INTRODUCTION:

There are various problems associating with language and by extension, meaning. Firstly, there

is a problem of what actually occurs in our mind when we use language with the intention of

meaning something. This problem belongs to Psychology. Secondly, there is a problem as to

what the relation between thought, words and sentences is and what they refer to. This

belongs to epistemology. Thirdly, there is a problem as regard using a sentence to convey truth

rather falsehood. This belongs to special sciences. Fourthly, there is a question of what relation

must sentence have to another inorder to be capable of a symbol for that.This belongs to logic

(Russell 1922 P.IX). The question of meaning becomes more difficult since the day of Russell

because of this division. The implication is that in the gathering of Psychologists,

Epistemologists, Logicians, Metaphysicians and Scientists there will never be common

understanding perhaps. The instantiation of this is gathering of the World scholars in Vienna

which ended in division and confusion.

Historically, the problem of meaning seems to be more condensed from the time the word,

“scepticism” was changed from its positive meaning namely “to inquire” to a negative

connotation, “to doubt”. Scepticism then wore the tag that man cannot know anything for

certain, instead that man can inquire into anything in its positive sense. The adulterated specie

of scepticism becomes subjectivism and relativism.

We shall look into history to acquaint ourselves with the views of philosophers. We shall look

into Grice’s theory “Nature of meaning”in a way is also the problem of meaning so to say. After

which we shall discuss Aristotle’s conception of meaning”. Among Philosophers like Aristotle,

1
Grice, Alan Hans Gardiner, John Locke Wittgenstein that were singled out for this research,

Victoria Welby Lady is very important to me namely that she is a female almost lost in history.

Secondly, it was from her work that Russell drew his inspiration. After this, we shall look into

various theories of meaning with their limitations. We then evaluate our work make our

contributions and conclusions.

HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

If we cannot know anything for certain then why are we bothering ourselves with “meaning”

and its theories? It is on this backdrop that we shall look into history but we must wear a

summary lens. From the ancient time till our own era, Philosophers have made conscientious

effort as to know both reality and what it means.Some were of the view that man cannot know

anything for certain while some claimed that man can only know some aspects of reality not

reality qua tali. Starting from Heraclitus’s assertion that everything is in flux which portrays

man’s inability to grab anything fixed and immutable truth.AS a result Humanity has been

engulfed and condemned to search for reality and meaning. Zeno’s and Parmenides’ claim that

motion is illusion also portrays this idea. Protagoras’ relativism, that truth is not absolute it only

exists in relation to culture and society only affirmed Heraclitus. Plato’s theory of divided line

where he distinguished imagining (whose object is image), “Thinking” ( whose object is

mathematical object) and “knowledge”( whose object is good) according to him, humans

command high level of certainty at the level of thinking but only have opinion and belief at the

level of imagining. St Augustine’scontraacademicos with his popular Si fallor,sum states that

human reason is capable and absolute certain of the principle of contradiction. Things cannot

be and also not be at the same place and time. Descartes’ Methodic doubt with his popular

2
cogito ego sum is a popular treatise which he used to prove his own existence inorder to

deduce existence of others. While David Hume’s unfoundedinductivism claims that man must

be sceptical because to suspend judgment is to go mad because inductivisism was founded on

assumption that nature is uniform and that future will remain the same as the past. Thomas

Reid’s common sense realism argues that any philosophical conclusion that runs contrary to

common sense has a wrong foundation. Common sense for him, is what is common for him is

what is meaningful to the community for their day-to-day activities. Kant in his phenomena and

noumena opined that only the phenomena, things within space and Time can be known while

the noumena, things outside space and time cannot be comprehended by human

intellect.Russell’s sense data is the teaching that what we know of the world is not a reality but

the data of our perception which varies from person to person and circumstance to

circumstance. However, Wittgenstein’s Theory of use but not without its limitations has been

adjudged by many to be more of help to the problem of theory of meaning.

What then is meaning and how do we know it. Can we discern the meaning of expression in

isolation of the speaker? Should what the speaker intend be adjudged the meaning of his

expression? Or is it how the hearer reacts to speaker’s expression determines what he meant?

In another segment, does expression mean the same thing to all people at all times or does

expression mean different things to different people in different epochs? These and more are

some of the issues this research sets to tackle using mathematical (step by step) method.

3
THE NATURE OF MEANING

The initial questionswe raised at the introductory part of thisresearch were attempted by Grice

H.P in (1957.219-220) seminal paper “Meaning”. Grice discussed four important themes on

meaning which wouldhelp us to know whether the nature of meaning should be understood

conventionally or centrally.

EXPRESSION MEANING:

This is the thought that the semantic property of expressions are to be understood in terms of

propositional attitude psychology. This suggests that we understand what is given by the

expression in isolation of the speaker’s intention because the speaker will not always be there

to tell us what he meant. However, some groups of philosophers opposed this move. According

toQuinn 1960, Krikpe 1982 and Soames 1997 they all denied that linguistic expression has any

meaning of its own.

REDUCTIVE EXPRESSION MEANING:

This is the reduction of expression meaning through philosophical analysis. Expressions are

being reduced to simpler form using philosophical analysis (Avramide 1989.33). However, due

to the fear that the original meaning might be reduced he suggested that reciprocal should

replace reductive meaning. What reductive analysis does is to help us get away from

unclarity(Grice 1987.351).

THE SPEAKER-MEANING THEORY:

4
When a speaker speaks, he is not speaking for speaking sake. The intention of the speaker or

writer is respected in a speaker- meaning theory. It is expected that a corresponding action

follows this intention. If a speaker were to say that a state of affairs holds, he must perform

some action intending to get an audience belief that the state of affairs actually holds(Grice

1968.27). This is usually difficult according to (David Lewis 1969.35)speaker-meaning is only

feasible at where there is a regularity of speaker- meaning among a group of people.

NATURALL AND NON -NATURAL MEANING:

There are meanings that are specifically attached to language and communication and there

are notions of meaning that do not have to do with language and communication at all.

According to Grice, natural meanings are nonlinguistic and non-communication related notions

of meanings. For instance, when you see spots of measles on a person, you will know it is

measles without any language or communication. While non- natural meaning is a meaning

that deals with language and communication with attached interpretation (Grice1957.214). It is

this non-natural meaning that has posed problems to philosophers for ages. Aristotle was first

to highlight on it in his “interpretation”.

ARISTOTLE’S THEORY OF SIMILITUDE OF MEANING:

Focus on themes of Aristotle’s philosophy and their interconnection is his account of meaning

of terms such as man, fish, eclipse etc. which refer to kind of object in process. The second is

the essence of this kind --- what makes them what they are. On the meaning of such terms he

offered that it is determined by a distinct type of efficient causal connection between the

5
kindsand thoughts with which the terms are associated. His similitude theory of meaning has

three major core parts.

(i)The speaker as the rational agent (ii) the referents, entities outside the speaker’s mind (iii)

the relation from the mind of the speaker to the outside word. In this theory it is not the words

that mean anything but only the idea of the words. According to Aristotle, if the affection of the

soul is common in everyone then, it follows that affection of the soul satisfies similarity relation

in everyone. It follows in the modus ponem that words have to have the same meaning in

everyone. Similitude theory therefore, is a state whereby the idea in speaker’s mind is similar to

his referent. That is, there is a correspondence between the idea and reality. My conception of

mango tree can only be true if it corresponds with a real mango tree. There are many problems

associating with theory of similitude. My conception of butter fly and albatross cannot be

differentiated by using similitude theory because both are animal, fly, compose of carbonic

acid, composed of the same atom. So the theory does not limit the idea of similarity. Another

problem is that, if it is only when ideas correspond with reality that reality becomes reality

then, the world should stop existing when we stop experimenting. It is clear that the ancient

philosophers could not solve the problem of meaning hence, we must compulsorily look

elsewhere.

THEORY OF MEANING IN THE TWENTH CENTURY

One should not be surprised that we started from twentieth century. It is because the problem

of meaning was more tensed up in this century than the previous ones. And our entry may not

permit us to exhaust all of them.

6
We shall begin by considering the works of two prominent philosophers Victoria

WelbyLady(1837-1913) whom the theory of meaning actually took off from in twentieth

century and AlansHersonGardiner (1879-1963). The idea of V.W.Lady was influential both in

theory of meaning and philosophers especially Russell. Russell leant theory of meaning from

Lady Welby(Russell 1926.138).

VICTORY WELBY LADY ON THEORY OF MEANING:

It was she who was first to see the question, “what is meaning” as worth careful scrutiny in its

own right in an early essay, “metaphor and meaning” published in the Monist in 1893.

According to her, it is rather a hope for the future that one of the most practically serviceable of

subject that of meaning its definitions and changes shall be seriously be taken up (Welby

1893.512). welby was skeptical that a linguistic expression has a sort of central core, literal or

plain meaning which does not vary from context to context. Unlike Aristotle who focused on

signification of words,Welby was more of whether what was signified will have central or

contextual meaning. She argued that when we postulate absolute plain meaning we assumed

that our hearers and reader share the same background and atmosphere and look through the

same inferential eye. She was seriously against universal language and possibility of absolute

meaning. A language that would mean the same for all peoples at all times in all circumstances.

That would be too fetish (Welby 1896.192). She therefore identifies meaning with speaker’s

intention and in as much as speaker’s intention cannot be generalized it would then be

impossible to have standard meaning apart from their context of use.

7
ALAN HANS GARDINER ON THEORY OF MEANING:

Ferdinand Saussure treated structure aspect of language particularly to sound system---

phenomenology. While Gardiner was more on issues of meaning and communication and how

semantic (semanssiology) contributes to theory of meaning Welby advocated contextual

meaning while Saussure advocated central meaning. What Gardiner did was to synthesize the

theories of the duo by placing the role of meaning in speech at the centre of his

characterization. Gardiner tactfully puts the question thus: should we take sentence

experience to mean usuelleBeduetungorokkasionelBeduetuung?(Gardiner 1951.58). However,

like Welby he believes that the meaning of a speech is what the speaker intends to be

understood from it by the listener (Gardiner 1922.30). For Gardiner, the purpose of our speech

is always to influence the perception or the will of someone in a way which the speaker

considers to be importance.

THEORIES OF MEANING:

There are many types of theory of meaning as there are many philosophers. But because of our

limited entry we may not be able to exhaust all of them here. However, there are many

resemblances of these theories. In fact, these different theories are just but change of names. I

shall attempt to bring these theoretical problems into two basic headings.

REFERENTIAL THEORY OF MEANING:

This is one of the earliest theories of meaning which tried to explain the concept of meaning. It

was actually propounded by C.K Ogden and I.A Richards (1923) in a book titled “The meaning of

Meaning”. They maintained that the meaning of any expression is the entity or object such

8
expressions refer in the real world. They referred to such word as referents. They argued that

there is no connection between expression and object. The connection between linguistic

entity and its referent is only possible through thought. They listed the following as the

definitions for the term meaning. (i) An intrinsic property of something (ii) Other word related

to that word in dictionary (iii) The connotation of a word (iv) The thing to which the speaker

of that word refer (v)The thing to which the speaker of that word should refer (vi)The thing to

which the speaker of that word believes himself to be referring (vii)The thing to which the

hearer of that word believes is being referred to. A close look at the above definitions will

show that six out of the seven referred to thing or something and this is usually problematic in

analysis. According to Pushpinders and DV Jindal (2010:142-144) they argued that a

connotation meaning is additional meaning that a concept carries. They argued too that

definition did not cover thematic (organization of message in terms of focus and emphasis) and

social meanings of words (a message conveys about circumstance of its use).

Referential Theory is also associated with Frege. It is believed that Frege used this theory to

demolish the stance of logical positivists who attempted to relegate metaphysics from the

scope of knowledge using their verification theory. According to (Alston 1967:234), if the

meaning of word is the designation of something outside itself then we are far from the truth.

There are many more problems associating with this theory. Should the meaning of a word be

identified with its referent or a relation between word and its referent? Not all expressions

have referent. When I say, I saw “nobody” in the room. What will be a referent of nobody?

9
THE MENTALIST THOERY OF MEANING:

See Gluckberg and J. Danks’ (Experimental Psycholinguistics 1925: 50). This theory is built on

the lapses of referential theory of meaning. Mentalism claims that the meaning of a word is the

mental image that the mention of the name invokes in the listener. This argument borrows

from the argument of idealism. However, there are certain names that are not objectified at all.

For instance, such characters in folktales like Pegasus and certain spiritual characters such as

gods. What mental image will one make from God, soul and freedom?

DISPOSITIONAL THEORY OF MEANING:

The major proponents of this theory are Steveson (1944) and Morris (1946). The theory

contends that the association of a stimulus with a particular response is dispositional. They

argued that an individual can respond to a stimulus when he is disposed to do so. Thus, it is

when a link is established between a stimulus and a particular response that an individual will

be able to respond appropriately when all the determining conditions are fulfilled.

This theory leaves one question unanswered: what is disposition to respond? Yes, dispositional

concepts exit but it is not clear how to reconcile “respond to stimulus” with “disposition to

respond”. Do sugar and salt which melt when disposed to water respond to stimuli? Most of

utterances in everyday life are not associated with specific disposition. Hence this theory

cannot hold strongly.

10
OPERANT CONDITIONING THEORY OF MEANING:

This theory is a brainchild of Skinner (1957). He argued that verbal stimulus does not stimulate

the same amount of response with the object it is associated with. He rejected “sign and

symbol” as denoting the relationship of association. He based his analysis on stimulus control

involving stimulus response and reinforcement within which can be identified a symbol and

what is symbolized. He argues further that the word “fox” is not a substitute stimulus standing

for a particular kind of animal rather it is word form whose association with the animal in

question has been established by its occurrence in utterances which have been and probably

will be reinforced by seeing a fox. He conceives utterances as verbal operant which suggests

verbal activities operating on the environment in contrast with activities which are primarily

concerned with the internal economy with the organism. This theory fails because it failed to

analyze how abstract objects act as stimulus and how they are reinforced upon the contingence

of any environment. Secondly, it is common knowledge that mental disposition can influence

one’s reaction to a particular stimulus in the same environment at different times.

IDEATIONAL THEORY OF MEANING:

This theory is associated with John Locke. According to him, the use of words is to be sensible

marks of ideas; and the ideas they stand for on their proper and immediate significations (Locke

1959). The essence of language therefore becomes the communicationsof thought or idea in

the mind because words are sensible signs necessary for communication of idea. We need not

to go further because it is very clear that Locke was acting on assumption namely that thought

exists independent of language. Russell captures this in his,“HumanKnowledge: Its Scope

11
AndLimitation” (1948.196). According to Russell, language serves not only to express thought

but to make possible thought which could not exists without it. This ideational theory is what

we had early discussed in the speaker-meaning of Grice. If the meaning of a word is the idea in

the mind of the speaker, what gives meaning to those ideas which are but thought? There

cannot be thought without language and language is made up of thought.

THE COMPENENTENTIAL THEORY OF MEANING

This approach to the analysis of meaning claims that the meaning of a thing consists in the

lexical entries which make up its sense. For instance, the meaning of girl is {human + female+

adult}, the meaning of man is (human + male + adult}. As we can see, this theory is more

appropriate for nouns, it cannot count for other lexical categories such as adverb and verbs.

See Fodor 1970.

BEHAVIOURAL OR STIMULUS RESPONSE THEORY OF MEANING:

This tries to assert that the meaning of linguistic form is, “the situation in which the speaker

utters it and the response which it calls for in the hearer”. The problems with this theory are to

wit: on differentoccasions a hearer makes different responses to utterance of a given

expression even when used in the same sense. Again, varied responses are made by the hearers

of a given expression. Thirdly, not all expressions require reaction at all.

MEANING AS USE:

The previous theories were presumed unsuccessful in solving the problem of theory of

meaning. The early Wittgenstein adopted referential theory of meaning but dumped it in his

12
later years and developed his own theory of meaning. According to him, the meaning of a word

is its use in a language (Wittgenstein 1968. 43). It is a common phrase today, “don’t look for the

meaning look for the use”. Wittgenstein believed that meaning has been so used illicitly in the

past as a signifier of the thing that corresponds to the word. In the beginning ofthe Blue Book,

he asked, “What is the meaning of a word? What is an explanation of a meaning of a word; and

what do the explanation of the word look like (Wittgenstein 1969 .1)? He believed that the

philosophical concept of meaning has its place in a primitive idea of thelanguage functions.

Hence, teaching of a language becomes training for the novice instead of explanation.

According to him, we understand the sense of prepositional sign without it being explained to

us (Wittgenstein Tractatus 1961.40). That is what Grice initially called natural language. It was

Malcon N. who later explained what Wittgenstein meant by meaning as use. According to him,

Wittgenstein did not declare that meaning and use are synonymous. By the “use” he meant

special circumstances that surround expression when it is spoken or written(N Malcon,

“Wittgenstein Ludwig Joseff Johan in Encyclopedia of philosophy.)The problem with this theory

is a situation when they entire community acted in error. Good example is the scientific

community of the past with regard to the theory of geocentricism.

BABELIST THEORY OF MEAING:

This is a theory developed by Professor GebriellaNwaozuzu of Semantics in UNN. The

unattainable answer and unresolution of the question of meaning as well as the confused

nature of the subject, she termed the theory of babelism which is in analogy to the confusion

which many cultures associated with the origin of diversity of human language. The concept of

the Biblical “Tower of Babel” as narrated in the bible has been chosen, to explain the chaotic

13
and various prescriptions which have failed to offer any answer to the question to the specific

meaning of linguistic element. Left with this, “we have no choice rather to go back to where we

started namely, that meaning is beyond definite definition”. An attempt to define meaning or

have a theory that will capture it holistically is an effort in futility, she contented.

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

One of the glaring things is that most philosophers are not sincere. Most of these ideas they

twisted were the original ideas of Welby Victoria Lady’s “Metaphor and Meaning” and

Aristotle’s Interpretatione. Why the issue of meaning seems to persist is that there seems not

to be clear demarcation between the nation of meaning treated by Grice, the problem of

meaning and the solutions to the problem of meaning. Most if not all the previous philosophers

seem to have lumped upthese three themes thereby throwing the theory of meaning into

perpetual darkness. I think when we state clearly the nature of meaning, the problem of

meaning and mapped out the solution for the problem, we would be able to settle the issue of

meaning permanently. Grice used speaker-meaning as one of the themes in his nature of

meaning while John LocKe twisted it to ideational as a theory of meaning. Aristotle used

similitude as a solution to the problem of meaning while Odgen and Richard used Referential

which Fregeans later attributed to Frege. But there is no different except in spelling.

MY OWN INPUT

It seems that we are no longer battling with the problem of meaning but the supremacy of

Philosophers and their theories of meaning. In order to settle the problem I decided to divide

the previous contributors into “The WhoS” and The WhatS” theory of meaning. Let’s put it this

14
way: is the problem of meaning about the “what” or about the “who” in determining the

meaning of meaning? This questionserves as a neutralizer into the problem of meaning. On the

nature of meaning we have two great camps. The centralists like Ferdinand Saussure who

advocated absolute meaning while the Contextualists like Grice advocated contextual meaning.

Attention has long been shifted from what determines meaning to who determines it. Aristotle

and Referentialists were of the view that it is the “what”, that is, when idea corresponds with

reality. By this, the owner of the idea is completely sidelined. While the philosophers who

favouredbehavourial theory seem to be at the side of “whos” if it were to be true that it is

actually the way the hearer or reader reacts determines what the speaker meant.

In a law court who determines the case, the law book or the judge or the Jury? I disassociate

myself to the stance of Professor Gabriella namely, that meaning is indefinable rather I would

say that it is definable but has not properly or satisfactorily been defined.

For now we can say that words have no meaning of their own. Words, phrases or sentences

bear the meaning given to it by the person who is “most powerful” at the moment. If the

hearer is more powerful than the speaker what he says stands if it is the speaker that is more

powerful at the moment, what he says stands. Actually I don’t have a right name for this now,

but I do hope to find it soon.

15
Aslton W. P, “Meaning in the Ecyclopedia of Philosophy vol 6 London: MacMilliain Press 1967

Avramide, Anita “Meaning And Mind” Massachusetts: MIT 19

Gardiner, Alans, “Theory of speech and Language” Oxford:Claredon Press 1951

------------------- “The Definition of Word and Sentences” in British Journal of Philosophy 1922

Grice H.Paul, “Meaning” A philosophical Review,66 1957

------------- “Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence-meaning and Word-meaning” foundation of lang. 1969

-------------- “Retrospective Epilogue 1987 in Grice 1989

-------------- Studies in the Way of WordCambridge: HavardUni press, 1989

--------------- Reply to Richard. In Grandy and Waner 1986

--------------- In Defence of Dogma Philosophical Review 1956

KrikpeWittgenstein on Rules and PRIVATE language Oxford: Blackwell 1982

Leech, G.N Principle of Pragmatic London: Longman 1983

Lobner, S Understanding Semantics, London: Hodder Edu.2002

Locke, John An Essay concerning Human Understanding, in two vols. Cambell Fraser 1959

16
Ogden F.K The Meaning of meaning, London: Kegan Paul 1923

Quine W.V.O Words and Objects, Massachusetts: MIT

Russell, B The meaning of meaning” 1926 Review of Odgen and Richard’s in Russell 1948

------------ “Human knowledge Its Scope and Limit New York:Simon and Schuter 1948

Wittgenstein, L “TractactusLogicoPhilosophcus” tr. D.F Peares London: Ruthledge 1961

----------------- “Philosophic Grammar” tr. Anthony Kenny, Oxford: Blackwell 1968

----------------- “Blue and Brown Books” Ludwig’s Dictation to his students 1969 pub. Blackwell

17