FIVE APPROACHES OR THEORIES OF MEANING

(the referential theory, the mentalist approach, the structural hypothesis, the prototype
theory, or the distributional hypothesis)

Reviewer: Tatu Zakiyatun Nufus

QUESTION

What do you think about the 5 approaches or theories of meaning? Which theory (the
referential theory, the mentalist approach, the structural hypothesis, the prototype theory,
or the distributional hypothesis) provides the best explanation for the meaning of words
such as chair or car? Provide your evaluation with a few arguments.

ANSWER

There are five theories of meaning that provide explanation for the meaning of the
words, namely, the referential theory, the mentalist approach, the structural hypothesis, the
prototype theory, and the distributional hypothesis. Those theories have been proposed to the
nature of meaning which come from philosophy of language, linguistics, psychology, and
cognitive science.

Firstly, the referential theory, in this theory we use words to refer to things that exist
and events that occur in the world. It also assumed as the basis of the approach known as
formal semantics which under the heading of formal semantics that we encounter several
approaches use models and tools from logic to be analyzed and represent semantic
phenomena in language. Such as the word “CHAIR” that refer to certain object that has
characteristic (something that has four legs, with arm and used for sitting), another example
is “CAR” with refer to a certain object that has characteristic. (a road vehicle which an
engine, with four wheels, and seats for a small number of people).

Secondly, the mentalist or conceptual approach which stresses the fact that the
reference that we may establish with entities in the real world by means of words is not direct
but mediated by our mental image of these entities. A mental image is what we call a concept.
Such the word “CHAIR” when we say that word, simultaneously we express a thought that
relate to that thing. Chair as the wooden thing that can be used to sit. Another example is
“CAR” when we utter that word, exactly we have a thought or concept that relate to that thing
as A vehicle which use engine to be driven and use for lifting passenger.

Thirdly, the structural hypothesis which maintains that meaning is first of all
relational in nature. According to this theory, the meaning of a word is not limited to its ability
to refer to an object (referential hypothesis) or to point to the mental image we have of this
object (mentalist hypothesis); rather, it corresponds to the specific “value” that the word
acquires in relation to the other words in the language that belong to the same semantic field
and denote analogous objects. For example, the terms chair, stool, seat, stall, throne, bench,
armchair proceed in the sequence, as the things that used to sit in, and it becomes narrower
by exclusion, another words. When we consider the terms of car, auto, automobile, Jeep,
Limousine, bus, truck, as the vehicle that we can drive in, and it becomes narrower by
exclusion.

The next theory of meaning is based on the notion of prototype. The prototype
theory is intended to refer to the best exemplar of a category, for example, when we asked
what the meaning “CAR” exactly we will utter “taxi, ambulance, etc.” as the best exemplar of
the car as a road vehicle which an engine, with four wheels, and seats for a small number of
people. Another example is “CHAIR” when we say that word, exactly we utter the word
“bench” as the best exemplar of that category.

The last theory of the nature of meaning is the distributional hypothesis. The basic
tenet of this hypothesis is that the meaning of a word correlates with its distribution, i.e., the
set of contexts in which it occurs. The more similar the contexts the more similar the
meanings. For example, when we say the word “CHAIR” it can be distributed as the object of
furniture that has related with table, and the word “CAR” is distributed as a vehicle that relate
with the train which has related meaning with other word “stop and arrive”.

Based on the description above, I think that every theory has provided the nature of
meaning based on their approach, in this case, I argue that the theory of Prototype provides
the best explanation about the meaning in such a word “CHAIR & CAR” because
prototype theory intended to refer to the best exemplar of a category. within prototype theory,
a category of word is interpreted in a different way, namely as a set of members with the best
member as its center and the other member comings more or less close to the prototype
according to different degrees of similarity. Besides that, this category has internal structure
(with prototype at its score), member status with prototype may vary, optional condition of
similitude and category boundaries are fuzzy.

In addition, the notion of prototype is attractive to Lexical semantic, because it provides

a viable explanation for the variability of meaning which characterized the use of words,
specifically, the ability of words to take on different meaning in different context can be related
to the fact that word meaning is organized in terms of prototype core. for example, the category
CHAIR. According to the prototype theory, it may be utter with “stool, seat, armchair, etc.” as
the best exemplar of chair which is defined as follows: chair which has back, with four legs and
sometimes two arms. There is a prototypical member consisting of an object with four legs, a
back, and a horizontal surface for a person to sit on, and a series of other members that are
more or less similar to the prototype (for example, they don’t have a back, they don’t have four
legs, they have armrests, and so forth). Beside that, the word “CAR” we can directly utter
“taxi, Ambulance, Bus, etc.” as the best exemplar of CAR which defined as the category of
car as the vehicle that can use to and drive in based on the function.

So, why another approach is not categorized as a suitable theory to provide meaning for
such a word “Chair and Car”? Basically, the theories of meaning have lack and strengths. In
my opinion, the reference theory is not always having appropriate meaning, for example: it is
possible to maintain the idea as long as we assume that words do not refer directly to extra
linguistic reality, but rather to the way in which the reality is conceptualized and categorized, in
other words, how it is “constructed” in our mind. For example, when we say, “The chair I
bought is uncomfortable,” we use the word “CHAIR” as a seat for one person, which has a
back, usually with four legs and sometimes two arms.) and it refer to a certain object that
exists in reality and satisfies certain characteristics. Another example is CAR. The word
refers to things that exist and event that occur in the world as “a road vehicle which an
engine, with four wheels, and seats for a small number of people” in this theory, the meaning
of a word consists primarily in its ability to establish a relation (a reference) with the real
world. however, that reference is not equivalent to meaning. Therefore, this theory has not
provided the equivalent meaning.

It is different with previous theory of reference, the mentalist approach which the
words gain their significance by being associated with a concept. Deals with the concept of
mind. In a simplified way, we can say that in conceptual approach, when we speak of chair we
do not refer directly to the object ‘chair’ but rather to our mental representation of the class of
objects that fall within the category CHAIR. Another example is “CAR” we cannot directly
refer to the certain word, but we have the concept of the car itself as a vehicle that can ride
and have seats for people who sits in. According to the proponents of this hypothesis, by
uttering a word we simultaneously express a thought and refer to a thing. a concept is not
accurate picture of reality but an interpretation of or reconstruction of a corner of reality that
constructed by the mind, in this case, the role of individual and his conceptualizing activity is
placed in the foreground, because this approach is widely adopted by cognitive semantics
who study semantic phenomena emphasizing their relationship with general abilities of
human mind. Therefore, this approach cannot gain the significance of meaning without
having concept of words.

Another approach is structural approach which the key notion in this approach is not
deal mostly to the meaning, but it sees the “value”. The semantic value of a word corresponds
to its information content, which, according to the structural hypothesis, is not inherent in the
word itself but rather determined by exclusion. Consider the sequence of terms chair, stool,
seat, stall, throne, bench, recliner, armchair. As we proceed in the sequence, the meaning of
each word becomes narrower by exclusion and is defined more accurately. To conclude, the
relation with the real world is important but secondary in defining the meaning of words, which is
relatively autonomous from reality and highly dependent on language structure.

And the last approach which should be viewed is the distributional approach that
has great benefit in identifying not only similarities but also differences between the meanings
of words. Such as the distribution of car and train and compare it with that of taxi and
ambulance as objects of verbs. A car is said to be parked or stolen, a train is caught, boarded,
or missed, and an ambulance is called; also, we talk about taking a taxi or a train to a
destination, but we do not say that we take an ambulance to hospital. According to the
distributional hypothesis, differences of contextual distribution of this kind can be interpreted
straightforwardly as differences in meaning between the words in question.

To sum up, the five theories of meaning provided the explanation of meaning in
different ways, and it based on the philosophy of language, linguistics, psychology, and
cognitive science. This section represents different attempts to capture distinct facets of the
same with many side- phenomenon. it is a matter of common knowledge that the word or
vocabulary of any language is never stable, never static but is constantly changing, growing,
and decaying. Therefore, the notion of reference, conceptual structural, prototype, and
distributional can be considered as a step in an effort towards understanding the meaning and
grasping the most silent characteristics of its linguistic manifestation and it shown that the
language grew faster and developed every time. Finally, to inquire into nature of linguistic
meaning is to inquire into how the individual and his thought, external reality, and language
are related.

Reference:

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 3rd edition.

Jezek,E. (2016). The Lexicon: An introduction. Oxford: oxford University Press