1
Knox Ridley
Dr. M.B. Zeigler
English 3200
February 224, 2003
Micro-study#1
Semantics and Signification
Without language “I” would not exist. It is the words in a language that have
meaning only in relation to other words which “I” utilize in order to understand and
create the world around me. Language is a relative concept that functions by combining
words in a given set of rules that creates meanings. A word only has its meaning in
relation to other words, and its meaning is contingent on the existence and presence of
other words. This paper will discus the relationship between words and their meanings to
conclude that language is unstable because the words in a language have meaning not
based on reality, but by convention.
Semantics is the study of meaning within a language that deals with the nature of
meaning and why certain words have the meaning they do (Simpson, 176). When we
take this definition a step farther by defining the sole aim of semantics, “meaning,”
something interesting happens. “Meaning,” as defined by The Oxford Dictionary of
English Grammar, is “What is meant by a word, phrase, or longer text” (Chalker and
Weiner, 236-237). In other words, semantics is the study of related words that creates
meaning, while meaning is defined strictly by the relation of words and how they are
used. It seems as though we have reached a circular definition to where meaning cannot
exist without words to enforce or create it, and words need meaning in order to exist and
be of use. Semantics deals with the study of meaning by making itself meaningful in its
own way through words. So, semantics uses semantics to define what semantics is, and
the meaning it explores along with the existence of the study itself is contingent on and
cannot transcend the words it must use.
According to Ferdinand DeSaussure, A word is a “sign” that represents and points
to or away from the object or concept it represents. Prior conceptions of this “linguistic
sign” were insufficient; it simply linked a thing and a name. DeSaussure claims that this
approach is “naïve,” and that the most reasonable connection is purely psychological that
links a concept (“signified”) and a sound image (“signifier”) (DeSaussure, 65,67). These
two ideas are “intimately united” and we cannot explain one without the other
(DeSaussure, 66). It is only through the combination of both the “signifier” and the
“signified” that we get the full understanding of a “sign” (DeSaussure, 67). A sign then
is used to represent what is called a “referent,” which is the actual object or concept that
the “sign” signifies in reality (Finegan, 8). According to DeSaussure’s conception of the
“sign,” meaning is a function of a “sign,” which is a word with a concept that refers to
reality. Once meaning is reached by the usage of this process of “signification,” the
comfort that comes by the proper use of the “sign” reinforces the expressed and
understood meaning.
2
For example, in reality if I want to draw attention to the “referent,” or object in
my language that is called a “car,” I will need to first know the “sign” of the object within
my language. Through the natural, innate process of acquiring language, I at one time
found comfort in pointing to the object of my attention, said “car,” and had the person
with me understand what I was talking about. The word “car” created meaning, and
meaning was reinforced by the word “car,” as I acquired a new tool for creating mutual
understanding through language. This process is what is known as “signification,” and it
is necessary for creating a meaningful word.
What I did was psychologically combine the concept or “signified,” which is the
mental image of the object in question – a car, with the sensory sound or the “signifier”
(DeSaussure, 65-67). This two-part formula is necessary for acquiring a “sign” in a
language in order to create meaning. Adversely, meaning is necessary for the acquisition
of these signs, which are used in relation to each other through syntax to create a world of
endless meaning.
The nature of a sign is completely arbitrary (DeSaussure, 68). The relationship
between the signified and signifier that creates a sign which functions in relation to the
referent creates meaning by convention only. Cars do not tell us to call them “cars” and
there is nothing about their essence that logically relates to the phonemes used to create
the “sign.” This is true for all “signs,” and it is because of the randomness of this formula
that language by its very nature is unstable. It is why there are as many “signs” for the
referent of a car as there are languages on the planet.
In conclusion, semantics deals with meaning, which is created by the arbitrary
nature of DeSaussure’s formula for signification. The customary model was simply that
words create meaning and meaning creates words. DeSaussure’s model tells us how a
signifier plus the signified creates the sign, which is the word, and that word is an
abstraction of what it refers to in reality. This is the formula for creating meaning in a
language, and it is through the meaning acquired by the application of this formula that
we are able to define and create ourselves and the world we live in.
Work Cited
1) De Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. Ed. Charles Bally and
Albert Sechehaye. New York: Philosophy Library, 1959.
2) Simpson, J.M.Y. A First Course in Linguistics. Edingburgh: Edingburgh
University Press, 1979.
3) Chalker, Sylvia , and Weiner, Edmund. The Oxford Dictionary of English
Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
4) Finegan, Edward. Language: Its Structure and Use. 3rd ed. The United States of
America: Heinle & Heinle, 1999.
3
4