Meaning: A Slim Guide to Semantics

by Paul Elbourne

Our outstanding ability to communicate is a distinguishing features of our species. To communicate is to convey meaning, but what is meaning? How do words combine to give us the meanings of sentences? And what makes a statement ambiguous or nonsensical? These questions and many others are addressed in Paul Elbourne's fascinating guide. He opens by asking what kinds of things the meanings of words and sentences could be: are they, for example, abstract objects or psychological entities? He then looks at how we understand a sequence of words we have never heard before; he considers to what extent the meaning of a sentence can be derived from the words it contains and how to account for the meanings that can't be; and he examines the roles played by time, place, and the shared and unshared assumptions of speakers and hearers. He looks at how language interacts with thought and the intriguing question of whether what language we speak affects the way we see the world. Meaning, as might be expected, is far from simple. Paul Elbourne explores its complex issues in crystal clear language. He draws on approaches developed in linguistics, philosophy, and psychology - assuming a knowledge of none of them - in a manner that will appeal to everyone interested in this essential element of human psychology and culture.

Genres: Linguistics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, School, Language

174 pages, Paperback

First published November 30, 2011

Reviews

[Nat]

While philosophy underwent the "linguistic turn" around the mid 20th century, philosophy of language has undergone something like a "linguistics turn" in the past 15 years, where the most interesting contemporary philosophical work in language has been informed by, or in some cases is indistinguishable from, research in contemporary linguistics (mainly semantics and pragmatics).

The traditional issues that would be taught in an intro philosophy of language class (the meaning of names, definite descriptions, indexicals, "natural kind terms", maybe some speech act theory and implicature, maybe meaning skepticism) have not lost their interest, but they have assumed a diminished role in an much more expansive field of investigation that includes all the topics of interest to researchers in linguistic semantics and pragmatics.

Elbourne's intro text is in the "Oxford Linguistics" series, but it is really what a student should be reading in a contemporary intro philosophy of language class, because it represents the shift in emphasis and methodology brought about by the "linguistics turn" in philosophy of language. And it presents views that are somewhat standard in linguistics but healthily heterodox in philosophy. For example, Elbourne endorses an "internalist" account of word meaning in an early chapter and doesn't flinch from the standard Fregean worries about such a view posing a problem for shared meaning. And in Ch3, psycholinguistic evidence is brought to bear on competing theories of whether ambiguity is represented by different types of entry in our "mental lexicons" (homonymy vs. polysemy), which is not the sort of thing you would find anywhere in a traditional introduction to (or even specialized discussion of) philosophy of language.

The working assumption is that the study of meaning can be a natural science (since "meanings [on the internalist view] are just part of our heads], and hence mathematical techniques are appropriate just as appropriate for that study as they are in other natural sciences (p.47). This isn't just assumed; Elbourne shows how a strange-sounding logico-mathematical view about meaning (that the contents of sentences can be represented by sets of possible worlds) has some suprising predictive power about negative polarity items (Ch.4).

Gripping real-world examples are used throughout, including legal decisions which turn on controversial aspects of context-sensitivity and ambiguity.

And there's a final chapter that talks a lot about Lera Boroditsky's work on gender in language and its affect on thought, and summarizes the brouhaha about whether the Pirahã think of number in the same way as Westerners, given that their language appears mathematically impoverished.

This introduction manages to make philosophy of language, perhaps the most inaccessible area of philosophy of to a beginner, both accessible and makes a compelling case for why anyone would be interested in studying the nature of meaning rather than, say, what virtue is or how we know anything or what colors are.

[Hannah Semmelhack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was assigned this book as part of my Linguistics Masters program, but I would recommend it to just about everybody who has an interest in words and what they mean (surprise: it's not as obvious a question as you might think).

Elbourne provided a really great intro into the issues of semantics, calling into question the most basic assumptions I had about words and what and how they mean. He has a light, humorous style but also digs deep into the issues. Definitely read this!

[Michael Golden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for a linguistics class in undergrad and recently reread it because I’ve really been wanting to get some more linguistics in my postgrad life. I’m not sure what to say that isn’t obvious—it’s a quick little intro guide to semantics. In that sense it isn’t anything groundbreaking but it’s an engaging read and covers a good amount of stuff. I kind of enjoy the way Elbourne remains impartial in a plausible-deniability sort of way while not hiding his own thoughts on different matters. A nice refresher

[saml · Rating 2 out of 5]

decent little summary. the introductory superficial philosophy at the front of the book bored me terribly, but i was much more interested in the introductory superficial linguistics through the middle, owing to my ignorance. would be suitable to recommend to interested young people. hideous cover though

[Larry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Linguistics with Paul

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very fun if you're a giant nerd! The chapters on definitions, context, and thought were most interesting to me, but I think it's an all-around good introduction to semantics.