What Do You Mean: A Brief Look at

“He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not
know.”

- Lao Tse (Ogden and Richards, 1927, p.1)

    
     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.”
 
     Ogden and Richards’ theories are not flawless, however, and have been
challenged over the years. Some critics cite that while symbols and
definitions are important to communication, there is more to a conversation
than merely what a word may mean to someone (Erickstad, 1998). The critic
is speaking of nonverbal communication in that other factors are at work that
can affect what a person means and nonverbal communication plays a huge
role in this area. Even if one were to apply Ogden and Richards’ “Semantic
Triangle” to an interpersonal conversation, it is possible that the “whole”
picture would fall seriously short of capturing all that is meant by one person
and understood by another person. For this reason, the ability to pick up on
nonverbal messages becomes imperative.
 
     Another problem encountered by the critic is that words are left standing
by themselves unless they are spoken in context (Erickstad, 1998). An
example of this was demonstrated previously in the varying meanings for
the word “cold.” What, perhaps, the critic is failing to recognize is that Ogden
and Richards have identified the need to place words in context, thus the
creation of “Definition Theory.”
 
     While one might assume that Ogden and Richards’ theories are not
completely correct, he or she should be able to recognize the truth offered in
the theories. Whether or not Ogden and Richards claim that their theories
are the only answers to the problem of failing communication is a moot
point. What is fundamentally more important is the fact that through the
study of Ogden and Richards’ theories, scholars have been afforded a new
avenue from which to view communication behaviors and thus have been
provided a foundation upon which new theories and models can be
formulated. To this end, we might be able to grasp the seemingly infinite
number of facets that affect every level of human interaction through
communication and in many cases form a better understanding of the
insurmountable realm of explanations for these interactions as well as how
to best manage them.
 
  
References
 
     Cahill, A. (1998). Proper meaning superstition: I.A. Richards. Unpublished
research paper, university of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved 27 February
2002, from http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-
discourse/Papers/App_Papers/Cahill.htm
 
     Craig, B. (No Date). The meaning of meaning: I.A. Richards (1893-1979).
Unpublished PowerPoint Slideshow, university of Colorado at Boulder.
Retrieved 27 February 2002, from http://Colorado.edu/communication/meta-
discourse/Theory/richards.htm
 
     Erickstad, J. (1998). Richards’ meaning of meaning theory. Unpublished
research paper, University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved 27 February
2002, from http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-
discourse/Papers/App_Papers/Erickstad.htm
 
     Littlejohn, S. (2002). Theories of human communication (7th ed.).
Albuquerque, NM: Wadsworth.
 
     Ogden, C.K., & Richards, I.A. (1927). Meaning of meaning. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & Company.