Meaning and Reference: What Do Words Really Point To?
Connecting Words and the World
Language is a curious thing. Words carry meaning, but what do they actually point to? When we use words like “tree” or “justice,” are we describing a tangible object, an abstract idea, or something else entirely? Philosophers and linguists have long debated these questions, exploring how language connects with the world and how meaning is constructed.
In this article, I want to look at key ideas surrounding meaning and reference: the ways in which words connect to the world and whether that connection is as straightforward as it seems.
The Puzzle of Reference
Reference is about what words point to. When we say “cat,” we’re likely referring to a particular animal, whether it’s our own tabby or the idea of cats in general. But how does this work? Two main theories have tried to explain it:
- Denotation Theory: Words refer directly to objects or entities in the world. Proper nouns like “London” or “Einstein” exemplify this idea, as they point to specific places or people.
- Descriptive Theory: Words connect to their reference through descriptions. For example, “the tallest mountain in the world” refers to Everest not by its name but by fulfilling the descriptive condition.
Frege: Sense and Reference
German philosopher Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) introduced the distinction between sense (Sinn) and reference (Bedeutung). Frege argued that:
- Sense: The way an expression presents its reference (how we think about it). For example, “the morning star” and “the evening star” have different senses but refer to the same object: Venus.
- Reference: The actual entity or object in the world to which the term refers. In the example above, the reference remains Venus, irrespective of how it is described.
Both “the morning star” and “the evening star” refer to the same object — Venus (the reference) — but they differ in their sense:
- “The morning star” evokes the idea of a bright object visible in the sky at dawn.
- “The evening star” brings to mind a similar object visible at dusk.
A Contribution to Understanding Meaning
The sense carries information about how we think of the reference based on context or description. This explains why someone might understand one expression but not realise it refers to the same thing as another. Frege uses this distinction to explain how expressions can provide different knowledge or perspectives while still pointing to the same reality.
Frege’s model highlights that understanding meaning isn’t just about knowing what a word refers to; it’s also about how it frames that reference in our minds.
Russell: Descriptions and Logic
Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) theory of descriptions and logic clarifies how we can meaningfully discuss entities — whether they exist or not. His approach addresses the complexities of language and reference, particularly with definite descriptions: phrases like “the current King of France” or “the tallest mountain in the world.”
A Contribution to Understanding Meaning
Russell’s theory reveals how sentences involving definite descriptions can be meaningful, even when the described entity does not exist. His insights are grounded in formal logic and offer a systematic way to parse such statements.
- Meaningful Non-Existence: Consider “The current King of France is bald.” France has no king, but the sentence remains logically analysable. Russell demonstrates that statements like this are composed of logical components, which can be evaluated for truth or falsehood:
- There exists an entity fitting the description (“a current King of France”).
- There is only one such entity (“The king of France”).
- That entity has the property described (“is bald”).
If any component fails (as in this case, because there is no King of France), the entire statement is false, but not meaningless.
- Avoiding Ambiguity: Russell’s theory disambiguates statements where references might overlap. For example, “The author of Hamlet is Shakespeare” simplifies into logical terms, clarifying that Shakespeare uniquely satisfies the description.
The Reason for Definite Descriptions
Definite descriptions allow us to communicate about objects or ideas with specificity, even if we lack direct names or the entity doesn’t exist. They bridge gaps in language by letting us point to:
- Known entities: “The tallest mountain in the world” (Everest).
- Unknown or abstract concepts: “The inventor of the telescope.”
- Non-existent subjects: “The fountain of youth.”
This framework enhances logical clarity and resolves problems of vagueness or ambiguity in natural language. Russell’s work helps us understand how language constructs meaning even when reference seems problematic or impossible.
Meaning Without Reference?
Swiss Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), a foundational figure in structural linguistics, approached meaning not through reference but through the relationship between signs within a language system. His key ideas shift the focus from the external world to the internal structure of language itself.
Key Concepts
Sign, Signifier, and Signified:
A sign is the basic unit of meaning in language, composed of:
- The signifier: The sound or written form of a word (e.g., the word “tree”).
- The signified: The concept or idea the signifier evokes (e.g., the mental image of a tree).
Importantly, the connection between signifier and signified is arbitrary. There’s no natural reason why the sound “tree” represents the concept of a tree; this link is established by convention.
Meaning through Differences:
Saussure argued that meaning arises not from a direct relationship between words and the world but from contrasts between signs within the language system. For example, “tree” has meaning because it is distinct from related terms like “bush” or “forest.”
This relational understanding means language operates as a system of interdependent terms, where each gains significance from its difference from others.
A Contribution to Understanding Meaning
Saussure’s insights revolutionised linguistics by showing that meaning is constructed within language, not through a direct correspondence with objects in the real world. This perspective laid the groundwork for later developments in semiotics, structuralism, and post-structuralism, influencing thinkers across disciplines.
Implications for Pragmatics
This discussion has practical consequences for understanding communication:
- Ambiguity: Words can have multiple referents. For instance, “bank” might refer to a financial institution or the side of a river. Context determines the intended meaning.
- Abstract Concepts: Words like “freedom” or “love” have no tangible referent, yet they carry profound meaning shaped by shared cultural understanding and individual interpretation.
- Metaphor: Reference often operates indirectly, especially in poetic or figurative language, where words evoke meanings beyond their literal sense.
I hope that I have been able to show that the link between words, meaning, and reference is both straightforward and surprisingly elusive. Do words point directly to objects, or is their meaning mediated by sense, context, or contrast? Understanding this interplay helps us navigate not only philosophy but also everyday communication.
Next, I will examine how names function in language and thought through an article on Saul Kriple: Naming and Necessity. Hope to see you again.
©Antoine Decressac — 2024.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Suggested reading in this topic interests you:
- “” by Nathan Salmon (2018).A detailed analysis of Frege’s work on meaning and reference.
- “” by Stephen Neale (1993). A deep dive into Russell’s theory of definite descriptions.
- “” by Michael Devitt and Kim Sterelny (1999). Examines how language connects to the world.
- “” by Ferdinand de Saussure (1916). The foundational text on structural linguistics.
- “” by C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards (1923). Explores the relationship between language, thought, and reference.
