Semantics - a Web of Meaning

It was discovered during my research that semantics and self-expression are central to the definition of personhood. Who one is, according to anyone other than one’s self, is solely a function of one’s self-expression. If one is in a persistent vegetative state, one lacks self-expression. The term ‘vegetative state’ serves to convey the fact that while one in such a state is alive, one is also unconscious and unaware. See persistent vegetative state in the Wikipedia.

The meanings of the words in one’s lexicon tends to shape how one views the world. More powerful and more subtle is the fact that words carry with them a model of an underlying structure of the world as it exists outside of the conscious intent of most people. The relationships that inhabit this structure are not the result of conscious human effort. Rather, they have come to exist over the course of millenia, shaping societies and persisting, oftentimes spanning disparate languages. Words are a veneer beneath the glint of which lay meaning and sense.

A definition for ’semantic relation’ is “a relation between meanings.” Looking at the word ’semanticist,’ one finds the definition “a specialist in the study of meaning.” A synonym for semanticist is ’semiotician.’ The definition of ’semiotics’ is “a philosophical theory of the functions of signs and symbols.” One might infer from the foregoing that a word is a symbol or a sign; and given additional consideration, one may realize that a word is a symbol or a sign for a set (group) of concepts that in turn collectively define the word’s meaning.

A semantic relation then is a relation between the meanings of two or more words. Note that each word possesses only one meaning, such meaning comprising the intersection of one or more concepts. Each concept associated with a word is referred to as a ’sense’ of the word, rather than a ‘meaning’ of the word.

One may inquire, given the semanticist’s specialization into the study of meaning, how much research has been conducted into the relation between ‘meanings’ as described above. In fact, according to The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia and Wikipedia, while the field of semantics does include the study of compound words such as ‘dogpound,’ there is apparently no study of the relation between the meanings of separate words. A compound word differs in that one does not approach the word as the relation of the meanings of two distinct words, rather the meaning of the compound word is a function of the senses of the word. The senses and meanings associated with the parts of a compound word are not activated in conjunction with the activation of the compound word. Consider the word ‘hammerhead.’ Was the genuine meaning of the word accessed first? Did the meanings of the component words follow? If so, what is the likelihood such was a result of the present exposition?

One must look behind the words to the associated concepts to perceive relationships between meanings. It is between the meanings, in their relation, one finds something other than meaning, one discovers kenning. Meaning conveys that which is intended, while kenning acknowledges an understanding of a significance that exists by virtue of something other than people’s conscious intent.

Simpler though is the discovery of genuine meaning in individual words. Something with which many have little experience. As an example, the senses for the word ‘wonder’ are all positive, except for the sense of the word that embodies “doubt.” I wonder if someone will comment with regard to this entry? One will notice that words having only positive or negative senses are quite rare. Could it be that ‘meaning’ is in a way associated with the concept of a mean? That even in the domain of semantics one finds a relatively stable dynamical system?

The meanings of the words people use to express their thoughts are each tied to the concept of a mean. One must begin to consider, given the relationship between ‘meaning’ and ‘personal identity’, whether there exists some mean in view of which one’s personal identity is afforded some measure of ‘meaning’. If so, what might be the elements of one’s ‘personal identity’ that coincide at such a mean?

Your comments and ideas are invited and welcome.