI O G RAPHY
Th is list includes th e works act ually used . Furth er bibliograp h ical f
re erence

can be found in th e items marked w ith an as t erisk

A 6 aeB B H , H H M app ( 18 64
. .
“
. . K 25 -ner mo co a I cmepr u

[N . M art ( 1864 On t h e 25t h Anniv ersary of D eath ] . I n : Bo

np oc ez fl 3 bl K03 HaHufl ,1960
,N9 1,pp .
—99
90 .

”
A 6 aeB B H , II OHsITEI e n neoceM aHTnxn [Th e C oncept o f I deosemant ics]
. .
“
.

In : Hs em u M buu nenue,T 11,M o c a 1948 . .

Ajdu kiew icz K , Em p iryczn y fun dament p ozn ania [Th e Emp irical Fo un
“
.

dation of Cogn ition]

I n : Sp ra wozdania Poznanskiego To warzyst wa
.

Przyjac io l N auk,1936 ,n r 1,pp 2 7—3 1

'

. .

, Ep istem ologia a semi o tyka [Epistemo logy an d S emiotics]

“ ”
Ajdu kiew icz K . .

I n : Przeglqd Filozoficzny,R 44,1948 ,z 4,pp 336 -347 . . . .

Ajdukiew icz K , L ogik a a do sw iadczenie [ Lo gic an d Experience] I n

'

. .

Przeglad Filozoficzny,R 43,1947,z 1— 4,p p 1—2 1 . . . .

Ajdukiew icz K , O n t h e N o tio n of Existen ce

“ ”
. I n : S tudia Ph ilosop h ic a , .

1949—195 0 , V o l 4 ,pp 7 —22 . . .

Ajdukiew icz K , 0 znaczen iu wyraze n [O n t h e M ean in g o f Expressio n s]

'

. .

O dbitka z [reprint fro m] : Ksiega Pamiqtko w a Po lskiego To w a rzyst wa

Filozoficznego w e L wo wie,Lw ow 19 31,K siazn ica-Atlas .

“
Ajdu kiew icz K , Pro blem at tran scen dent aln ego idealizmu w sformu lo w ani u
.

[Th e Pro blem of Tran scen den tal I deali sm in a S em antic

”
seman tyczn ym

Form ul atio n] I n : Przeglad Filozoficzny ,R 40

.
, 19 37 ,z 3 ,pp 27 1-287 . . . .

I n : E rkenn tn is ,1934,B 4,pp 10 0—138

“ ”
Ajdu kiew icz K , S prach e un d S inn
. . . . .

Ajdu kiew icz K , D as Weltb ild u n d d ie Be griffsapp aratu r

“
. I n : Erkenn t n is ,
19 34,B 4,pp 2 . 5 9—287 . .

Ajdu kiew icz K , D ie w issen sch aftlich e Welt perspe kt iv e

“
. I n : E rke nntnis,
19 35 ,B 5 ,pp 2 . 2—30 . .

Ajdu kiew icz K , W spraw ie artyku lu pro f A S ch affa o m o ich po gladach

“
. . .

”
filo zoficznych [ Con cern in g t h e Pap er by Prof A S ch aff O n M y . .

Ph ilo so ph ical V iew s] I n : M y sl Filoz oficzna,195 3,n r 2 pp 2 92

'

. .

334 .

Ajdu ki ew icz K W spraw ie

‘
uniw ersalié w
’
[ Co ncernin g Un iv ersals l
‘ ’
.

In : Przeglqd Filozoficzny ,R 219 —234 . 37 ,1934,z . 3,pp . .

. 0
Ajdu kiew icz K ,J ezyk i p oznan ie ,T I ,Wybo r p ism 2 lat 19 2- 19 39 [L angu age .
’

0
an d Co gn it io n , V o l I ,S elected W o rks 19 2 Warszaw a 19 60
. .

PWN .
 BI BLI OGRA PH Y

Belev itch V . L angage de s mach ines ci langage h umain . B ru xelles 195 6 ,

O ffi ce de Pu blicité .

B enj amin A C , Outlines Of an Empirical Th eory of M eanin g I n : Ph ilos

. .
“

op hy of S cien ce,July 1936 ,V ol 3,N O 3,pp 2 50 —266 . . . .

Ben v en ist e E , Co mmun ication anirnale et lan gage h um ain

“ ”
. In : Diogene , .

19 5 2 ,N O 1,pp 1 —7 . . .

Benv en iste E , N atur e du sign e lin gui stiq ue

. I n : A ct a L inguist ica,1939 ,
V ol 1,Fasc 1,pp 2 . 3—2
9 . . .

Bergman n G Th e M etap hysics of L ogical Posit ivis m N ew York 1954,Lo n g .

m an s,Green CO .

Bergson H L a p ensee et le mouvant (Ch ap VI : I n tro du ction a la meth a

’

Paris 19 55 ,Presses Un iv . de Fran ce .

Beth E W .
“
S emantics as a Th eory of R eferen ce
”
. I n : Ph ilosop hy in t he

M id-Cen tury A S urv ey,Vol 1,ed by R Kliban sky,Firen ze 19 5 8 ,

. . . .

La N u ov a I talia E ditrice,pp 62—10 0 . .

Black M Crit ical Th inking An I ntroduct ion t o L ogic and S cient ific M eth o d . .

N ew York 19 5 2,Pren tice-Hall .

B lack M L anguage and Ph ilosop hy . S t udies in M et hod . N ew York 1949 ,

Corn ell Univ . Press .

“
Black M R u ssell Philosoph y o f Lan gu age In : Th e Ph ilosop hy f Bertrand
’
s o

Russell,ed . by P A S ch lipp ,N ew
. . York 19 5 1,Tu dor Publ C o ,pp . . .

22
7—2 55 .

Black S emiotic Ch arles B lack,L anguage

“
M , Th e . of M orris In : M . and

Philosop hy .

Black M , Vagueness In : M Black,Language and Ph ilosop hy

.
“
. .

Black M , Wittgen ste in s Tractatu s

. In : M Black L anguage and
‘ ’
. Ph ilos

Bloomfield L L anguage . L on don 19 5 7,George Allen U nw in .

”
Bloomfield L Lin guistic Aspects of S cience
“
In : I nt ernat ional E ncyclo .

p edia of Unified S cien ce,V o l 1,Pt 1,Chicago 195 5 ,U n iv of Ch icago . . .

Press,pp 2 277
15 - . .

B oas F ,Kult ur und Rasse Leipzig 19 14,Verlag v on Vo it un d C o

. . .

B o as F ,Race,L anguage and Culture N ew York 1949 ,Th e M acmill an C O

. . .

”
B o as F , Symbols an d Histo ry
“
. I n : (Ed R N Ansh en ) Language . . . .

pp . 10
2-121 .

J M , Cont emp orary E urop ean Ph ilosop hy B erkeley

'

Bo ch erI ski . . . an d Lo s
An geles 1956 , Un iv . of Californ ia Press .

B o dmer F ,The L o o m of Language Lon don 1943,George Allen

. Unw in . .

C JI OB O n n OHn Tn e [Word an d N o tion] I n : (p en

”
Borycn c rcnii B M “
. . .

II . II . FOpCIcEIii ) M bi tu n en ue u fl Bb l K,pp . 213— 2

75 .

Bour geand Brocker W ,Leh man n J , D e la n ature du

W . . .
“
sign e I n : Acta
L inguisti ca,1942 -1943,V ol III ,Fasc 1,
pp 2 4 30 . . . .
 BIBLI OGRAPHY 369

Bré al M .
,Essai de sé mant ique . S cience des significat ions Paris 19 0
4,L ibrair ie .

Hach ette et C ie .

Brentan o F ,Psycho log ie vo m e mp irisch en S tan dp unkt B l

.
Le ip zig 19 2
4, . .

B 2 Leipzig 192
. 5 ,Verlag v o n Felix M einer .

Bren tan o F , Uber das S ein im u n eigentlich en S inn e ,ab strakte N amen u n d
“
.

”
Verstan desdin ge In : F Brentano Psych o logie B 2 . .

“
I n : F Brentano Ps y
”
Brentan o F , Von den Gegenst an den deS D enken s
. . .

cho log ie B 2 . .

Brentano F ,Wahrheit and E videnz

. eingeleitet v on O skar Kr au s Le ipzig .

1930,Verlag v on Felix M ein er .

Bridgman P W Th e Logic of M odern Physics N ew

. . Y ork 1949 ,Th e M ac
millan C o .

Brit ish Ph ilosop hy in th e M id-Cent ury . A Cambridge S ymposiu m ,ed . by

C . A . M ace , L o n do n 195 7 , George Allen Un w in .

Brown R W ,Words and Th ings Glen coe (I llin ois) 19 5 8 ,Th e Free Press
. . . .

Brun ot F ,L a p ensee c i la langue Paris 1953,M asson et C ie

'

. . .

“ “
p r nH I A M ll eaJI HCTH‘IeCKaSI cymHo cTB ceM aHTnHecxo fi (pnn o co dmn
. .
‘

[Th e Idealistic E ssen ce of S eman tic Philosoph y] In : C OBpemeBH BIFI .

cyG , M OCKB a 1957 , I ocn o n nr n snar , pp

‘
B exTn BHErfi u neaa .

287-338 .

p rm A .
,Teop un n os na n un c ant e d cemau muuu [Th e Epistemo lo gy of

General S eman tics] Ep eBaHB 19 5 9 ,Pl an A H A p M n HCKOIZ

I CC P
‘

. . .

Bu hler K ,Sp rach t h eorie D ie Dars tellungsfunkt io n der Sp rache

. . . Jen a 19 34,
G u stav Fisch er .

Bu h ler K D ie S ym b o lik der Sprach e In : Kant-S t udien ,B 33,Berlin 192

“
8 . .

EYJTaXOBCKIdfi A H , Bee aeuu e e n s bzxo s nanu e .

[Intro du ction to Lin
.

guistics ] '
I . II , M oc a 19 53 .

Bu ysso n s H , La
. n a u ret du sign e lin gu istique In : Ac t a Ling uist ica ,194 1,
Vo l I I ,Fasc. . 2,pp . 8 3—8 6 .

t E rkenntnis,19 30
—19 3 1 B l 2—2
“
Cam ap R .
, D ie al e un d n eu e L o gik , ,p 1 6 . . .

”
Emp iricism ,S eman tic s O ntolo gy
“
C am ap R an d . I n : Re vue I n ternat ionale
de Ph ilosop hie ,19 5 0,N o . R eprinted in : (Ed . L . Linsky) S e man
t ics p . 07—228
2 .

Cam ap R Fou n dation s of L o gic an d M ath ematics In : I n ternat io n al

Encyclop edia Vo l . 1,Pt . 1,pp . 139—214 .

Cam ap R .
,In troduction to S e man t ics . Cambridge ( M ass ) . 1948 , Harv ard
Un iv . Press .

Carn ap R , L o gical Fo u n dat ion s o f t h e U n ity

“
. of S cience I n terna t io na l
Ency clop edia VOl 1,Pt 1,pp 42 —6 2 . . . .

C am ap R ,Th e Log ical

. S ynt ax f
o Language .
!
L o n do n 19 3 7 ,Kegan Pau l
CO .

Cam ap R .
,D er logis che Aufbau der Welt Berlin . 19 2
8 .
 BI BLI OG RAPHY

Cam ap R M eaning and N ecessity,C h icago 1947 . U niv . of Chicago Press .

Carn ap R .
,
“
D ie p h ysikalisch e S prach e als U niv ersal sprach e der Wissen
sch af t I n : E rkenntnis, 19 3 1, B . 2,pp . 432
—4 65 .

, Psych olo gie in ph ysikalisch er S prach e In : E rkenntn is,19 32

”
C am ap R . .

1933,B 3,pp 10 7—142 . . .

Cam ap R ,S ymbolische L ogik Wien 1954,S prin ger Verlag

. . .

Cam ap R , Testability an d M ean in g

“ ”
. I n : Ph ilosop hy of S cience,1936, .

V ol 3,N o 4,pp 419 —4 7 1,and 1937 ,V o l 4,N o 4,pp 1-40

. . . . . . .

C am ap R Uberw in dun g der M etaph ysik du rch lo gisch e An alyse der S pra
.

ch e I n : E rkenntnis,193 1,B . 2,pp 219—2

41 . .

C arro ll J B . Th e S t udy of L anguage .

!
Cam bridge (M ass ) . 19 55 ,Harv ard
U n iv . Press .

Casares J ,I ntroduccion a la lexicografia moderna M adrid 1950

.
'

. .

Cassirer E An Essay on M an An I ntroduct ion to a Ph ilosop hy of Human .

Cult ure N ew York 19 5 4,D ou bleday A nch or B o oks

. .

Cassirer E ,L anguage and M yth [w ith ou t date],D ov er Pu bl In c

. . .

Cassirer E ,The Ph ilosop hy of S ymbo lic Forms Vol 1: Language N ew Haven

. . . .

195 3,Yale Univ Press . .

”
Ch ang Tun g sun , A Chinese Ph ilo soph er s Th e ory o f K n ow ledge In
- ’
.

H W 2 -32
(E d S I ayak aw
. a) O ur L an ua
g g
. e an d O .ur o r ld,pp 99 4 . .

Ch ase S t ,Guides to S traigh t Th inking N ew York 19 56 ,Harper Broth ers

. . .

Ch s S ,Th e Po wer of Wo ds N ew York 1954,Harco urt,Brace

a e t . r
!
CO . .

Ch s S y a ny f Wo ds N ew Y ork 1938 ,Harcou rt,Brace

!
a e t Th e T r n o r Co . .

Ch erry C On Human Co m municat ion ! N ew York 195 7,Jo hn Wiley & S on s . .

‘In KO OaB a A C II oG
p /I etua fl 3 bll< a Kan np eaM em a a s bt xosnau un [ L angu age
. .

as O bj ect o f L in gu istics] M ocKB a 19 5 9 ,Fo c yun enr m .

Hu xo OaB a A C Beeaeuue c q3 btx03 nau ue [ In tro duction t o Lingu istic s] ,

. .

M oc a 195 3, Fo cyan enr n s .

Ch o msky ,S yntact i c S tructures Th e Hagu e 1957 ,M o uton

N . Co . .

Ch w istek L , An tyn omie lo giki formaln ej [An tin omies in Fo rmal Lo gic]
“ ”
. .

II) : Przeglqd Filozoficzny,R 2 4,19 21,z 3 14,pp 164-17 1 . . . .

Ch w istek L ,Granice nauki Z arys logiki i m et odologu nauk scislych [Th e

'

. .

Lim its of S cience An O u tline . of t h e L ogic an d M eth o do logy of th e

Exact S cience s] . Warszaw a

Lw ow - K siaznica-
A tlas .

Ch w istek L .
, Th e
“
Th e o ry of Co nstru ctiv e Typ es Pt 1 I n : Ro cznik Polsk
. . .

To w M atem . .
,T . 2,KrakOw 1923,pp . 9-
47 .

Co h en M Le langage . S truct ure et é volut ion . Paris Edition s

S ociales .

Co h en M ,Pour une so cio logie du langage Paris 1956 ,E d A lbin M ich el

. . . .

C o h en M , Structur e so ciale et structure lin gu istique

”
In : Diogene, 19 5 6 ,
“
. .

No . 15 ,p p . 46—57 .
 BIBLI OG RAPHY

Herr E ugen D iih ring s Revo lut ion in S cien ce (Anti-B ahring) ,L on
’
En gels F
do n 1940
,Law rence an d Wish art .

E rdman n K . 0,D ie Bedeutung der Wort es . Leipzig 19 10

,Edu ard A v en arius .

E strich R . M , Sperber H
. Three Keys to L anguage . 195 2
, Rineh art
an d Co .

Feibleman J . K ,I nside th e Great M irror A

. . crit ical exam inat ion o f the p h ilos
op hy f Russell, Wittgens tein
o and th eir follo wers Th e Hague 19 5 8,
.

M artinu s N ijh ofl
‘

(Dec can o mn uc m
a C . A .
“
06 3 0p JIEITepaTyp BI no B o n p ocaM es se n ass uca
”
n M L Im neHmI [A R ev iew o f Literature on th e R elation ship between
Lan gu age an d Thinkin g] Bonp o cbt a s bmo sna uun ,19 5 3, N9 3, pp
. .

121—130 .

Filosofia S imb olismo Arch iv io di Filosofia (Organ o dell I stituto di

’
e

S tu di Filo sofici) R oma 19 56 ,Fratelli B o cca Edito ri . .

Forest A tion Congresso

“
La co mmun ica In : Att i del XI I Vol . 1,pp .

pp . 15 7-172 .

Fran k Ph M odern S cien ce and I ts Ph ilosop hy . Cambridge 19 5 0

,Harv ard
U niv . Press .

Frege on R u ssell
’
s Paradox
”
. In : Translations fro m Ph ilosop h ical Writ ings
f Got t lob Frege
o . O xford 19 5 2, B asil B lackw ell .

“ ”
Frege G .
, On S en se an d R eferen ce . I n : Trans lat ion s
Fries C hC ,Th e S tru ct ure
. .
f English Lon don 19 57 ,L on gmans,Green C O
o . .

, Lettre s a la R é dactio n I n : Diogene 19 54,N o

‘

Frisch K v ,Ben v eniste E

. . . .

7 ,p p . 129—132 .

Fritz Ch ,J r,Ber t rand Russell s Construct ion of th e Ex terna l World L on

A
’
. . .

don 19 5 2,R outledge K egan Pau l .

G aert ner H Grama tyka wsp dlczesnego jezyka p o lskiego [A Grammar

o f Contemp orary Po li sh Lan gu age] Part 2 Lw ow 19 33,Ksiaznica . .

A tlas .

G at sch en berger R,S ymbola Anfangsgr unde e iner Erkenntnisthe orie K aris
. . .

ruh e i B 0,G Braun

192 . . . .

G at sch enberger R ,Z eichen ,die Fundamen t e des Wissens S tuttgart 19 32

.
, .

Fromm ann .

Fama a-b enopyx E

c M , O (bOpM e H conep xcarmn B 513 m
. .
“
[Form an d

Content Langu age] In : [mm A II I o pcxnfi ] s

’

in . . ut neuue u 3 3 b

[Thinkin g an d Lan gu age] .

pp . 35 2
-40
7 .

FanIcII Ha-(Deno pyx E . M , O CHOBHBIe B onp ocm asb mosuann n

.
“
B p nax
JIeHmI a [Th e
”
Fun damen tal I ssu es o f L in guistics in t h e Works of

V . Le nin] Huocmp aun bt u 3 3b e tak o n e , 19 5 1,N3 1,pp . 3—12 .

a- M [ Word
‘

l aJIa (Deno pyrc E

Cnoeo . u n o u n mu e an d N o tio n]
M occ a 1956 ,V t m enrn s .
 BIB LI OGRAPHY 3 73

Famcrm a-(Deno M , CJI OB O II pyx E . .

“
n OHnTn e B w er e yuermn Kn accuxon
mapxcns ma n eHmIn ama [Word
”
- an d N otio n in t h e Ligh t o f Works
Of Classics Of M arxism-Len inism] Be cmnurc M ocrco e cxoeo Yuueep cu
mem a,CepPIsI 06 m Hayx,BLIII . . 4,ceHTsI 6 p B 195 1,N9 9 ,pp 10
5—125 . .

r aJIR I/IHa-
(DCIIODYK E M “
C OBp eM eHHBI EI pyccxvrir m e nt [Contemporary
”
’

. .

R u ssian L an guage] JTexcuxa ,M oc a 19 54,Pl an M ocx V H—T a . . .

I anRIIHa-(Deno pyx E M [Prop o sitio n

‘
. . Cyu c denue u np eanootc euue an d

S entence] M o c a 195 6,Hear M o cx V H-

Ta . . .

“
Tama a-IJ eno
C pyIc E . M . 3HaROB OCTB B SI S BI KC c TO‘
I KI'I sperm s M apxcncr
HS BIR o sHaHTm -Fun ction in
'

cxo r o S
[ gi n Lan gu age fro m th e Po in t
of View Of M arxist Lin gui stics] Huocmp aun bzu m ax 6 ta xone , 195 2
,
. NE 2,pp . 3—11 .

Gallie W B , Peirce and Pragm at ism E din burgh 19 5 2

. .
,
Th e Pelican S eries . .

G am illsch eg B ,Franzdsische B edeut ungsleh re Tiibin gen 19 5 1,M N iemeyer

. . . .

G ardiner A ,Th e Th eory . o f Sp eech and L anguage . O xford 195 1, Th e

Claren don Press .

G aw rofi ski A ,S zkice jezykozna wcze [Essays o n Lin guistics] Warszaw a

. .

192 8 ,Geb eth n er i W olff .

Gleason H A ,J r,An I n tro duct ion t o Descrip t i ve L inguis t ics N ew Yo rk 19 5 5

. . . .

Go ldstein K ,L anguage and L anguage D ist urbances N ew York 1948 ,Gru n e

. .

S tratton .

Goldstein K Th e N ature o f L an gu age In : [Ed R N An sh en] Language

“
. . .

pp . 40
18 - .

[Ed L Lin sky] S emant ics

“
G oodman N .
, On L ikeness Of M e an in g In : . .

pp . 65—74 .

Popcrcmfi , I/13 Bpamen n e n or m

'

II . II . Heo n o snr nn u sM O M B o np o cOB

[Th e D istortion of t h e I ssu es O f L ogic b y N eo -Posi iv is s] t In : Co t .

cy ab exm ueu bt u u aeanu su [ Con temp orary S u bjectiv e I de

'

cp eiu eu nbt u

alism ] ,pp . 219—286 .

06 06 p a3 03 am
”
II H , K m n p a3 Bu TmI n OHnTEEI [O n
“
Fo p cxnfi
'

. . Bo np o cy

th e Format io n an d E v olu t io n o f Co n cepts] B OItp OCbl gfiunoco gbuu . .

19 5 2, N9 4,pp 64—77 . .

1 II , 0 p o im neerxa B II O 3 HaHnn [ On th e R Ole o f Lan gu age

“
Fo pcxmi 1
‘

. .

Co gnition] B onp oc et gbunoco gbuu 19 53,N9 2 —9 2

in . In : ,pp 7 5 . .

”
II H , asb rrca B n o sn arm n [Th e R Ole o f Lan guage in
“
To pcxmi
‘

. . POJI B
Co gn itio n] . In : [peIL A I I Fo pcxn fi] M bl u meuue
. . u fl 3 bl K [Thinkin g
an d L an gu age] ,pp . 7 3-116 .

G ran et M , L expression de la pen sée

.
“ ’
en ch in o is I n : J o urnal de Psy ch o
logie 19 28 ,N O 8 ,pp 6 17-
65 6 . . .

Green berg J . H ,Essays . in Linguis t ics . C h icago 19 57 ,U n iv . of Ch icago

Press .
Greenw oo d D .
,Truth an d M eaning [F orew ord by H L S earles] N ew . . . York
19 57 ,Ph ilo sophi cal L ibrary .

G reniew ski H .
,E lementy logiki formalnej [E lements Of Fo rmal L ogic] . War
szaw a 195 5 ,PWN .

G u sdorf G L a p aro le . Par is 19 5 6 ,Presses Uni v . de Fr an ce .

Hamann R , D as S ymbo l Grafenh ain ich en 190

. 2, Wilh elm Hecker . .

Hamburg C H ,S ymbol an d R eality S t udies in th e Ph ilosop hy of Erns t Cas

. . .

s irer Th e Hagu e 19 5 6 ,M artin u s N ijh of

. f .

Ham p sh ire S t , Th e I nterpretation o f L angu age : W ords an d Concepts

“
.

I n : [E d C A M ace] B ritish Ph ilosop hy .

pp 2 6 7 279
- . . . .

Hamp shire S t ,Th ough t and Act ion L o n don 19 5 9 ,Ch atto
. Win du s . .

Hare R M ,Th e L anguage of M orals Oxford 19 5 2

. .
,Th e Claren don Press . .

Hart mann P , Sp rach e und E rkenntnis zur Konst it ut ion des exp lizierenden
.

Best im mens Heidelberg 19 5 8,C arl Win ter . .

H y
a a k a w a S I , angu ge n h ough t a
L a i T . n d A ct ion
!
N ew York 1949 ,
. Harco urt, .

Brace Co .

Hayakaw a S I , S eman tics,G en eral Seman tic s an d R elated Disciplin es

“
. .

In :
[E d S I H a ak aw a] L g g , M i d M t ity, 19 —37
y an u a e ean .ng an a ur.
pp . . .

Hayak aw a S I “
Wh at I s M ean t by Aristotelian S tructure of Lan guage ?
.
”

In : [Ed S I Hayakaw a] Language,M ean ing

. . . and M at urity,pp . 217
22
4 .

Head H ,Ap hasia

. and Kin dred Disorders f Sp eech
o . Vols . 1 an d 2 N ew Yo rk
.

19 26 ,Th e M acm il lan C O .

Helmh o ltz H ,v , D ie Tatsach en in der Wah rneh mun g In : H v Helm “

. . . .

h o ltz Vort rage and Reden B 2 Braun sch w eig 19 0

3,Fr View eg un d
’
. . . .

S ohn .

Hempel C . G .
, Le Journ al o f prob lem e de la v eri e t I n : Th eoria ( A S w e dish
Philosoph y an d Psych olo gy) ,1937 ,Vol 3,Parts 2an d 3,pp 2 06-246 . . .

Hempel C G , On t h e L o gical Positiv ists Th eory o f Tru th Analysis,1935 ,

” ’
. . .

Vol . 2,N o . 4 .

Hem p el C . G , Pro blems .

“
an d Ch an ges in th e E mp iricist Criterion of M ean
”
in g ,In : [Ed . L . Lin sky] S emant ics pp . 16 1-18 5 .

Herdan G ,L anguage as Ch oice and Chance G ron in gen 19 56 ,P N o o rdh o ff

. . . .

Herder J G ,Uber den Ursp rung der Sp rach e B erlin 195 9 ,Ak ademie-Verlag
. . . .

Hetper W , R ola sch emat é w n iezaleznych w bu dow ie systemu seman tyki

“ ”
.

[Th e R Ole o f I n depen den t S ch eme s in Buil din g a S ystem o f S em an tics] .

Arch iwum To w N auk w e L w o w ie ,dz 3,t 9 ,z 5 ,Lw ow 1938 ,pp . . . . . .

25 3—264 .

Ho dges H A ,L anguages. . . S t andp o in ts and At t it udes L on do n 19 53,O xford

.

Un iv . Press .

Ho fstatter P R . Vo m Leben des Wort es W ien . 19 49 , Un iv ersitatsv erlag .

 BIB LIO GRA PHY

Keyes K S ,J r Ho w t o De velop Yo ur Th inking Ability N ew

. . . York 195 0
,M c
Graw Hill B o o k C O .

Klem en siew icz Z ,J ezyk p o lski [ Po lish Lan gu age] . . Lw Ow -Warszaw a 19 37 ,

K siaZnica-A tlas .

“
Ko k o szyrrska M , L ogiczn a jezyka,seman tyka i l o gika w iedzy skladn ia
’

[Th e L o gical S yntax o f L an gu age, S emantics, an d t h e Lo gic o f

Kn ow ledge] I n : Przeglqd Filozoficzny , R 39 ,19 36 ,z 1,pp 38—49

. . . . .

Ko n In c a r F B , B ueM p asn w m e 3 HaKOBb IX cn creM [D ifferen ce s Betw ee n

“
. .

S ign S ystem s] In : Bonp oc zt gbunoco g fiu u ,19 60,pp 126 - 134 . a . .

”
Filozofia n ieinterw encji [Th e Ph ilo soph y o f N on -in terv en
“
K o lako w ski L . .

tion ] I n : M ysl Filozoficzna,19 5 3,ur 2

.
pp 335 —37 3 '

. .

K o rzybski A ,M anh ood of Humanity Th e S cience and Art of Human Engin

. .

cering N ew York 19 2 3,E P D u tton

. CO . . .

Ko rzybsk i A ,S cien ce an d S an ity An I n t roduct ion t o N on-Aristotelian S ys t ems

. .

and Gen eral S em an t ics L an caster (Penn ) 1941 . . .

Ko t arbiri ska J , Pojecie zn aku

’

.
“
[Th e Concept of S ign] . I n : S t udio Logica ,
19 57 ,v ol 6 ,pp 57—13 3 . . .

K o t arbinski T ,E lementy t eorii p oznan ia ,logiki formalnej i m etodologa n auk

.

[E lements o f Epistemolo gy ,Formal L o gic an d t h e M eth o do lo gy O f

S c ien ce s] Lw ow 192
9 , Z akl N ar im O ssolinsk ich
'

. . . . .

Ko tar binski T , Przeglqd p roblem atyki logiczno-semantyczn ej [A R ev ie w

‘

o f I ssues o f L ogical S em antics] O dbitka . z [reprint fro m :] Sp ra wozda

i p osiedzen L odzk N auk zaI p Oh 1947 ,R 2 ,
'

n ia z czynnoi ci To w
‘
. . . . .

'

nr 1 L odz 19 47 .

K o t arbinski T W sp ra w ie p ojecia p ra wdy [ O n th e Concept Of Truth ] . Od

b itka [ R eprint] z 37 ro c zn ika Przeg lqdu Filozoficznego ,Warszaw a
19 34 .

Ko B TyH II C , O . .
“
3 HaueHuu arro w
”
[Th e M eanin g of Words] . In : Bo np ocu
n s bnco su anun , 19 5 5 ,N9 5 ,pp . 6 5—77 .

Kr aft V ,D er
. Wiener Kre is D er Ursp rung des N eop osit i vism us
. . Wie n 19 5 0,
S prin ger Ve r lag .

Kron asser H ,Handbuch der S e masio logie Heidelberg 19 5 2

.
,Carl Winter . .

3amer rcn O 3 Ha I eHI/II/I CJTOB a [ Note s o n t h e M ean in g Of

“ ”
KypI/IJI OBEEI E P ‘ . .

Words] . I n : Bonp oc w n s b txos uan un , 1955 ,N9 3,pp 7 3 —8 1 . .

”
Kurylow icz J .
,
“
Le s t
s ructures fon dam en tales de la lan gu e I n : Esquisses .

L inguist iques,Wro claw -Kr akOw 19 60

,O ssolin eum .

K urylow icz J , Lin guistiqu e et th é orie du sign e

“ ”
. . I n : E squisses L inguis t i
q u es ,Wr o claw -Kr akOw 1960,O ssolin eum .

K uryl ow icz J , Po dst awy p sych o lo giczne seman tyki

“
.
[Th e Psych ological
Foun dation o f S em antics] I n : Przeglqd Filozoficzny,R 30 192 7, . . .

z . 4,pp . 3 19—322 .
 B IBLIOGR A PHY 377

Ku rylow icz J S tru ktur a m o rfem u [Th e S tru c t ure of M o rp h eme] . In

Esqu isses Linguis tiques, Wro claw -Kr akOw 1960
, O sso lineu m .

L an ger S . K .
,Fe eling and Form A Th eory .
f Ar t L o n don 19 53,R o utle dge
o .

Kegan Pau l .

“
Lan ger S K , O n Cassirer s Th eory o f L an guage an d M yt h I n : Th e Ph ilos
’
. .

op hy of E rns t Cassirer Ed by P A S ch lipp N ew Yo rk 1958 ,T u d or . . . . .

Publ C o ,p p 37 9— 40 0 . . . .

L an ger S K , Ph ilosop hy in a N e w Key ! -A S t udy in th e S y mbo lism of R easo n ,

. . .

R ite and Art C am bridge ( M ass ) 195 7 ,Harv ard U n iv Press . . . .

Language : An E nquiry in t o I ts M ean ing an d Function Planne d . an d e di ed t by

R . N . An sh en ,N ew York 195 7 ,Harper Broth ers .

L anguage in Cu lture . Ed . by H . Hoijer,Ch icago (I llino is) 19 55 ,U n iv . Of

Ch icago Press .

L ang uage ,M ean ing and M at urity . S electi o n s fro m E TC : A R e vie w o f Gen
era lS emant ics 19 43-19 5 3 E d by S . . . I . Hayakaw a,N ew York 19 5 4,
Harp er Broth ers .

Language,Thought
'
and Culture . Ed . by P Hen le ,An n A rb o r 19 5 8 ,U n iv
. .

of M ich igan Press .

The L anguage o f Wisdom and Fo lly Ed by I . . . J . Lee ,N ew York 1949 ,Harp er

B roth ers .

Lee I J ,Ho w t o Talk

. . with Peop le . N ew Yo r k 19 5 2,Harper Broth ers .

Lee I . J .
,L anguage Habits in Hu man Affa irs . N ew Y o rk 1941,Harper
Bro th ers .

Len in V . I .
,M aterialism an d e mp ir ioc rit ic is m . Crit ical co mm en ts o n a rea c

t ion ary p hilosop hy . M osc o w 19 47 , Foreign Lan gu ages Pu blish ing

Hou se .

HeHuH B H ,(Dunoco gficxue m emp aau [Ph ilo sop h ic al N o teb oo ks] JI eHn Hrp an
. . .

1947 ,Fo e I/I snar I I OJIEIT JI n T . . . .

JI eOHTBeB A H ,JI eOHTB eB A A , O HB OSIKO M acn eRTe E S BIROBBIx fl BJI eHHItI

“
. . . .

[Th e D o u ble A spect o f Lin gu istic Ph en o m en a] I n : (Dun o co gficnue .

naylcu ,19 5 9 ,N9 2,pp . 116 — 125 .

Lerch E
“
Vom Wesen deS sp rachli ch en Zeich en s Ze ich en O der . Symbo l ?
I n : A ct a Lingu ist ica ,1939 ,v o l . 1,fasc . 3 ,p p . 145 — 16 1 .

E xtrait de la R e vue de M é tap hysique

“
Le R o y E S cie n ce e t Ph ilo soph ie et

de M orale,Paris,Ju illet 1899 .

Le R oy E , S u r qu elqu es Obj ection s adressée s a la n o u v elle ph ilosoph ic

“
.

I n : R e vue de M etap hysique et de M orale , 19 0 1,pp 2 92 - 327 an d

'
.

40 7— 432 .

Um p ositiv isme n o u v eau I n : R e vue de M etap hysique

“
de
'

Le R o y E .
, et

M orale,1901,p p 138 - 153 . .

Lesn iew ski S t

“
, Gru n dzu ge ein es S ystems der Gru ndlagen der M ath e
’

. n eu en

matik
”
. In : Fundamenta M athemat icae,19 2
9 ,t 14, pp 1—8 1 . . .
 BIBLI OGRAPHY

Le sniew ski S t .
, 0 p o dstaw ach o n t ol o gu [ Th e Fo un dation s o f O nto lo gy] .

In : Sp ra wozdania z p osiedzeh To w . N auk Warsz ,Wydz 3,R 2

. 3, . . .

z 4—6 ,Warszaw a 19 30
.
,pp 111—132 . .

HeBIllR OBCKaSI K . A .
, JI eIccuKO/zoeun n emeuxo eo n s bzk a [Th e L exicology
of the German Lan gu age] . M oc a 19 5 6 ,Fo cyq n enru s .

Lev i-S trau ss C ,Anth rop o logie s truct urale Paris

. . 19 5 8 ,L ibrairie Plon .

Lev y-Bru hl L ,L es fonct ions mentales dans les

'

inférieures
’

. so ciet es . Paris
19 12,L ibrairie Fé lix Alcan .

Lewis C ,M ind and th e W o rld-Order York 19 2

9 ,Ch arles S cribner
’
. I . . N ew s

S on s .

Lewis C . I Th e M o des Of M ean in g In : [Ed L . . Lin sky] S eman t ics

pp . 49—63 .

L og ic and Language First . an d secon d series . E d by A G N

. . . . Flew ,Oxford
195 5 ,B asil Blackw ell .

JI oeu uecnue uccneaoeanun . Caop uuu cmameu [ Logical R esearch es . Coll ected
Papers] . M oc a 19 5 9 , Pl an . AH CCC P .

Lon gabau gh Th .
,General S emant ics . An I nt roduc t ion . N ew York 19 5 7 ,
Van tage Press .

”
H, O a N ature
“
JI OHTeB T . . rp o ne 3 Ha eHEI sI 'I w ar m [Th e of

t h e M ean in g o f L an guage S ign] . In : Bonp ocu gfiun oco gbuu , 196 0

,
N9 7 ,pp 127—135 . .

Lun dbe rg G A S ch rag . C C . L arsen 0 . N S ociology N e w . York 19 54,

Harper Bro th ers .

“
JI ypnn A . P Poms B di o pa oe aHEIn Bp eM eHHbIX c I s efi y I reno
CJI O B a

R OIe o f W ords in th e Form u lation o f Temporal R elatio n s

”
[Th e
B exa

b y M an] I n : B onp ocez n cuxonoeuu ,19 5 5 ,N9 1,pp 73—8 6

. . .

JI ym A P Tp aemamuuecxn a g
.
fiasun [Trau m atic Aph asia] ,M OCKBa 1947
. .

J Th e A lgebraic Treatment of M eth o do lo gy E lemen tary D e

’

Los th e of

du ct iv e S ystem s I n : S t udio L ogica,1955 ,v o l 2,pp 15 1—2 11 . . .

On th e Exten din g Of M o dels

“ ”
L OS J (I) I n : Fundamen ta M ath ema t icae , . .

19 55 ,t 42,pp . . 38—5 4 .

LOS J .
,Gramatyka p o lska [A Gram mar of t h e Poli sh Lan gu age] . Part II :
S lo wot worst wo W -Form at ion 19 25 ,Z akl im
’

[ o rd ] Lw ow . . N ar . . OS
S Olinskich .

i p ojecia [Th e E xte nsion o f W ord an d N otio n]

“
LO S J .
, Zakr es w yrazu of .

J ezyk Po lski,R 12 , 19 27 ,nr 3,pp 73— 75 . . .

Lu szczew ska-R om ah n o w a S , Wie loznaczn o Sé a j zyk p olski .

[Amb igu it y
e
an d th e Po lish L angu age] , In : Kwart aln ik Filozoficzny , 1948 , t .

17 ,p p 47—5 8 . .

M alin ow ski B Th e Pro ble m of M ean in g in Pr im itiv e Lan gu ages . Sup

pleme nt In : C . K O gden ,I A Rich ards The M ean ing of M eaning,
. . .

pp 29 6 -
336
. .
M ead G H M ind,S elf and S oc i ety
. . Ch icago (Illin ois) 195 5 ,Univ . Of Chicago
Press .

Th e M ean in g of M ean in g A S ym p osiu m by F C S . . . S chiller,B R ussell .

an dH H Joach im In : M in d,Octo ber

. .
”
. 0,N o
192 . 116,pp . 38 5 —
4 14 .

M eillet A C c mmen t les m ots ch an gen t de sen s

. In : A M eillet,L inguist i
.

linguist ique génerale T 1 Paris 1948,E du ard Ch am

'

que h ist orique el . . .

p io n ,pp 230-271 . .

M einon g A Uber Annahmen Leipzig 19 10 ,Verlag v on J A B arth . . . .

”
M eredith G P , S emantics in Relation t o Psych olo gy
“
. . . I n : Arch ivum L in
—12
g uis t ic u m ,1956 ,V ol 8 ,Fasc 1,pp 1 . . . .

M emaHnH OB H H ,Hoe oe yttenue . . o n sbuce [A N ew Th eory of Langu age]

Jl enm rrp an 19 36 .

M emaHnH OB M H ,O atuee . . n 3 b1K03 nau ue [Gen eral Lin guistics] JI eHnHrp aII .

1940, a enr m .

M ilew ski T jezykoznawst wa ogolnego [An Outline o f General Lin

’

Z arys .

”
gu istics] ,Part 1: Teoria jezykozn aw st w a [Th e Th eory o f Lin guistics]
“

L u blin -
KrakOw 1947 .

M ill J . St .
,S ys teme de Iogique dé duct ive et induct i ve . T . 1 et 2 Paris
. 1866 .

Libr Phil os de Lagrange

. . .

M ill er G A ,L anguage and Communicat ion

. . .
!
N ew York-Toronto-L on do n
19 5 1,M cGraw Hill B o o k C O .

M ises R . v.,Posit ivis m . A S tudy in Human Understanding . Cambridge ( M ass ) .

19 5 1,Harv ard U n iv . Press .

M o ore,G E .
,Ph ilosop h ical Pap ers Lon don 19 5 9 ,George Allen Unw in
. . .

B , R ussell s Th eory of D escription s

“
M oore G
‘ ’
I n : Th e Philosop hy of
’
. .

Bertrand R ussell E d by P A S chlipp N ew . . . . . York 19 5 1,Tu dor Pu bl .

C o ,pp 175—2
. 25 . .

M orris C h . W “
Fo un dation s of t h e Th eory of S ign s In : I ntern at iona l
E ncyclop edia o f Unified S cience . V ol 1,N o
. . 2,Chicago (Illinois) 1938,
U n iv . of Ch icago Press .

M orris C h . W ,L ogical Posit ivism,Pragma tism an d S cien t ific E mp iricism

. .

Paris 1937 ,Herm ann et C ie .

M orris C h . W ,Th e Op en S elf N ew York [w ith ou t date] ,Prentice-Hall

. . .

M orris C h . W ,S igns,Language and Beha vior N ew York 1946 ,Prentice

.
!
.

Hall .

M ostow ski A ,L ogika m at ematyczno . . Kurs Un iwersyt ecki [ M ath em atical

L o gic . A U n iv ersity Course] Warszaw a-Wroclaw 1948
. .

M ostow ski A O f Axio m atic S ystems M at h e m a-

”
O n M o dels Fundam enta
'
r
.

t icae,19 5 2, t . 39 ,pp . 133— 15 8 .

M oun in G
“
Co mmun ication lingu istiqu e h um ain e et co m mun ica tion n on
lingu istique an im al e L es Temp s M odernes , Avril-M ai 19 60,N O .

16 170
— -170
0
9 ,pp 16 84 . .
 BI BLIOGRAPHY 38 1

M m BemI p anse B “ '

, O (bun o co di cxo n cymHOCTEI ce M aIITu ueck o B R O IIII en

. B .
‘

[Th e Ph il osophical E ssence o f the S em antic Concept

‘
nun
of I n : JI o eu uecxue uccneaoeanun [Lo gical R esearch es] , 48 —68
pp . .

M bt utnenue u fl 3 bl K [Th in ki ng an d L an gu age] Pen 1 1 II r Op CKPl fi ,M oc a . . . .

OCITOJm m srraT
‘

19 5 3,I .

N agel B ,L ogic Without M e tap hysics Glen coe (I llin o is) 19 5 6 ,Th e Free Press
. . .

Hapcxni r M C , (Dran o co dicxax cymHOCTL Heon osn TnBIIS M a [Th e Ph i

“
’

. .

losoph ical E ssen ce o f N e o -Po sitiv ism] In : Coep eM eHHbl ll cyob enmue .

n bt u uaeanus m [ C on temp orary S u bj ectiv e Idealism] ,pp 140 —218 . .

N auko Pa wlo wa a fi lozoficzne zagadnienia p sych ologii Z bio r artykulo w

’ ’

. .

[Th e Pav lov ian Th eory an d t h e Philosoph ical Problems o f Psych olo gy .

Co llecte d Papers] Warszaw a 195 4,PWN . .

Th e Problem of th e Lin guistic S ign

“
N ehring A I n : A ct a L inguistica,
v ol VI ,fasc 1,C openh agu e 19 5 0
. . .

N eurath O , S o ziolo gie im Ph ysikalismu s In : E rkenntnis,193 1,B 2

“
.
,pp . .

39 3—431 .

N yr op K .
,D as L eben der Wart er Leipzig 1903,E du ard A v en ariu s . .

O gden C . K ,R ich ards 1 A ,The M ean ing of M eaning Lon don 195 3,R o ut
. . . .

ledge Kegan Paul .

O sgo o d C h E ,S u ci G J Tannen baum P H

. . . . Th e M easure ment o f M eaning .

Urban a 195 7 ,U ni v o f I llin o is Press . .

[Words an d Th o u ghts] O dbitka [Reprint]

“ ”
O ssow ska M .
, S low a i mySli .

z 34 ro czn ika Przeglqdu Filozoficznego,W arszaw a 193 1 .

O ssow ska M , S t osun ek logiki i gramatyki [Th e R elationsh ip betw een Logic
“ ”
.

an d Gramm ar] O dbitka [Reprin t] z Kw arta lniko Filozoficznego , .

KrakOw 192
9 .

Ossow ska-
N ie dzw iecka M [Th e S emantics
S eman tyka profesora S t S zo bera
’

of Pro fessor S S zo ber] Przeglqd Filozofiiczny ,R 2

. 8,19 25 ,z 4,pp
. . . .

25 8—272 .

O ssow ski S t .
, An aliz a p e
o j cia zn aku [A n An aly sis o f t h e C o n ce p t o f t h e

S ign] . O dbitka t
[ R eprin ] z Prz egql du Filo zo fi cz n eg ,
o 1 9 2 6 , z 1— 2, .

Warszaw a 19 26 .

O ur L anguage O u r World S election s from E TC : A Re vie w of General

and .

S e mant ics,19 53—1958 ,N ew York 19 5 9 ,Harper Broth ers .

Oh man S Wort inhalt and Weltbild . S tockh olm 19 5 1 .

I IaHIa B 3
“
K O co o r n o m emm M BIm n eHnn
'

I OB . . B o np o cy s au na II

[ Con cernin g t h e R ela ion ship be w een t t L an gu age an d Thinkin g] . In

[p eIL II I I Fo pcxnfi ] M bu unenue . . u fl 3 bl K [Th inkin g an d Langu age] ,

pp . 117— 16 5 .

Pap A .
, S emantics and N ecessary Truth An I nquiry in to t he Founda t io ns
.

o f Analy t ic Ph ilosop hy . N ew Hav en 195 8,Yale U n iv Pre ss . .

Partrige E .
,The World of Words . Lo n don 19 5 4,Hamish Hamilton .
 BI BLIOGRAPHY

Pau l H Prinzip ien der Sp rachgeschichte . Halle 1886 ,M . N iemeyer .

-
Paulh an Pr , Q u es cc qu e c es le sens deS
’
.
“ ’
t t m o ts ? ”
J ournal de Psych ologie ,
19 28 N o 4—5 89—32
, 9 .
,pp 2 . .

Pei M Th e S t ory o f L anguage L on don 1957 ,George Allen . U nwin .

”
Peir ce C h . S .
“
Ho w to M ake Our I deas Clear . In : Values in Uni verse of a

Change . S elect ed Writ ings of Charles S Peirce

. . S tan ford (Califo rnia)
19 58 ,S tanford Univ . Press .

”
Pragm atism
“
Peirce Ch . S . I ssues Of . I n : Values in a Un iverse f Ch ange
o .

S , Lo gic as Sem iotic : Th e Th eory o f S ign s

“
Pe irce C h . . In : Ph ilosop hical
Writ ings of Peirce Selected an d e dited w ith an intro duction by Ju stu s .

Bu ch ler N ew York 19 5 5 ,D ov er Pu bl ,. 9 8—119 .

pp . .

, Wh at
”
Pragmatism I s
“
Peirce Ch . S . . I n : Values in a Un iverse f
o Change .

Perelm an C h
“
L ogiqu e,lan gage et co mm u ni ca tion ”
. I n : A t t i del XII Con
gresso v ol : 1,pp . 123— 135 .

Ph ilosop hy and Analysis E d by M . . . M acD on ald,Oxford 1954,B asil Black

Piaget J sy mbo le ch ez N eu ch atel 19 5 9 ,D elach au x

’
.
,L o format ion da I en ant f .

et N iestlé .

Piaget J,I n troduct ion 0I ep ist emo logie gene t ique T 1: La pen sée m ath emat i
’ ’ '

. . .

T 2
” “ ” “
qu e : L a pen sée p h ysiqu e
. T,3 :
. La pen sée bio lo giqu e .

Paris 19 5 0
”
p sych o lo giqu e et sociol o giqu e ,Presses U n iv de Fran ce . . .

Picard M , D er M ensch und das Wort E rlen bach -Z iirich 19 5 5 ,Eu gen R entsch
. .

Pich on E S ur le signe lin guistiqu e In : A ct a L inguist ica, 1940

—4 1,v ol .

II ,fasc . 1,pp . 5 1—5 2 .

Platon , Kr atylos
“
I n : Plat ons Ausge wcihlte Werke,B 3,M un ch en 19 18 ,
’

Georg M filler Verlag .

Po in care H S cience et Hypo thé se,Paris 19 35 ,Flammarion .

Po in caré H ,S cience et M é t h ode Paris 190

. 8 , Flamm arion . .

Po in caré H ,La Valeur de la S cience Paris 1935 ,Flammario n

. . .

I IO IIOB II C , HOHfl THe 01108 21 B w er e mapxcn c r crcoro y I eHEIsI O

“
'

. . .
I Hen o cpen

c TB eHH o fi cnnsn SI3 I> IKa n M BIm neHn sI

”
.
[Th e Con ce pt Of Word in th e
L igh t of th e M arxist Th eory of a D irect R elat ion betw ee n Langu age
an d Th in kin g] . In : B ecmnux M ocxo ecxoeo Ynueep cumema, C epn sI
O OII IeCTBeHHBIx Hayx,195 4,anp enB ,B Bm 2 , N9 4,pp 6 9 —84 . . .

II OHOB II C , 3Ha‘IeHI/I e CJI OBa II n OHsITPIe [W o rd-M eani ng an d N otio n]

“ ”
. . .

I n : B onp o cet ,19 5 6 , N9 6 ,pp 33—47 n sb mo s n auun . .

Po rz ig W D as Wunder der Sp rache B ern 19 57 ,Franc ke Verlag . .

l I OTe6 H5I A ,M bIC/l b u fl 3 bl K [ Th ou gh t an d Lan gu age] xapb KOB 19 13

'
'

. . .

Po zn anski E , O peracjo n alizm p o t rzydziestu latach [ Operatio n ism Th ir ty

“ ”
.

Years L ater] I n : Fragmenty .

filozoficzne S erio druga Ks iega Pa miqtko . .

wa ku uczczeniu T Kotarbinskiego [ Fragm en ta Ph ilosop hica Par t

. .
R eich en bach H ,E xp erience
. and Predict ion . Ch icago (I llin o is) 19 38 , Univ
“

of Ch icago Press .

R e ich en bach H ,The Rise

. o f S cient ific Ph ilosop hy . 19 5 6 ,Un iv . of Cali
fo rmia Press .

R ev esz G .
,Th e Origins and Preh istory f L anguage
o .
!
Tran s] . J Butler
. . Lo n
do n 1956 ,Lon gman s,Green Co .

”
R ev esz G .
, Th ink in g S peaki ng (A an d . symp o sium ) In : . Ac ta Psych o
Iog ica 19 5 4,V ol X ,N o 1— 2 . . .

R ev esz G Th ou gh t an d L an gu age In : A rch ivum Linguis t icum , 195 0

,
Vo l . 2,Fasc 2,pp . . 12
2— 13 1 .

PeB3 nH H H, . .
,ceM an r nKa n n po Gn emm
C r pylcr ypanb n an '
nna n c rnKa
”
H3 Y 16 HI fl cu ona
‘
[Stru ctur al L in gu istics,S em an tics,an d I ssu es o f th e
/i

S tu dy o f Words] I n B onp ocbt a s bzn os nanun 19 57 ,N9 2 ,pp 31— 41

. . .

”
P e3 HHKO B H O , I Ho ceo n or nu ecrcn e o cno nm 013513 11 M BIII IJI CHHSI n nau k a
“ ‘

. .

(G n o selo gical Prin ciple s o f th e R elatio n betw een Th inkin g an d Lan

Y -ma D issertation s Pu bli sh ed
g g ]
u a e I n : q nbte s anu
. cn u JI en u u ep n ( .

b y Len in grad Un iv er sity] , N9 2 48 , fl uanenmu t ecnu it mamep ua/tusw t .

I/Isn Henn n r p Y n -r a,19 5 8 ,pp 136— 16 3

. . . .

Pesn m mB J] O Honn m ue u cn oe o [N otio n an d Word] Jl emdnr p an 195 8 ,

. .

Hear JI eHmi rp Y H-r a

. . .

R ich ar ds I . A .
,Th e Ph ilosop hy o f Rh et o ric . N ew Yo rk 19 5 0
,O xford U n iv .

Press .

R ich ar ds 1 A ,Pract ical

. . Criticism . L o n do n 1935 .

R ich ards I . A .
,Princip les f
o L it erary Criticism . L o n do n 1955 , R o u t ledge
K egan Pau l .

R o b ack A A ,Destiny and M o tivat ion in L anguage

. . . Cambridge ( M ass ) .

19 54,S ci-Ar t Publi sh ers .

R o th stein J Communication,Organ izat ion a nd S cien ce . I n dian Hills (C o

lorado) 19 5 8 ,Th e Falc on
’
s Wing Press .

R o zw ado w ski J j jezyka [Lin gu istic Ph en o men a an d

O z a wis kach
j i roz wo u

L an gu age D ev elop men t] Kr akow 19 5 0 ,Gebeth n er . .

R o zw adow ski J , S em an tyka a gram atyka [S em antic s an d G ramm ar] l n

”
. .

Wybor Pism [ Selected Works] ,

’

t III ,pp 138 160W arszaw a 1960,PWN . . . .

R o zw adow ski J S emazjologia , czyli nauka o roz woju znaczeri wy razo w

’

J ej stan obecny ,zasady i zadania (S em asiolo gy,o r t h e S cience o f th e

E v olu tion o f M ean in gs o f Wo rds I t s Presen t S tate,Principles an d .

Tasks] Lw ow 190 3,To w Filo logiczn e

. . .

“
Ro zw adow ski J , S low o tw orstw o i znaczen ie w yrazow
.
(W ord-Formatio n .

an d th e M ean in g o f Wo rds] I n : Wy bé r Pism [ Selected W orks] ,V o l . .

III ,pp 2 1— 95 Warszaw a 19 60 PWN

. . . .

Py6 nn m r eim C H ,E btmue u cosu anue (Existe nce an d C onsciousn ess]

. . .

M ocxna 19 57 ,I/I sn AH CC C P . .
 BIBLI OGRAPHY 385

Pyfimrm r eim C . H ,,
,K . Bon p ocy 0 513 mm ,peq n n M BI HI JI eHIdI/I
'

C
( oncern in g
Lan gu age ,S peec h an d T h inkin g] . I n : Bonp ocbz n 3 w co3 nanun ,195 7 ,
N9 2,pp . 42— 48 .

Pyfim i m r efi C H , O cnoebz 06mm? ncux onozuu (D I

. .
. XI : “
Pe'n: [ Princi
ples o f Gen eral Psych olo gy, (Ch ap XI : . M oor na 1946 ,
Fo cyq n enr n s .

Py6 nn rnr efi C . H , Hp unuun b z

. u nymu p aseumufl n cux onoeuu [Psych ology,
I t s Principles an d E v oluti on s] . M ocmaa 19 5 9,I/Isn A H C CC P . .

R u dek W, W .
“
spraw ie
‘
Uw ag o seman tyce prof W D oroszew skiego
’
. .

(Con cern in g Pr ofessor W . D oroszew ski s

’ “
N otes on Seman tics
”
]
In : M ysl Filozoficzna,1957 ,N o 1
’

pp 19 5 — 219 . . .

Ruesch J Kees W ,N onverbal Communicat ion Berkeley 19 56 ,Un iv

. . . of Ca
liforn ia Press .

Russell B .
,Th e Analysis of M ind . Lon don 1921,George Allen Unw in .

Ru ssell B .
,Human Kno w ledge I ts . S cop e and L im its . Lon don 1948 ,G eorge
Allen Un w in .

R u ssell B .
,An I nquiry into M eaning and Truth L on don 195 1,George A llen
.

Unw in .

,On D enotin g I n : B R ussell L ogic and Kno wledge Essays 19 0

“
R ussell B . . ] .

195 0 L on don . 19 5 6 ,George Allen Unw in .

R u ssell B .
, On Prop ositions : Wh at Th ey Are an d How Th ey M ean In
B Ru ssell L ogic
. and Kno wledge .

L o gical Atom ism

”
R u ssell B .
, Th e Ph il o soph y of . In : B R ussell L ogic
. and

Kno wledge .

R u ssell B .
,The Princip les of M a th ematics . L on don 19 37 ,George A llen
Unw in .

R ussell B .
, Vagueness Australasian J ournal o f Ph ilosop hy,19 23 1
.

”
R u ssell B , Th e S eman tic Aspect of Aph asia In : Arch ivum L ingutsticum ,
. .

19 5 6 ,Vo l 8 ,Fasc 1,pp 2 0— 22 . . . .

R us sell B ,Whiteh ead A N ,E infiih rung in die mathemat ische L ogik Berlin
. . . .

1932,D rei M asken Verlag .

I n : E d G A M ace Brit ish

“
R yle G .
, Th e Th eory o f M ean in g . . . .

pp . 237 — 264 .

Sapir E .
,Cult ure,Language and Personality S elected Essays . . Berkeley 19 5 7 .

Un iv . of Califo rnia Pr ess .

S ap ir E .
,L anguage An I n troduct ion t o t he S t udy . o f Sp eech . N ew Yo r k 19 21,
Harcourt,Brace Co .

linguist ique generale Paris 1949 ,Payot

de , Co urs
’ '

S au ssu re F . de . .

S ch an A ,Poglady filozoficzne Kazimierza Ajdukie wicza (Th e Ph ilosoph ical

‘

View s of K azim ierz Ajdukiew icz] Warszaw a 195 2,KiW . .

S ch aff A .
,Pojecie i s la wa . Pré ba analizy marksisto wskiej (An Attempt o f
an d W o rd]
“ ”
a M arxist An alysis of N o t io n L 6 di 19 46 , Ksiai ka . .
 BIBLI OGRAPHY

W
'

S ch aff A spraw ie ocen y p o gladow filozoficzn ych K Ajdu kiew icza .

[ C on
cern in g t h e E v alu atio n of t h e Ph ilo soph ical View s o f K Ajdu kiew icz]
. .

M ysl Filozoficzna 19 5 3,nr

’

. 3 pp 2 01—2 23 . .

,Z th e M arxist
‘

S ch afi A . zag adnien ma rksist o wskiej t eorii p ra wdy [I ssues of

Th e ory o f Tru th ] Warszaw a 19 5 1,KiW . .

Schlanck M .
“
M ech anism an d Hi storical M aterialism in S emantic S tu dies
In : S c ien ce and S ociety, 1947 , V o l . X I ,N O . 2.

, Th e S o cial B asis of Lin gui stics I n : S cience and S o ciety,

“ ”
S chlanck M . .

19 36 ,Vo l 1,pp 18—44 . . .

S ch lick M ,A llgemeine E rkenntnisleh re B erlin 19 18

. . .

S ch lick M , Form an d Co n tent A n I ntro du ction t o Ph ilosoph ical Th in k

“
. .

In : M S ch lick Gesammelte A ufisti tze 19 2 5 — 1936 Wien 1938 ,

”
in g
’

. 1 . .

G erald und Co .

S chlick M . M eaning an d Verification . In : M . S ch lick Gesammelt e A uf

1926—1936
’

satze .

S chli ck M , Uber das Fu n damen t

. der Erkenn tni s . In : M . S chlick Gesam
melte Aufs titze 19 2
6 —1936
'

Wen de In : E rkenntnis,1930
—
”
19 3 1,B
“
S chlick M D ie der Phil osophie . . 1,

pp 4-11 . .

S chmidt W ,Deuts ch e Sp rachkunde Berlin 1959 ,Volk

. . un d Wissen Volk sei
gen er Verlag .

S ch u ch ar dt-Brev ier . E in Vademekum de r a llgeme inen Sp rach wissenschaft .

Halle 192 2,M N iemeyer . .

S ech eh aye A B ally Ch ,Frei H , Po ur l arbitraire du . .

’
signe In : A c ta
L inguist ica,1941,V ol I I ,Fasc 3,pp 16 5— 169 . . . .

S e mantica Archivio di Filosofia (O rgan o dell I stitu to di S tu di Filo sofici) .

R oma 195 5 ,Fratelli B occ a E ditori .

S emant ics and th e Philosop hy f L anguage [Ed

o . . b y L Lin sky] ,U rb an a 19 5 2
.
,
U niv . of I lli n ois Press .

Cep e6 p enn m<o n B , K

“
. A . n p o 6 n e1
vre CBfl 3 K sinn en nfi ns rnca c n cr o p n en
”
[ O n th e R elation betw een L in guistic Ph enom en a an d
o 6 urec r B a '

S ocial Hi sto ry] In : Bonp oCbt n 3 buco3 nanun ,19 53,1 . .

III aylv C “
K , JI na n cr n q ecrcII e n p o 6 n eM b r m 6 epn er rncn n cr p yk r yp
. .
/
'

[Lin gu istic I ssu es o f Cybernetics an d S tru ctur al

”
Han n nHa cr mt a

Linguistics] I n : Bonp oc w gSu/i ocogbuu ,19 6 0 . ,N9 9 .

meMfl HIdH (I) H ,, , p

T e o nn JI e.B n -Epio u x B a cny>r< 6 e mvm ep n an n cr m ecrcofi
.

[ Lev y-Bru hl s Th eory in th e S erv ice o f I mperialist R eac

“ ’
p eak unn
tio n] In : (Dunocogbcnue 3 anucnu BLIII 5
. . . .

III eHr en b c E H , O rp aM M arn i ecrcnx sn aq errnsix B nn an e c onepxcamm

“ t
. .

[Gramm atical M ean ings fro m t h e Po in t o f View o f Co ntent] I n .

Hp uuuun bt nay tm o zo auan usa n 3 bu<a , M ocxcn a 19 5 9 , 143 11 BI IIII

'

pp . 45 -6 3 .
 BIBLIO GR APHY

,Z arys jezykozna wst wa ogolnego [An Ou tline o f General Lin gui stics]
S zober S t . .

Z 1 Warszaw a 1924,Wyd To w M ilosn ikOW J ezyka Polskiego

. . . .

Tarski A ,L ogic, S emant ics, M etamath e mat ics Oxford 19 5 6,C laren don
. .

Press
Tarski A .
, [Th e Co n cep t of L ogical C o n
O p ojeciu w yn ikani a lo gicznego
sequ en ce] I n : Przeglqd Filozoficzny ,R 39 ,19 36,z 1,pp 5 8—68
. . . . .

[Layin g Foun dation s

“
Tarski A , O u grun t ow aniu n auk ow ej sem an tyki
.

for S cientific Sem antics] I n : Przeglqd Filozoficzny,R 39 ,1936,z 1, . . .

pp . 50
-5 7 .

Tarski A Pojecie p rawdy w jezykach nauk dedukcyjnych [Th e Co n cept of

Tru th in Formalized Lan guages] Warszaw a 19 33,N akl To w N auk . . . .

Warsz .

S eman tic Conception Tru th Foun datio n s

“
Tarski A , Th e . Of an d th e of
”
S eman tics . I n : Ph ilosop hy and Ph enomeno logical Research ,4
R eprinted in : [Ed . L . Linsky] S eman t ics pp . 11-4 7 .

Th ompson M .
,The Pragmatic Philosop hy o f Ch S Peirce . . . Chicago 19 5 3,
Univ . of Chicago Press .

Tp aB HII ‘I CK
r
“
Hercor opBI e 3 aM ea nsI o an at rennn CJI O B a n n onnrrrfi

[S o m e R emarks on t h e M eaning of Word an d of N o tion] . In : Bo

np oc w fl abnco snan un ,19 5 6 , N9 1,pp . 7 4—7 6 .

Trier J D er deutsche Wortschatz im S innbezirk des Ve rs tandes D ie Gesch icht e .

e ines sp rachlich en Feldes . Heidelberg 193 1, Carl W inters Univ ersi

t atsb u chh an dlun g .

Trou betzkoy N . S Princip es de p h ono logie Paris 195 7 ,L ibr C K lin ck sieck . . . .

U llm an S t
“
Th e Concept of M eanin g in Lin gu istics In : Archivum L in
guist icum ,195 6,Vo l . 8 ,Fasc . 1,pp . 12
—20 .

U llm an S t .
,Th e Princip les o f S emant ics A . Linguist ic App roach to M ean ing .
!

Oxfo rd 19 5 7,B asil B lackw ell .

U llman S t .
, W ord-form an dWo rd-mean in g In : Archivum L inguist icum ,
1949 ,V ol I ,Fasc . . 2,pp 126—139 . .

Urban W M , Cassirer s . .
’
Phil o soph y of L an gu age
”
. I n : Th e Ph ilosop hy
f E rnst Cassirer E d by P A S ch lipp N ew York 195 8,Tu dor Publ
o . . . . . .

C o ,pp 40 1—44 1 . . .

Urb an W M ,L anguage and Rea lity L o n don 19 5 1,George Allen

. . Unw in . .

U rmson J O , Ph ilosop h ical Analysis I ts Develop m ent Bet ween th e Two World
. . .

Wars O xford 195 6 ,At th e Claren don Press

. .

U sh enk o A P ,The Field Theory of M ean ing Ann Arb or 19 58 ,Un iv o f

. . . .

M ich igan Press .

J l h is t o ire Paris 19 21
’
Ven dryes . L e langage . I n t roduct ion linguist ique a . .

v B ,
,,O CHOB HBI e m u m [ Fun
'

o r p anOB . B . n ek cnu ecrcnx 3 Ha‘I eHI/III CJI OB

damen tal Typ es O f Lexical M eanin gs of Words] . I n : Bo np o c bt fl 3 bl

Koanau un ,195 3,N9 5 ,pp 3-2 9 . .

 BIBLIOG RAPHY 389

e B B , CB OGOIIHan nu crcyccnn B I IpaBne “ ‘

nam
'
’
orpanOB . . no B on p o caM

Ico snannn n cc 3 Ha‘IeHI/l e mm nan BHefi Iner o p aa r Im

‘

COB er crco ir Ha

L in gu istic Pro
“ ”
yIcn o sI BBnce [A Free D iscussion in Prav da on

blems It s S ignificance fo r th e Pro m otion o f S o v iet S tu dies o f

an d

Langu age] I n : B onp ocu n 3 bu<osnanun a ceeme mp yboe P] B Cmo

. . .

nuua [Pro blems of L in guistic s in t h e Ligh t o f th e Works o f J S talin] .

19 5 0
,I/Isn M ocrc YH-r a,pp 5—3 1 . . . .

A F ,Xa6 apOB M A , K Bo n p ocy 0 np np one

“ ”
BOJI KOB . . . . fl 3 BHCOB OI O an ar a
‘

[ Co ncern ing th e N atu re o f t h e Langu age S ign] I n : Bonp ocbt gbu/zo .

buu,1959,N9 11,pp 79—90

co g . .

OB B H ,M ap ncusm u gbu/to so gbun n 3 b11< a ( 0cnoenbte np obn eM bt

'

Bonoa . .

c ouuonoeuuecxo eo wzemoda e uayn e 0 m ak e ) [ M arxism and th e

Philo soph y of L anguage (B asic Problems of th e S ociological M eth o d
in JI eHvI Hrp an 19 30 .

Vossler K ,Geist and Kult ur in der

. Sp rach e . Heidelberg 1925 ,Carl Win
ters U niv ersitatsbuchh an dlung .

Bo cr pc A B , Kn accmcn map k cn sM a-
B . neHa
. BM a O CB$I3 H HBBI Ka PI M BmI
“

”
C l i f M i m-Len inism on th e Relation betw een
JI eII w I [ Th e ass c s o arx s

L angu age an d Thinking] In : B OI Zp OCbZ gbu/toco gfiuu , 19 5 2

, N9 3,
'
.

pp 47— 64 . .

BBIr o r cmm JI . C . M bi tu nenue u p e tt b . II cuxo/t oeu ttecxue uccnedoeau ufl

[Th inking an d Speech . Psych ological Research es] . M occ a 19 34,

‘
I occouaicrn s .

Wallon H De l a la p ensée Essai de p sych ologie comp aré e Paris 1942,

’
. act e . .

Flamm arion .

Walp ole H S emant ics . The N at ure o f Words and Their M eanings . N ew
York 1941,W . W . N orton Co .

Weinberg H . L .
,
L evels of Kn o wing and Existence . S t udies in General S emant ics .

N ew York Harper B ro th ers .

Weinberg J R , L on don 19 36 ,
An Examinat ion ofLogical Pos it ivism,
. . Kegan Pau l .

Weisgerber J L ,D as Gesetz der Sp ache Heidelberg 19 5 1,Q uelle un d

! ‘

r . . .

M ayer .

Weisgerber J . L .
,D ie M uttersp rach e im Aufbau unserer Kult ur .
!
D usseldo rf
1957 ,Padago gi sch er Verl ag S ch w ann .

Weisgerber J den Kriifi en des mensch lich en Daseins

. L .
,D ie Sp rach e unt er .

D usseldorf 19 5 4,Padago gisch er Verlag S ch w an n .

Weisgerber J L ,Vo m Weltbild der deutsch n Sp

. e r
.ac h e
!
Halbban d 1 un d 2 . .

D usseldorf 19 5 3—1954,Padagogisch er Verlag Sch w ann .

Welby V .
,Wh at is M ean ing ? S t udies in the Develop ment o f S ign ificance Lo n .

don 190
3,Th e M acmillan C o .

Wells R .
,
“
Ph ilo so ph y of Langu age In : Ph ilosop hy in t h e M id-Cent ury,
Vol . 2,pp . 139 -145 .
 BIBLIOG R A PH Y

Wen dt P . R Th e L an gu age of Pictures In : [Ed . S . I . Hayakawa] Our

Language and O ur World,pp 247—255 . .

Wh atmou gh J ,
Language A M odern S ynth esis Lo n don 19 5 6 ,
. S ecker Warburg . . .

Wh atmou gh J Language A M odern S ynthesis 19 57 ,Th e M entor S eries . . .

Whiteh ead A N ,S ym bolism I ts M eaning and Effect Cambridge ( M ass)

. . . . . .

19 5 8 . At t h e U n iv . Press .

W h iteh ead A . N .
,R u ssell B Princip ia M a th emat ica . V ol . 1
. Cambridge
19 25 ,Cambridge Un iv . Press .

Wh orf B . L
“
An A merican In dian M o del of t h e Un iv erse
”
. In : B L Wh orf,
. .

L anguage ,Th ough t and Reality .

Wh o rf B . L , L an gu age ,M in d
.
“
an d Reality In : B L Wh orf,Language,
. .

Th ough t and Reality .

Wh orf B . L .
,L anguage, Though t and Reality . S elected Wr i tings . 19 57 .

M assach u ssett s I n stitute of Tech n olo gy .

Wh orf B , Th e Relation o f Habitu al Th ou gh t an d Beh av ior t o Langu age

. L .
“

In : B L Wh orf L anguage,Though t and Reality

. . .

Wh orf B L , S cien ce an d Lin guistics I n : B L Wh orf L anguage,Th ought

“
.
”
. . . .

and Rea lity .

Wien er , The Human Use of Human B eings Cybernet ics and S ocie ty
N . . .

N ew Y o rk 19 5 6 ,D ou bleday Co .

Wilson J L anguage and t he Pursuit of Truth Cambridge 19 5 6,Cambridge .

Univ . Press .

Wilson M . L .
,The Concep t of Language . Un iv ersity of Toronto Press 195 9 .

Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung D er Wiener Kreis! Wien 192 9 ,Artur Wolf . . .

Wittgen stein L ,Ph ilosop h ical I nvestigations Oxford 19 5 3,B asil Blackw ell
. . .

Wittgen stein L ,Tractat us L ogico-Ph ilosop hicus L on don 19 33,Kegan Paul ,

. .

Trench ,Tru bner Co .

Wu ndt W ,Vé lkerp sychologie B 2: Leipzig 19 11-19 12

'

. . . 1 un d Die Sp rache .
,
W Engelm ann
. .

“ ”
Zaw adow ski L R zeczyw isty i p ozorny wp lyw k on tekstu n a znaczen ie
[ Th e R eal an d t h e Apparen t I nfluen ce o f Co ntext u p on M ean in g] .

I n : Sp ra wozdania Wrocl . To w N auk . .

[Transactio n s of th e Wroclaw
S cientific S ociety] ,4,1949 ,do d . 2,Wroclaw 19 5 1 .

K ari m H M M exanusuu b t p e ll l l [Th e M ech anism s of S peech ] 1958 ,Man

. . . .

Alcan Henar o r n necxnx Hayic

. .

3 B er nmIeB B A , Gcmemuuecnu ii uaeanu sm a n 3 btk oananuu R (Doc cnep

'

. . . .

u ezo uncona[A esth etical I dealism in L ingu istics K Vossler an d His . .

S ch ool] M OCKB a 19 56 , I/I3 II M ocrc V II -Ta

. . . .

3Bern HI IeB B A ,Hp oonetua s uanoeocmu a sbuca [Th e I ssue o f th e S ign-

. . na

ture o f Lan gu age] M o cKB a 1956 ,M3 11 M o cr V II - Ta . . . .

3Ber nHI IeB B A Ce macuo/zo zun [ S em asio lo gy] M occ a 19 5 7 , Pl an M ocx

. . . . .

V II -
Ta .
 INDBx or NAMES

D armesteter, Arsene 4,19 Head ,Henry 2 0 0,334

0
D elacro ix,Henr i 19 6 ,20 Hege l,Georg Wilh elm Friedrich
D escartes,René 358 210
,3 14
D ew ey ,Jo h n 87 ,121,134, Hempel,Carl G 7 1,8 1,32 . 2
136 ,137 , 143,144 Hen le,Pau l 341,344
D ietzgen ,J oseph 146 Herder,Joh an n G ottfried 30
9
D ittrich O ttmar 3 13 Hilbert,D av id 26
D oro szew ski,Wito ld 6 ,7 HOfler,Alo is 2 01
D riesch ,Han s 70 Ho ijer,Harry 343,344
D urkh eim ,Em ile 12 Hum boldt,Wilh elm v on 8 ,16 ,
30
9 ,32
9
Hume,D av id 6 0 ,6 1,6 2
E bb ingh au s,Hermann 3 13
Hu ppe,Bern ard F 30 6
210
,252
.

Ein ste in,Albert 53, , Husserl,Edmund 36 ,130 ,16 2,

345
165 , 16 7, 16 8, 169 , 170,
E isler,Ru dolf 3 13
173,174,177 ,17 8 ,19 1,19 2,
Engels, Friedr ich X ,62, 6 7,
216 , 217, 219 , 2 28 , 230,
14 1,142,15 2
,217 ,3 11,32
4
23 1, 232, 233, 234, 235 ,
E rdm ann,Benn o 3 13
236 , 237, 2 38 , 2 40
39 , 2 ,
Eu bu lide s 28,39 2 2
41, 42 , 2
43, 2 44, 245 ,
275 , 27 7, 299 , 300 , 328

Fessalonitsky,S A . . 2
76
Feu erbach , Lu dw ig 141, 142,
143 Ipsen ,G unth er 30
9

Frank, Ph ilip 62, 6 5 , 69

Franklin ,B enj am in 12
2
Frege 24,2
,G ottlo b5 ,26 ,3 1, James,William 87 ,249
219 , 2
28, 2
29, 2 30
, 359 Jaspers, Karl 121, 131,
Probes 3 13 Jespersen , Otto 9 ,3 14
Joach im Haro ld, H 250 .

Jo dl,Fri edr ich 3 14

Gaertner,Henryk 10
J Orgensen ,J Orgen 69
G allie,W B 35 6
. .

Jo h nso n, E S 22 0,2
. 2
2,
Gard iner,A lan 137 ,138 ,
Joh nson ,Wende ll 94,101,
0
22,22 2
3, 24, 225 ,
106 ,108
3 14,3 16
Go ldste in,Ku rt 335 ,336 ,
G orsky ,D R 27 8
K ainz,F . 3 14
Kam insky,Jack 306
Harris,J 3 13
. Kant,I mm anu el 133
Hayakaw a,S I . . 9 1,94,9 7 ,101, K eller,Helen 338,339
10 6 ,10
4,10 7 Kem eny,J G . 50 .
 [m m or N AM Bs 393

Keyes, K en n e th S .
,J r . 10
7 M ach , E rn st 6 1, 6 3, 70
Klem en siew icz,Z en on 5 ,15 ,19 M aeterlin ck,M aurice 130
K o ko szynska,M aria 48 M alinow ski, B ron islaw 16 , I7 ,
Korzybski, Alfre d XI ,90, 9 1, 10
0,10
6 ,349
92
,9 3, 94, 9 5 , 96 , 9 7 ,9 8 , M arr,N . I . 17 ,18
99 ,10
0,101,10
2,10
3, 10
4, M artin ak, E dou ard 16 6, 16 7
10
6 ,10
7 168 ,201,353
Ko tarbinska,Janin a 192, M arty,Anton 9 ,239 ,283,30
6,
260
,29 5 ,30
0,30
3 314,35 6
Ko tar binski,Tadeu sz 2 6, 3 1, M arx, K arl X, 12 ,2 3, 122,
216 , 230 , 35 1, 35 3, 36 2 141, 142 , 143, 144, 149 ,
Kov tu n ,L S 27 6 ,27 8
. . 15 2, 163, 19 8 , 22
4, 2 73,
Kraft,Victor 69 274, 280
, 3 11, 32
4
Krau s,O skar 239 M au th ner,Fritz 6 8
Kro nasser,Hein z 3,19 M ead,G eorge H . 8 7 ,160
,250,
K ii lpe ,O sw ald 70 25 1
'

Kurylov ich ,E R . 13,14,30

7 M eader,C L . 3 14
M e il let, Anto ine 14, 15 , 16 ,
273
Lagun a, Grace de 314 Me inong,Al exius v on 9 ,2 83
Langer,S usan ne K . 158 , 16 8 , M ill,J o hn S tu art 230
,36 1
177 , 0
29 M ise s,R ich ard v on 62,69
Larsen ,Otto N . 153 M orris, Ch arles W 87, 88 , .

Lee,I rv ing J . 94,101,10

7 8 9 , 96, 10 5 , 16 0
, 164,168 ,
Le ibn iz,G o ttfried Wilh e lm 87 225 ,
17 7 , 18 1, 19 1, 19 2
,
L en in ,V I . . 0
6 3,29 48 , 2
2 59, 260
,26 1, 300,
Lerch ,Eu gen 332 3 14
L e R oy,Edo u ard 79 M ostow ski,An drzej 2
6 ,27 ,29,
Lesn iew ski, S tan islaw 2
6 , 32 50
'

,
35 ,36
Levy-Bru h l,Lu cien 16 ,17 ,340
,
Neur ath , O tto 6 3, 8 1, 8 2, 83
341,342
N yr0p ,K ristoffer 19
Lew is,G c . . 215
L insky ,Leo nard 45 ,48,9 0
Locke ,J o h n 87 ,212 O ccam ,William 87
Luc ian of S am o sata 113, 114 O gden, Ch arles K . 16 ,
Lund berg,George A . 15 3 0
214, 215 , 22, 22
6,
O rw e ll,Ge orge X
O sgo o d,Ch arles E . 30
9
Lo s,Jerzy 5 0 O ssow ska,M aria 10
L u kasiew icz,J an 39 ,9 7 O sso w ski,S tan islaw 19 6
 I N DE X or

Pav lo v ,J P -9 4 ,103,10
4, 244, 2 45 , 2 50, 252 , 254
'

. . .

0
2 05 , 2
2, 2 48 , 2
49 2 55 , 2 56 , 257 , 26 3, 269 .

Pe i,M ario 3 13 29 8 , 30 8 , 325, 239 , 330 .

Peirce ,Ch arle s S an ders 87 , 35 6 , 358 , 35 9 , 360 , 36 2

164, 16 8 , 177 , 179 , Ryle ,G il bert 32 3
2 49 , 2 50
, 2 5 1, 2 8 3,
Pillsbury,W P 3 14
S apir,E dw ard 0
9 ,84,20,2
01,
. .

Plato 130 ,17 6 , 192 , 19 8 , 0

29, 341, 342, 343, 344 ,
.

27 3,35 8
345 , 348 , 349
Po in care,Henr i 70 ,80 S au ssure, Ferdin and de 4,

,
Pop o v ,R S 27 6 ,28 1
9 ,11,12,16,2 0
2,199,22
.

,
Popp er,K arl R 259 .

0
2 4, 273 274, 30
2, 3 14,
Porzig,W alter 30 9
3 16
S ch aff,A dam 81
S ch ill er,F C S 250
, 25 1, 2
55 ,
Q u in e ,Will ard 0 30
2,36 2
. . .

v an
256
.

Sch iller,Friedrich 19 8 ,2
45
S ch lick ,M oritz 5 9,7 1,83,25 8,
R am ish v ili,D I 18
. .

25 9 , 275 , 285 , 289

R am sey , Frank P 26 , 28, 32,
S ch rag,Clarence 15 3
.

38, 39 , 40
, 41 Sch u bert-
SOIdern , R ich ard v on
R apop ort, An ato l 9 1, 9 4, 95 ,
61
9 6 , 10
4, 10
5 , 10
7, 254 S ch u ch ar dt,Hugo 3 14
R asiow a,Helena 50
S ch u ppe,Wilh elm 61
R ead,A llen W 4
Sh emyakin ,F N 17
.

. .

R eh m ke ,Jo h an n e s 61
S m irn it sky,A I 12,13
62
.

R eich en b ach ,Hans ,69 S talin ,I V X ,18 ,198

3 13, 3 14, 32
. .

R ev esz, G eza 4,
Stebb in g,L S u san 164, 17 7 ,
325 ,32
.

6
19 1,19 2
R ezn ikov ,L O 16 2
Stern ,G 10
.

28 ,38
.

R ich ard ,J
S u c i,G e orge J 30
9
.

R ich ards,L A 16 ,
5 1,5 2
"

S u szko ,R om an
.

0
214, 215 , 22 , 226 , 36 1
S w ift ,Jon ath an 155
R o ze ntal,M M 108
S zo ber, S tan islaw 10
,21, 29 8
. .

R u b in sh te in ,S L . . 03,
9 , 196 , 2
274,3 16
Ru ssel, B ertran d XI , 2
4, 25 , Tan nen bau m ,Percy H . 30
9
2 6 ,2 8, 3 1, 32 , 33, 34, 35 , Tarsk i, A lfre d 2 6 , 30
, 3 1, 36 ,
39 , 5 3, 5 4, 6 2 ,64, 6 5 , 67 , 37 ,39 ,40 ,42 ,43,48,49 ,
6 8 , 6 9 ,70 , 7 1, 7 4, 75 , 98 , 5 1, 59 , 90 , 9 1, 9 3, 116
10 0, 20 0, 2 20, 228 , 229 , Trie r,J o st 8 ,309