See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335272788

The Meaning of Meaning: Leech's Seven Types of Meaning in Comparison to

Palmer's and Lyons' Approaches

Article · March 2018

CITATION READS

1 124,995

1 author:

Nikola Zdravkovic
Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dictionary Day at University of Santiago de Compostela View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nikola Zdravkovic on 20 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
Department of English and American Studies
Winter semester 2017
Thomas Maisel M.A.
PS Lexicology

The Meaning of Meaning: Leech’s Seven Types of Meaning in Comparison

to Palmer’s and Lyons’ Approaches

Nikola Zdravkovic
Wichernstraße 18, 91052 Erlangen
zdravkovic.nikola3@gmail.com
22458653
EMLex (European Master in Lexicography), first semester
24.03.2018
 Table of contents

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..3
2. Leech’s Seven Types of Meaning……………………………………………………………4
2.1 The Complexity of “Meaning”……………………………………………………..4
2.2 The Classification of “Meanings”…………………………………………………..5
2.2.1 Conceptual Meaning……………………………………………………...5
2.2.2 Connotative Meaning……………………………………………………..6
2.2.3 Social Meaning…………………………………………………………...7
2.2.4 Affective Meaning………………………………………………………..7
2.2.5 Reflected Meaning………………………………………………………..8
2.2.6 Collocative Meaning……………………………………………………...8
2.2.7 Thematic Meaning………………………………………………………..9
2.2.8 Summary……………………………………………………………….....9
3. Other Authors and Their “Types of Meaning”……………………………………………..10
3.1 Palmer’s Approach………………………………………………………………...10
3.2 Lyons’ Approach………………………………………………………………….12
4. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….14
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………..15
Affidavit……………………………………………………………………………………….16

2
 1. Introduction

This paper shall engage in a comparison between seven types of meaning created by
Geoffrey Leech on one side and the semantic approaches regarding the topic of the
classification of meaning in the works of Frank Palmer and John Lyons on the other side.
To achieve its goal, the paper will be structured in two main parts with the description
of Leech’s types of meaning in the first and the description and comparison of Palmer’s and
Lyons’ categorizations in the second part. The two subparts will each be concluded with a
brief summary of the chapter, and at the very end, a conclusion will follow.
The methodology which is going to be used in order to provide a comparison will
include a description and comparative and contrastive analysis of the topics depicted.
The main goal of the paper is to give a clear overview of all the three approaches and
distinguish between them when necessary. Having in mind the scope of this work and its
limitations, one of the aims is to equip the reader with the basic knowledge of “the meaning of
meaning” and possibly initiate a further discussion on this subject.
Although every term will be explained in the main part of the work, it needs to be
pointed out that the word “sense” in this paper will in most cases refer to the “dictionary
meaning” or the pure linguistic one, unless stated otherwise. All the other terms will be
described and explained.

3
 2. Leech’s Seven Types of Meaning
2.1 The Complexity of “Meaning”
In his work “Semantics. The Study of Meaning” published in the year 1981, Geoffrey
Leech establishes at that time one of the most thorough classifications of the term “Meaning”
from a semantic point of view.

In order to do so, Leech first puts emphasis on the problematics of the term itself and
names different authors who dealt with this subject so as to accentuate the complexity of the
topic. With regards to this, he mentions the book written by C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards,
published in 1923, who found twenty-two definitions for the word “meaning”. (1981, 1)

Leech then states that ten years after Ogden’s and Richards’ publishing, in 1933,
Leonard Bloomfield in his work “Language” shared the same viewpoint regarding the future
of the “Meaning” as the two aforementioned authors. The main point of both sides was that
the scientific advancements would be of great help in defining the term “Meaning”. 1 (1981, 2):

“The statement of meanings is therefore the weak point in language-study, and will
remain so until human knowledge advances very far beyond its present-state” (Bloomfield
1933, 140)

One might ask himself what the importance of the establishing a theory of semantics
is, and Leech has the answer. He states that the main point regarding this question is to
provide “a systematic account of the nature of meaning”. (1981, 4) Additionally, he explains
how this can be done, namely by semanticists focusing on studying the relations within the
language. The whole concept in Leech’s opinion rests on the distinction between meaningful
and meaningless utterances in relation to “the knowledge of language” and “the knowledge of
the real world”. (1981, 4-6)

To exemplify this statement, Leech provides two opposed sentences, each of which is
characterized by the discrepancies relating to either “real world” or “language”:

1) My uncle always sleeps on one toe. (inconsistent with the “real world”)
2) My uncle always sleeps awake. (inconsistent with the “language”) (1981, 6)

1
It would be interesting to engage in a detailed diachronic analysis of the definition of the term “Meaning”,
which would include the time period of almost a hundred years (1923, i.e. Ogden and Richards - 2018), but the
scope of this paper cannot incorporate a work of that amount.
4
 2.2 The Classification of “Meanings”

Leech created seven types of meaning (1981, 9):

1) Conceptual meaning
2) Connotative meaning
3) Social meaning
4) Affective meaning
5) Reflected meaning
6) Collocative meaning
7) Thematic meaning

2.2.1 Conceptual Meaning

As Leech underlines in “Semantics. The Study of Meaning”, the emphasis in this

classification should be put on the logical or conceptual meaning (also called “denotative” or
“cognitive”) (1981, 9). The reason for this is his statement that conceptual meaning “is widely
assumed to be the central factor in linguistic communication”. (Leech 1981, 9)

He goes further to explain that conceptual meaning plays an enormous role in

linguistic communication for it “has a complex and sophisticated organization which may be
compared with, and cross-related to, a similar organization on the syntactic and phonological
levels of language”. (Leech 1981, 9) This is connected, according to Leech, with “two
principles of all linguistic patterning” (1981, 9), i.e. the principle of contrastiveness and the
principle of structure. (1981, 9)

Leech asserts that contrastiveness is based on the classification of sounds in

phonology, namely the binary opposition of characteristics of sounds – positive (present) and
negative (absent) features. He depicts that using the example of the sound /b/ and,
furthermore, with the example of the meaning of the word “woman”. According to these two
comparable subjects, the sound /b/ can be described as +bilabial, + voice, + stop, - nasal,
whereas the word “woman” includes following elements: + human, - male, + adult. (1981, 10)

The principle of structure, on the other hand, is in this case simply described as “the
principle by which larger linguistic units are built up out of smaller units”. (Leech 1981, 10)

5
 In addition to this, Leech expresses that, in order to comprehend or generate a
linguistic utterance, at least three levels of language need to be present. These are: A) the level
of phonology (a phonological representation), B) the level of syntax (a syntactic presentation)
and C) the level of semantics. In what order these three levels are going to be used depends on
the role in linguistic communication. As a speaker, the process starts from the level of
semantics, undergoes structural formation on the level of syntax and becomes phonologically
formed. This C-B-A order is called “encoding”. Unlike in “speaker-situation”, the whole
process is upside-down in the role of the listener when the order is A-B-C, i.e. grasping the
phonological structure, thereafter the syntactic one and in the end realizing the meaning of the
utterance. The A-B-C order is then called “decoding”. (1981, 11) However, this idea has
progressed over years and therefore this Leech’s structure can be regarded as somewhat
obsolete.2

2.2.2 Connotative Meaning

For the sake of precisely defining this type of meaning, Leech’s book on semantics
needs to be consulted once again: “Connotative meaning is the communicative value an
expression has by virtue of what it refers to, over and above its purely conceptual content.”
(Leech 1981, 12)

As it can be seen from the definition, connotative meaning unavoidably overlaps with
certain aspects of the conceptual meaning. Therefore, the “reference” overlaps with the
elements of conceptual meaning, as in when the contrastive features of conceptual meaning
become attributes of the “real world” referent. But additional attributes expected from the
referent depend on various other factors, such as age or society, and they can also depend on
the individual, as claimed by Leech. (1981, 12)

In this context, the relationship between conceptual and connotative meaning can
easily be compared to the one between the language (conceptual) and the “real world”
(connotative). For this reason, connotative meaning can be seen as an open-ended and unstable
category in comparison to conceptual meaning. (Leech 1981, 12)

2
The evolution of this concept may be a topic for some of the papers in the future.
6
 2.2.3 Social Meaning

Leech stresses that the social type of meaning includes all the social circumstances
regarding the use of a piece of language. (1981, 14) Since these are closely related to various
social groups who are parts of those circumstances, David Crystal and Derek Davy established
a classification of socio-stylistic variations which vary according to3(1969, 66):

1) Dialect (The language of a geographical region or social class)

2) Time (e.g. The language of the 18th century)
3) Province (Language of law, science, advertising, etc.)
4) Status (Polite, colloquial, slang, etc.)
5) Modality (Language of memoranda, lectures, jokes, etc.)
6) Singularity (The style of Dickens, Hemingway, etc.)

Therefore, it can be said that the words with the same conceptual and social meaning
are particularly rare, and, to prove that point, Leech introduces a number of examples while
contrasting conceptual synonyms with different stylistic meanings. (1981, 14)

Illust. Leech 1981, 14

Depending on the situation the social meaning can also include what is called the
illocutionary force of an utterance, which can then be interpreted as a request, an apology, a
threat, etc., as stated by Leech. (1981, 15)

2.2.4 Affective Meaning

Another type of meaning which is closely related to the social meaning is the one
which, according to Leech, deals with the way a language can reflect personal feelings of the
speaker that may include attitude to a listener or something he is talking about. (1981, 15)

3
The explanations of the variations are to be found in: Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics. The Study of Meaning.
Second edition – revised and updated. p. 15. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
7
 Furthermore, affective meaning can be expressed directly and indirectly, once again
depending on the context.4

1) You are a horrible person and I hate you. (Direct message)

2) Boyfriend: “What’s wrong?”
Girlfriend (in a clearly nervous tone): “Nothing.”

As it can be seen from the examples mentioned above, the factors such as tone of
voice, mimic and gestures can be significant when “decoding” the message of an utterance.
(Leech 1981, 16)

2.2.5 Reflected Meaning

In a case of reflected meaning, it can be explained as the one appearing in situations of

multiple conceptual meanings, when one sense of a word influences our response to another
sense, as stated by Leech. (1981, 16)

Furthermore, he exemplifies the statement above in the cases of The Comforter and
The Holy Ghost where, although both terms refer to the third element in the Holy Trinity, there
are certain semantic differences between those two expressions. Thereby is The Comforter
described by Leech as something “warm and comforting” while The Holy Ghost he perceives
as “awesome”. (1981, 16)

Lastly, he points out that in similar cases words can also impose the suggestive power
with a little help of the power of associations. (1981, 16)

2.2.6 Collocative Meaning

To clearly define what constitutes the collocative type of meaning a quotation from
Leech needs to be mentioned:

“Collocative meaning consists of the associations a word acquires on account of the

meanings of words which tend to occur in its environment.” (Leech 1981, 17)

To clarify his definition, he used the examples of the adjectives “pretty” and
“handsome” and the words which usually find themselves in their vicinity.

4
The following examples are the ones I came up with.
8
 Illust. Leech 1981, 17

In the case of collocative meaning, the quasi-synonyms need to be mentioned, such as

“to wander” and “to stroll”, whereby Leech explains that “cows may wander, but may not
stroll”. (1981, 17) Besides that, a person can only “tremble” with fear and, on the other hand,
only “quiver” with excitement. (1981, 17)

2.2.7 Thematic Meaning

The thematic type of meaning provides an answer to the question: “What is

communicated by the way the author formed and organized the message?”, i.e. can be
considered as a part of sentence semantics. (Leech 1981, 19) There are multiple examples of
these occurrences, such as the ones where the active and passive sentence constructions are
confronted, e.g. Mr. X donated the first prize. (Active) vs. The first prize was donated by Mr.
X. (Passive) (Leech 1981, 19)

In its core, however, Leech states that thematic meaning is “matter of choice between
alternative grammatical construction”, for instance in sentences “A man is here to see you.”
and “There is a man here to see you”. (1981, 19) Moreover, emphasis by substituting one
element with another or stress and intonation can also be of great importance when dealing
with this type of meaning. (1981, 19-20)

2.2.8 Summary

The recap of the seven types of meaning described in this work can best be outlined in
a tabular form.

9
 Illust. Leech 1981, 23

It is noticeable that Leech introduced another term in his illustration – the associative
meaning. This was done in order to establish a summary term for connotative, social,
affective, reflected and collocative meaning which are, excluding the first one, much closer to
connotative than to conceptual meaning because of certain factors they incorporate, such as
open-endedness, variable character, etc. (1981, 18) The associative meaning is, as Leech
states, comprised of “so many imponderable factors that it can be studied systematically only
by approximative statistical techniques.” (1981, 18)

Leech discusses demarcation problems between certain types of meaning as well, and
most of those include the conceptual type of meaning on one side, and other, more peripheral
categories, on the other side. (1981, 20)

3. Other Authors and Their “Types of Meaning”

This part will be dedicated to the comparative and contrastive analysis of approaches
regarding the subject of this paper which were established by other linguists and semanticists.

3.1 Palmer’s Approach

Similar to Leech, Frank Palmer in his book “Semantic. A New Outline” published in
the year 1976 signifies the difference between the conceptual and connotative types of
meaning, which are in his work named sense and reference, but also states that these terms are
related. (1976,30) The main point in distinguishing them, according to Palmer, lies in the fact

10
that sense is only occupied with the language whereas reference focuses on the “real world”.
(1976, 30)

“Reference deals with the relationship between the linguistic elements, words,
sentences, etc., and the non-linguistic world of experience. Sense relates to the
complex system of relationships that hold between the linguistic elements themselves
(mostly the words); it is concerned only with intra-linguistic relations.” (Palmer 1976,
30)

Furthermore, what Leech regarded as “social meaning” appears also to be part of

Palmer’s approach since he calls this type also “social” or “inter-personal” which also includes
the “affective meaning” mentioned before, where he points out the importance of intonation as
well. (1976, 35-37)

Palmer also names certain example pairs of synonyms which are perceived differently
by the society, even though their “conceptual meaning” or “sense” is almost the same. The
example pairs are: politician and statesman; hide and conceal; liberty and freedom. (1976, 35)
These examples can also be regarded as having elements of Leech’s reflected meaning.

One type that is mentioned in Palmer’s work, but not in Leech’s, is the one which
includes presuppositions. To explain this, Palmer uses example questions which are formed in
a way that they already presuppose a certain fact. A question such as “When did you stop
beating your wife?” presupposes that the person asked beat his wife in the past. (1976, 37)

Lastly, he introduces an example statement “There is a house over there.” which then
demands a question relating to it in order to obtain the precise message the speaker wanted to
convey. Palmer states that this kind of meaning belongs in the area outside of semantics
because it is mainly a matter for utterance-meaning. (1976, 37) In terms of Leech, this can to a
certain extent be considered as the “thematic” type of meaning.

In conclusion, Palmer, although describing the majority of types Leech analyzed, did
not introduce collocative meaning and tried to include reflected meaning to some degree.
However, he did consider presuppositions which are not part of Leech’s approach. Apart from
that, his classification cannot be considered nearly as systematical and precise as the one of
Geoffrey Leech because it is not clearly separated into different thematic chapters and there is
a scarcity of precise terms regarding different kinds of meaning.
11
 3.2 Lyons’ Approach

John Lyons has a similar opening statement as Leech regarding the topic of meaning in
semantics. In his book “Language and Linguistics. An Introduction” from the year 2002 he
also points out that the definition of “meaning” in semantic terms cannot be established.
Instead, an answer to the question “What is the meaning of meaning?” should be sought after.
Additionally, he puts emphasis on the complexity of the topic and, just as Leech and Palmer
did, sees the borders of meaning much further than the conceptual version of it. (2002, 136-
138)

First, he finds it important to divide the spectrum of meaning according to its form into
two essential groups – lexical meaning and sentence-meaning. Moreover, he then introduces
the grammatical and utterance-meaning which can be regarded in terms of sentence-meaning
with each type having its own specific aspects and factors that need to be observed. (2002,
139-140)

In addition to the previous classification, he forms another one based on the “variety of
semiotic, or communicative, functions that languages are used for”. (Lyons 2002, 140)

In this regard he mentions, in the first place, the function of language conveying
propositional, or factual, information, which he would later place under the term “descriptive
function”. Besides this being the core function of language, Lyons insists on a language
having other semiotic functions. A number of these are, as stated by him, in some kind of
relationship with the descriptive function, and this is based on the correlation between the
functional differences between, for instance, commands, statements and questions, and the
structural differences between imperative, declarative and interrogative sentences. (2002, 141)
Additionally, Lyons mentions that these are only some of the many speech-acts that are
comprehensively related to each other in various ways. (2002, 141)

The third type of distinction between types of meanings leads to two groups –
descriptive and non-descriptive meaning. While describing descriptive meaning, Lyons
acknowledges that this type mainly includes propositional statements or questions, which
incorporate a definite “truth-value”, and that means that they can either be true or false. With
the non-descriptive meaning, as it can be seen from the name itself, there is only a small part
of the descriptive meaning that plays a role. This type is not a propositional one, so it cannot

12
be characterized as true or false. To explain this, Lyons uses two example sentences – “Good
heavens!” and “John is surprised.” – where the first one represents an exclamation which may
describe speaker’s feelings but cannot be placed in the “true/false” categories. On the other
side, the second one is without a doubt propositional. (2002, 141-142)

The first example sentence introduces the expressive type of meaning, which, by
further examining it as a superordinate term, leads us to the “well-known” emotive (affective)
meaning that is in Lyons’ work regarded as the same type of meaning Leech was writing
about. Furthermore, Lyons mentions the social meaning which, according to him, is in an
interdependent relationship with the expressive meaning. (2002, 143) Social meaning for him
“has to do with the use of language to establish and maintain social roles and social relations.”
(Lyons 2002, 143)

The bottom line when explaining the trichotomy of descriptive, expressive and social
meaning is that the social aspect is and will be ever-present in communication, according to
Lyons. Moreover, he states that, while the descriptive meaning is unique for humans since it is
bound to verbal interaction, the non-descriptive types of meaning cannot be considered as
unique for humankind since the non-verbal communication crosses the borders of our society. 5
(2002, 143-144)

Lyons also deals thoroughly with the terms “reference” and “sense” in his work
“Semantics. Volume I” from the year 1996, which can be regarded as what Leech called
connotative and conceptual meaning. Also, Lyons does not make a significant difference
between the terms “sense” and “meaning” and stresses that in his work sense can be
understood as descriptive or cognitive meaning. Additionally, he includes the terms
“connotation” and “denotation” to distinguish between reference and sense respectively.
(1996, 174-206)

In summary, John Lyons has provided in his two works mentioned above a solid
classification of meanings with an elaborate analysis and description for each of the types.
What can be concluded from the aforementioned text is that his division of meanings differs
from Leech’s in a way that he establishes not one, but few classifications based on multiple
factors. However, his conclusions mostly do not contrast Leech’s statements. In addition to

5
In his work, Lyons goes deeper into classifying and explaining types of meaning but the scope of this paper
cannot include such a detailed discussion about this matter.
13
that, Lyons uses different terms to mark specific types of meaning and that is coherent with
him having a completely separate categorization of its phenomenon.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be primarily stated that all three authors certainly have one
common point – they all agree on the complexity of the topic, especially with regards to the
difficulties numerous linguists and semanticists had with trying to define the word “meaning”.
Therefore, it should not look surprising when each and every one of them has established his
own theory and, in this case, classification. It should also not wonder when we take a look at
these theories and see tremendous differences between approaches because the basic term, the
one which represents the core of every research conducted in relation to this topic, is yet to be
precisely defined and adopted by linguists worldwide. The controversy that engulfs “the
meaning” has to be resolved for it is one of the main problems in semantics.

When all three approaches are compared, it can be said that Palmer has given probably
the simplest overview of the categorization of meaning but the lack of precisely defined terms
which would be used to designate a specific type of meaning is certainly something that
should have been avoided.

On the other side, Lyons has endeavored to establish a comprehensive, or “all-

inclusive”, approach while dissecting every possible aspect of meaning and also to provide a
linguistic and philosophical background for his classification. With his system of
classifications and subclassifications, he managed to create something similar to the syntax
tree with various constituents of the phenomenon “meaning” included.

Lastly, between Lyons and Palmer, Leech’s approach appears to be the “mid-level”
one on the scale where the complexity minimum and maximum are Palmer’s and Lyons’
approaches respectively. However, it can be stated that his overview might be the one which is
formed in the clearest way with fewest ambiguities. Additionally, the structure of his approach
may appear to be the user-friendliest one and the language used to describe his viewpoint
might be considered as simple as Palmer’s.

14
 Bibliography

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Crystal, David., Davy, Derek. 1969. Investigating English Style. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics. The Study of Meaning. Second edition – revised and
updated. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Lyons, John. 1996. Semantics. Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, John. 2002. Language and Linguistics. An Introduction, First South Asian Edition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, Frank. 1976. Semantics. A New Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15

View publication stats