THOUGHT,SYMBOL AND REFERENT
Often,
when one communicates, he or she does not give any special attention to how he
or she communicates. As a result, communication between parties is either
diminished or lost altogether. Scholars have spent countless years analyzing
human communication and have spent the same amount of time formulating theories
that attempt to answer questions pertaining to how we communicate and why we
choose the methods we do. One such scholar, I.A. Richards analyzed human
communication and co-formulated a theory known as the “Theory of Meaning”
(Ogden and Richards, 1927). Ogden and Richards’ theory attempts to not only
describe the approaches humans take when communicating, but also to understand
how communication is “lost” when not done correctly.
Generally
speaking, in science, a theory is centered on a single idea, which the
theoretician wishes to provide an answer. Usually, there is only one component
to the theory being generated, that being the single idea that is in question
or needs to be explained. Unlike traditional scientists, Ogden and Richards
take a completely different approach in developing their theory. Rather than
focus on a single idea upon which to base the theory, they deconstruct the idea
into many parts, thus creating a multi-faceted theory to explain communication
behaviors. The facets explored by Ogden and Richards include “Meaning Theory,”
“Definition Theory,” and “Symbol Theory.” Though the focus of this paper is
Ogden and Richards’ theory on symbolic meaning, particularly the “Semantic
Triangle,” it is important to possess a basic understanding of the theories
surrounding it in order to better understand how they “fit” together and enable
the “Semantic Triangle” to function. While this paper will not cover all
theories in depth, it will provide a summary containing the overarching ideas
contained in each.
The “Theory of Meaning” is a concept that has been present
in communication since the first humans learned to communicate. As
communicators, we are aware that nearly everything we say has meaning on some
level to ourselves as well as those we share our words with. The fundamental
difference between how we previously looked at meaning and how Ogden and
Richards look at it is that many scholars argue that for every word, there is a
single, correct meaning associated with it (Craig Online, 2002). Ogden and
Richards counter this claim with their theory of “Proper Meaning Superstition,”
which states that there is not a single “correct” meaning associated with each
and every word because each word means something different to each person, or
more simply, meanings don’t reside in words, they reside in people (Erickstad,
1998).
Consider,
for example, the word cold. Since there are variations in word meaning among
people, if one were to ask someone what the word cold means, he or she would
likely get a response pertaining to a condition in temperature. However,
consider the advent of slang and, again, ask someone what the word cold means
and one could receive a response pertaining to types of attitudes expressed
toward other people or objects. Now, consider the previous example spread
throughout the languages of the world and one could perceive the problem of
meaning and how there can be no single “correct” meaning for any word.
In order to
correct the problems associated with “Meaning Theory,” Ogden and Richards
developed “Definition Theory.” It is imperative for one to understand that when
a person speaks, the words he or she chooses mean different things to different
people. One may agree that a term best suited to describe this condition is
ambiguity. According to Ogden and Richards, the best way to solve the ambiguity
problem is to provide a definition of various terms or concepts (Erickstad,
1998). This can be accomplished in many ways. One might choose to offer an
explicit definition of the term or concept being used, or he or she could opt
to use the term in such a way as to project the definition through the
combination of other words that share the same universal meaning. For instance,
if a speaker stated that another person was cold, based on the example dealing
with meaning, two inferences could be drawn. First, one could assume that the
person being discussed is physically, or temperately, cold. Similarly, one
could infer that the person has projected an attitude that is undesirable
toward another person or object. Another option, expressed by Ogden and
Richards is the use of metaphor. Metaphors aid in the creation of definitions
by forming a link between the word or idea and an experience he or she and the
audience may share. If the speaker were to either define the term or use other
words to “prop” up the definition with the use of metaphor, the meaning becomes
clear. For instance, if the speaker stated that he or she has spoken to another
person who always emits a negative demeanor in conversation and that his or her
attitude appears cold the meaning is evident.
Finally,
Ogden and Richards developed the “Symbol Theory” in order to explain how words
expressed in communication evoke images, thus providing a personal meaning
based on experience. Symbols are inherently arbitrary by themselves, however,
when used in conjunction with one another, meaning is created for the ideas
being expressed. Problems in communication arise when people attempt to
communicate through the use of arbitrary words because they have no exact or
clear meaning. Words are variables that can assume different meanings depending
on the context in which they are used (Erickstad, 1998). A good example of a
symbol is text. Text, by itself, is meaningless, as it draws no relation to
anything outside itself. However, when we combine text with a word and even a
picture, we create a workable definition from which to operate. This is the
fundamental principle behind Ogden and Richards’ theory.
Ogden and
Richards categorize meanings in terms of signs and symbols where signs are
natural representations of something beyond themselves, such as a sound,
whereas symbols are specialized types of signs, such as text (Cahill, 1998). In
both cases, signs and symbols are meaningless unto themselves. Consider the
word “cat.” Alone, the word has no meaning, as it does not resemble what we
perceive to be a cat, nor does it possess any direct link to the sounds or
behaviors of a cat, as we know it, thus the word is merely an arbitrary symbol.
Ogden and Richards use the idea of “natural association” to link signs and
symbols with actual objects such as a cat (Cahill, 1998).
In order to illustrate his point that there is
a direct relationship between symbols and thought, Ogden and Richards created
the “Semantic Triangle.” The triangle is a simple model in which the three
factors involved with the statement or idea are placed in the corners and the
relationships between them are represented by the sides (Ogden and Richards,
1927, p. 10). An example of how this idea works is as follows: 
One peak
of the triangle would be the symbol (a word). Another peak would be a thought,
such as words to describe the symbol. Finally, the image we create in our minds
would become the referent. Through the use of the Semantic Triangle, Ogden and
Richards believe they have found a way to connect all words to their meaning
(Erickstad, 1998). There are relationships between all three factors,
represented by the sides of the triangle. The relationship between the thought
and symbol are causal, meaning the symbol evokes an attitude or a proposed
effect on another person. Similarly, there is a relationship between the
thought and the referent, though the relationship can be either direct, such as
something we can see in front of us, or indirect, such as an image or idea
about something we have seen in another instance. Finally, the relationship
between the symbol and the referent is purely indirect in that it is an
arbitrary relationship created by someone who wishes the symbol to represent
the referent (Ogden and Richards, 1927, p. 11). As demonstrated by the
illustration above, the word “dog” is associated in the mind of the reader as a
particular animal. The word is not the animal, but the association links the
two, thus all three elements are required in an irreducible triad for the signs
to operate correctly (Littlejohn, 2002).
A unique and fascinating quality of Ogden and Richards’
theory is that it implies meaning can be arbitrarily exchanged without the need
to understand how one another feels. What this means is that so long as
definitions are created that all parties agree to, feelings regarding those definitions
are inconsequential. In fact, according to Ogden and Richards (1927, p. 15),
“Whenever we hear anything said, we spring spontaneously to an immediate
conclusion, namely, that the speaker is referring to what we should be
referring to were we speaking the words ourselves.”
semantic learner
