Calfo

Paul Calfo
Dr. Isaac
PHIL 3460
03/07/2015
Listening for Meaning
As humans, discourse comes as a natural and fluid activity
essential to continued life. However, an essential component of
discourse itself is the reception of dialogue. Modern philosophers
subcategorize reception of dialogue into two classes: listening and
hearing. Human discourse exists as a medium for conveyance of
meaning; the purpose of discourse is to transport meaning. As such, all
language must have meaning and intent. Why, then, do humans simply
hear instead of listen to one another? If all people speak in order to
pass meaning to one another, then all discourse must contain
meaning. All humans should instill meaning into his or her reception of
anothers dialogue, rather than simply putting meaning into their own
speech. To only hear instead of listen is to rebuke to be socially
ignorant by assumption that what another person is saying is
irrelevant, and thereby does not require one to think there is meaning
in that projectors words, and therefore, to not listen. This is the
problem of modern society and culture - the fact that individuals filter
out others dialogue by ignoring that another may be saying something
of importance. Several modern philosophers will be explored, as they

Calfo

attempt to draw the distinction between hearing and listening through

defining meaning and demonstrating how meaning is applied to
language. Because expression of meaning implies intent, the
distinction between listening and hearing should not exist at all, as
the only mode of dialogue reception should be listening, a
reciprocation of recognition, meaning, and intent.
Philosopher H. P. Grice explores the definition of meaning in the
context of a cyclical interaction of intent and recognition between a
speaker and an audience. Furthermore, before the definition of
listening or hearing is explored, one must define the word meaning,
as philosopher H. P. Grice aptly illustrates in his essay entitled
Meaning. Grice identified the problem with Freges definition of
referent as it being the definition of meaning in order to make both a
sign and a referent clear to his readers. While Grice wants to
maintain that meaning is fundamental in human discourse, he wants to
identify its place and position in human discourse or interaction. Grice
states that these human interactions involve two entities: a speaker
and an audience, and that the interaction between the two is mediated
by the intent of the speaker. He states that when the speaker talks, the
speaker has intent. The audience then projects the intent back onto
the speaker through the recognition of this intent. There is a cycle of
recognition and intent in a liminal social space when discourse is
taking place. When a speaker is talking, there is an expectation by the

Calfo

speaker that the audience will recognize the intent through

understanding. Meaning is therefore circular; multilateral; it is rooted in
and dependent on recognition by both sides of the given discourse.
Grice proves his point of asserting that there is intent through
meaning in order for there to be meaning present. This is shown in the
following descriptive example. In his hypothetical situation, a person is
conditioned to associate a grunt from one person with blushing from
another. So when one person grunts, the other blushes. Therefore, if a
grunt leads to a blush, as Grice says, Should we then want to say the
grunt [means] something? (Grice 124) Grice says, I do not think so.
(Grice 124) He states this because in order for something to have
meaning, he believes the audience must have intent, or a reason to
perform an action in response. The blush associated with the grunt has
no meaning; it only occurs because it is simply the effect of a cause.
The given speakers intention of saying a word or sound possesses
reason, meaning, and intent, unlike the blushers association with the
grunt of another person. This can be applied to our examination of
speaking with meaning. If an audience is listening, they instill or imply
that there is meaning in the speakers words by the act of listening
itself. With meaning, there is no simple cause or effect in listening.
Listening is constitutive of the appliance of meaning, whereas hearing
is the effect of a causal dialogue, which contains little or no meaning.

Calfo

Following Grice in the quest for defining meaning in discourse is

philosophical colleague A. J. Ayer, who claims that our language only
holds meaning if the concepts we refer to are rooted in our experience.
This principle of verifiability is what defines Ayers philosophy in regard
to meaning as defined by our word choice: the relationship between
language and reality. Ayer also believes that most words are arbitrary
and unnecessary in discourse. Therefore, in order to clean up
language, and to make it more precise, one should use the principle of
verifiability as a criterion for word choice. The principle of verifiability
holds that if we are certain of our existence, we are certain of it only
because of ones empirically verified experiences. The experience one
has therefore shapes his or her discretionary word choice. One can not
give concepts in a proposition meaning unless they are based in
empirical reality, and based in objective empirical experience because
objective experience can not be flawed these empirical experiences
give words meaning, because if language is based on objectivity,
arbitrary language can not possibly be used as arbitrary language does
not have meaning.
Therefore, if one is to agree with Ayer, then his or her logic is
consistent with the thought that there is superfluous language used; as
stated previously, one must clean language up with this objectivity in
order to listen clearly. And so if language is more precise, then there
would be no distinction between listening or hearing in existence. If

Calfo

language was calibrated, then people would always listen for meaning
at all times, as there would be no reason to simply hear someone
when they are directly addressing another, because all calibrated
carefully chosen - language would have meaning. If an audience does
not truly believe that a sentence is meaningful, the said audience will
not listen to a speakers dialogue, but will only hear it, as hearing does
not require direct attention. The listening of dialogue means that the
audience directs attention to the speaker because the audience
believes the speakers words hold meaning. This is why Ayer refers to
the Principle of Verification, the technical definition of which is
supposed to furnish a criterion by which it can be determined whether
or not a sentence is literally meaningful. (Nye 77) What follows from
this premise is that a sentence [is] meaningful if and only if the
proposition it expressed was either analytic or empirically verifiable.
(Nye 77) Therefore a sentence must have an empirically verifiable, or
testable, manner (true or false statement proposition) with which it
can be proven or disproven in order for it to carry meaning, and
therefore for people to listen in lieu of hearing.
In order to truly define meanings role in listening and hearing,
what must be done is exploration of what constitutes listening itself in
all possible contexts. A therefore objective definition of listening must
be sought. To help define the word listen, a third philosopher, John
Stewart, adds his input in this argument by claiming . . . that there is

Calfo

an ontological distinction between two realms or worlds, typically the

linguistic and the nonlinguistic, and that language establishes a
relationship between them. (Stewart 103) All forms of language
connect linguistic and nonlinguistic (ex. Body language) mediums of
communication, and this connection can affect how an audience
receives language. The strength of this connection is distinguished by
the meaning carried by specific words, as the meaning is what
determines if someone listens or hears.
If language is the bridge between the only forms of
communication for humans - verbal and symbolic (non-verbal)
communication - then how can one fully understand what is being
communicated by any medium without listening to that language?
Listening does not just describe the reception of verbal
communication by an audience, but listening can also be extended to
reception non-verbal communication. The Oxford English Dictionary
articulates that the origin of the word listen is Germanic, meaning to
pay attention to. (OED, Web). One must listen, or pay attention to, all
forms of communication in daily life in order to completely grasp the
meaning of what is being said. Hearing should not be an option in
discerning meaning of what someone is communicating. Hearing is
ineffective because it functions as a passive form of listening, and not
listening in its entirety.

Calfo

It has henceforth been concluded that listening is not restricted

to verbal communication, but includes non-verbal communication as
well, what J. L. Austin called performative utterances. Philosopher J.
L. Austin points out that performative utterances are inherently a
component of speech. A performative utterance refers to the
physical bodily performance that accompanies verbal expression.
Austin believes that the intent of a speaker is important in discerning
the meaning of what someone is speaking because the intent of a
given speaker is rooted in specificity and care for the tiniest physical
gestures of difference. Further, this implies that a person uses certain
physical gestures to aid in conveying the meaning associated with the
words being spoken to an audience. Therefore, a given audience
should not only listen to the words being spoken, but should also
listen, or pay attention to, to the gestures being performed to truly
know the meaning of a speakers language. Although Austin also
cautions that performative utterances can trick an audience because
much of language is a performance, the physical language being used
by a speaker still carries meaning and intent, regardless of what the
motive for the language is. As a result, one should not hear what
others are saying, but should listen, because if one only hears then the
true meaning of what is being communicated has a high potential to be
lost. Our acts explicitly conform to our speech, and if speech
(language) carries meaning then the act accompanying the speech

Calfo

contains equal importance. The act should therefore be listened to as

well. Conclusively, there is a reason for the expression of every word or
action performed within humanity.
Now that listening itself is understood, and one comprehends
that one can not listen without recognizing meaning in intent, the
social implications of listening can be addressed and recognized. There
are a variety of social issues which are regarded only through hearing
instead of listening, and therefore not completely addressing the
meaning being conveyed. From Islamaphobia to gender equality, the
general public is simply not listening, whether by choice or by default.
Additionally, with the advancement and rapidity in lifestyle that
technology has catalyzed, the general third-world public is always busy.
Being busy, however, is not always a fruitful endeavor; it leads most
people to detract attention from an important topic, and only hear
instead of listen. When a person has multiple events occurring at once,
it is not possible for that person to adequately divide their listening
attention to all areas. Therefore, they only hear multiple speakers
instead of listening to only one. Cellular devices, electronic mail, the
worldwide web, and social stigmas, all diminish the possibility for one
to listen in a personal encounter.
Furthermore, aside from the seemingly simple concept of
listening, the process of listening itself, along with its implications, is
complex and can be extremely useful in daily communication and

Calfo

discourse. In order to succeed in the modern world, one must listen

closely and with purpose, because not only does and audiences
listening assure a speaker that the audience cares about the dialogue,
but it also contributes to a congenial association with that person.
When someone is listening to what a speaker is saying, the speaker is
pleased; the speaker knows that the audience is putting meaning into
the words being spoken, and the speaker is therefore happy. So not
only does listening facilitate a more healthy and receptive dialogue,
but it also further improves personal relationships between human
beings.

A possible solution to the issue of hearing verse listening is

the instruction of listening itself; when people are taught how to listen,
he or she utilizes that instruction and listens more than he or she
would have heard. As Thomas G. Devine states in his essay, Listening,
which approaches listening through a view of instruction, the process
of understanding listening is important for childrens success. In a
study conducted in 1963, a tester named Lundsteen isolated fifth and
sixth-graders in order to examine listening skills. She taught several
children how to listen, and they succeeded in tests more than other
children who were not taught how to listen. Devine found that Analysis
of [Lundsteens] data (using analysis of covariance and t-tests) showed
that students who received instruction in listening scored significantly
higher on the listening test [than children who had not been taught
how to listen]. (Devine 152) Therefore, instructional listening in

Calfo 10
education can be a solid foundation for children in learning how to
communicate more so than if the child had not been instructed in the
same field. This demonstrates how showing a person how to listen
improves the actual skill of listening, and therefore can have the
possibility of eliminating hearing.
Once listening itself has been taught and understood, it
contributes highly to individual success in the modern world as a result
of communication being instrumental in the formation of relationships.
As stated previously, listening in discourse is essential to
comprehending the complete message of what a given person is trying
to convey. Once that message is fully understood, a healthy discourse
can occur. It is hereby believed that when an audience recognizes the
intent of a speaker, the speaker engages in a cyclical discourse the
discourse of which facilitates improvement of person-by-person
individual relationship. Not only does recognizing the full intent of a
persons meaning through listening create a healthy discourse, but it
also improves how a person views another; that is, this cyclical
discourse is cyclical because of the intended recognition by both
parties. This also can increase one partys desire to understand
another party in a social manner, because when someone respects
another enough to listen to their meaning, the other person
understands this, and believes the other to be of congenial nature. This
congenial nature is a result of understanding that another person cares

Calfo 11
about what the other is saying. If one person says something, and it is
clear that the other party is listening, than the former will be pleased,
and want to participate in further discourse.
The argument of the importance of listening is the result from a
surfacing receiving auditory filter that people have equipped in modern
social context. Certain words are only heard and not listened in this
context, the hearing of which only results in negativity; a division forms
and grows between the two parties of speaker and audience as a
result. This division discourages future dialogue between the two
parties, as the influence of hearing grows on that person, and
encourages a persons desire to eliminate listening from potential
reception in the cyclical nature of dialogue. In other words, the more
that a person discriminates between listening and hearing, and prefers
to hear, the more the chance for that person to listen decreases. A
social world with these conditions, where listening is discouraged,
would be one void of meaning.
And so this is the issue that eventually, the same discursive
audience begins to ignore a speakers sentences because they believe
that they have already listened to it, which was the first time they
listened, so now it is sufficient to hear instead. As previously described,
this creates a negative discursive environment. If one assumes that it
is sufficient to listen only the first time that a speaker expresses his or
her thoughts, and to not listen the subsequent times a message with

Calfo 12
meaning is delivered, certain components of that message get lost in
the process of comprehension. This occurs in various social contexts
marital relationships, familial and filial relationships, business
relationships, gender differences, etc. During most of these exchanges,
the audience listens only to the first or second parts of what the
speaker is conveying. Once the audience understands that what is
being spoken (and listened to) has already been said and listened to
before, his or her auditory system shuts off, and goes from listening to
hearing. This unfortunate parallel that has been drawn discourages
fruitful conversation, as only one party of discourse, the discourse of
which is naturally multi-lateral, instills meaning into what is beings
spoken. Therefore, the nature of discourse becomes contradicted when
one party only listens, and the meaning of the speaker is not
recognized.
The evolution and advancement of technology have further
discouraged the need and motivation for listening to a speaking party.
With modern communication devices cellular phones, laptop
computers, text messaging, electronic mail a thought that decreased
necessity in listening has erupted, because peoples communicative
nature has adopted a multi-tasking nature. This modern world has
instilled in so many people the need to always have a cellular device
on their person at all times. With this need comes a divide in listening,
as one can not fully listen to both incoming web messages and real life,

Calfo 13
personal dialogue at one time. This results in a partial listening pattern,
where only one party is listened to, and the other is only heard.
For example, one could examine this hypothetical situation
involving listenings challenges because of technology: if a business
partner of a law firm is in a conference, but his or her client is
desperately trying to reach out to him or her because of a personal
emergency, the partner is going to be forced to answer the call or
message for his or her own personal interest, because if the message
was not answered, there is a risk of losing that client to another
business partner. Therefore, as the partner reaches to answer the
client during this meeting, there is a divide in listening between the
business conference dialogue and the dialogue in the message. As a
result, a subsequent question arises in the partners brain: To which
party do I give more attention? The answer to this may leave one
party satisfied, but the other party only is heard, resulting in an
incomplete reception of meaning for one party. The problem of
listening as a result of technology can be solved in one way:
eliminating one party so that all listening attention is dedicated to the
other, and no meaning is lost in the medium of communication.
The disparity between listening and hearing was attempted to be
solved by psychological scientist Lawrence M. Ward in the early 1990s,
as he conducted a challenging listening experiment incorporating tone
use and frequency waves in sound called Involuntary Listening Aids

Calfo 14
Hearing. Wards experiment demonstrated the loss of listening that
occurs when a particular tone is heard repeatedly; this concept can be
extended to the concept of listening hereby mentioned because
meaning is instilled into the tone a person uses as well, and when the
tone is repeated, the meaning is lost over time. Ward says:
When [test subjects - who are students at British Columbia
University] heard the cue, they listened at the same frequency
for the target, even though this mean that, under these artificial
conditions, half the time they would be listening at the wrong
frequency. (Ward 114)
This study led to Ward concluding that . . . an auditory stream is
increased if the first sound in the stream attracts attention to the
frequency range in which the remaining sounds will occur. (Ward 114)
So Ward has shown how one will listen more closely to a sound (for our
purposes a word in language) and the stream of sound that comes
with it, if the rest of the sounds have or are in the same frequency
range (have similar sound) as the subsequent sounds. Therefore, this is
a potential way to solve the issue of hearing in spite of listening.
Finally, one can not hear in a conventional setting if he or she
wishes to truly understanding the meaning and intent which is being
conveyed by a speaker to an audience; if he or she does want to
understand the meaning, he or she will listen fully. This is the only way

Calfo 15
to understand the essence of the discourse provided. Listening is
required to understand meaning.
Conclusively, through a number of several various philosophers
and scientists, as well as critical analysis of its social ramifications, it
has been revealed and proven that listening is far more important than
hearing for a variety of reasons. Meaning is received in listening, and
not hearing, and the process of reception and direction of speech and
language is cyclical. One can not listen to another without recognizing
that a given person is conveying meaning. Furthermore, the meaning
of language is relevant in understanding the implications of daily life in
global society, because it effects relationships between individuals.
Listening to someone fully should always be a habit hearing should
not even be a mere option, because hearing required division between
listening and hearing, which in turn means a division in meaning. Also,
listening is not restricted to verbal communication and speech
listening can be applied to body language, performative utterances,
and action. Even if a person is not capable of verbal speech, they can
still be listened to.
In conclusion, listening is an extremely important component of daily
life for humans. No matter the context, listening is to be used in
deciphering meaning, because if it is not, meaning is lost and the
totality of discourse becomes useless.

Calfo 16

Works Cited
Austin, John. Performative Utterances. Philosophy of Language: The
Big Questions. Ed. By Andrea Nye. 1998. Pgs 126-131. Acc. 20
Apr 2015. Print.
Ayer, A. J. The Principle of Verification. Philosophy of Language: The
Big Questions. Ed. By Andrea Nye. 1998. Pgs. 77-85. Acc. 20 Apr
2015. Print.
Devine, Thomas G. Listening . Review of Educational Research. Vol.
37, No. 2, Language Arts and Fine Arts (Apr 1967) pg. 152-158.
Acc. 2015 20 Apr. Web.
Grice, H. P. Meaning. Philosophy of Language: The Big Questions. Ed.
By Andrea Nye. 1998. Pgs. 118-125. Acc. 20 Apr 2015. Print.
Ward, Lawrence M. Involuntary Listening Aids Hearing. Psychological
Science. Vol. 8, No. 2. Pgs. 112-118. 1997 Mar. Acc. 2015 Apr 20.
Web.

Calfo 17