Sense, Meaning, and Reference

[Apoi_Viitor]

What's the difference between these three terms?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Bump

[syndicat]

Depends on the theory. The referent of an expression would be something that expression is used to track, what it refers to or designates. "Reference" refers to this relationship.

Now, sometimes philosophers argue that there must be a distinction between the "meaning" of a word or linguistic item and its referent for various reasons. For example, an expression E might occur in a sentence that we can understand, a sentence that is either true or false. And yet E might not refer to anything. Sometimes expressions fail to refer, it is said. This might happen because the expression is a name of a fictional or mythical entity that doesn't exist. Or a predicate might not be true of anything. For example "is human and weighs twelve tons". So

Various arguments of this sort led to theories, such as that of Frege, that claim that expressions capable of designating things must have a sense...what they mean...and a referent or set of referents. So "is black" has a sense...perhaps this is a particular color (or range of colors)...and its referent is all the things that are black, a particular set of things.

On Frege's view the sense is an objective entity. He holds that the sense has to be an objective entity otherwise we could not understand each other. To understand each other we have to grasp the other person's meaning.

Actually for Frege the sense of "is black" is not the color black. The color is too concrete to be a sense. He calls the sense a "concept." But he does NOT mean a "concept" in the sense of a human ability or event in consciousness. He means an abstract entity.

As I said at the beginning, different philosophers of language have different views here.

Let's suppose you think that "the tall man in the corner" refers to a certain guy, Jack. So Jack is the referent of that expression. But of course there might not be a tall man in the corner. In that case that expression would have no referent but it would still be a meaningful expression...could occur in a sentence that expresses a complete thought.

this is Frege's view.

another example of an expression with sense but no referent might be "that cat" -- uttered by someone who thinks he sees a cat in the corner of the yard, but it was just the lighting and there's no cat there, as in "that cat is hunting for mice".

[u.s.red]

What's the difference between these three terms?

It seems to me that Wittgenstein's analysis of language still is relevant: the "meaning" of a word depends on the context in which it is used.

[syndicat]

the "meaning" of a word depends on the context in which it is used.

that statement doesn't differentiate W. from anyone else since no on in his or her right mind would disagree.

[Luís Henrique]

It seems to me that Wittgenstein's analysis of language still is relevant: the "meaning" of a word depends on the context in which it is used.

Yes, and Newton's analysis of gravity is equally brilliant: things fall to the ground.

Luís Henrique