Page 1 of 12

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 9

Publication Date: September 25, 2022

DOI:10.14738/assrj.99.13057. Liele Madzou, D. A. (2022). Expressions and Meanings: A Phenomenological Approach to Semantics. Advances in Social Sciences

Research Journal, 9(9). 131-142.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Expressions and Meanings: A Phenomenological Approach to

Semantics

Desmond Auffrey LIELE MADZOU

Laboratory for Multidisciplinary Studies and

Research in Human Sciences and the Environment (LERPSHE)

Marien Ngouabi University

ABSTRACT

This article aims to analyze the relationship between ''saying'' and the ''meaning of

saying'' under the banner of phenomenology. It is a question of resolving the conflict

between the enunciation as the communicative background of an axiom and the

content of knowledge as the intention of a thing. This is the problem of language and

of the ontological description of the expressed object. This research tends to put

back on the table of philosophy the claim of formal logic to want, wrongly, to claim

to define the fundamental meanings by semantics. This research aims to posit

saying as an expression referring to something. It reveals the uniqueness that

naturally exists between saying and meaning in the noema-noesis relationship.

Aware that all of life is language, this article sets out to establish the distinction

between modes of reasoning and forms of reasoning in order to account for

meanings as the meaning of saying. By scrutinizing the notion of judgment, it follows

that significations as expressed meaning are phenomena.

Keywords: Expression; formal logic, phenomenology, meaning, meaning, semantics.

INTRODUCTION

The world is experiencing an uninterrupted evolution in the field of communication. This

evolution inaugurates the digital era where we are witnessing the development of several

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) processes. Communication as the art of

transmitting a message is a process of language, as a system of signs. The question of language

is of paramount importance here. The whole issue revolves around understanding and being

understood. This is the problem of meaning or signification with which the human is however

confronted. Clarifying the relationship between expressions and meanings becomes a

necessity. Such a problem can only be envisaged on a philosophical ground where the notion of

signification lends itself to several interpretations; on the one hand, the philosophy of language

and on the other, phenomenology as the science of what appears with its meaning

(phenomenon). It is in this philosophical dialogue that one can perceive the meaning stripped

of all misinterpretation.

Historically, the question of signification as the meaning of saying goes back to Parmenides 1and

will be more explicit with Aristotle. The latter deploys his understanding of the meaning of

1

Cf. The question of being and non-being as presented by Parmenides in Fragment VI: “ To say and to think being

because there is being. »

Page 2 of 12

132

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 9, September-2022

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

propositions in Categories 2where the meaning of the expression is a logical proposition, of type

true or false from the point of view of form. Meaning would result, under these conditions, from

the relation of the subject to the predicate; coherence is here the criterion for justifying the

meaning of propositions.

In contemporary times, the debate is enriched by the philosophers of language, more precisely

the Viennese Circle 3for whom the meaning in a general way would refer to the form of the

axiom to be true or false and that the expression as a sentence has in it’s formulating a meaning.

However, this position, although common for the tenors of logical empiricism, will not be

unanimous4.

In Principles of Mathematics, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) presents three dimensions of the

notion of meaning. First, signification as immediate reference to the thing. Here, signification is

an ontological notion. It is, therefore, around the notion of meaning that its apprehension is

articulated. Then the meaning will be logical in terms of denotation as a linguistic constructive

expression referring indirectly to logical objects. Finally, meaning is understood through the

notion of sense in its signifying modality. Here, we are in the syntactic dimension of meaning.

This internal multi-interpretation of the Vienna Circle denotes the urgency of clarifying the

notion of meaning.

To pose expressions and meanings, for us, implies to pose the saying, as an assembly of words

expressed, that is to say, brought outside in order to be understood, regardless of the mode of

expression5. It is about unveiling the meaning of the ideas expressed, which will therefore be

subject to judgment in order to bring out the expected meaning: this is the objective of this

research.

The problem that this article tends to solve is that of questioning the validity of the discourse,

which will induce the problem of veracity. This is probably the problem of language and the

ontological description of the expressed object. In other words, of the relationship between

saying and the meaning of saying.

Our problematic consists in showing that the notion of signification springs from the

resolution of the conflict between the enunciation as the communicative background of an

axiom and the content of knowledge as the intention of a thing. The answer to the following

questions makes it possible to elucidate this approach: is the axiomatic enough to pretend to

2

ARISTOTLE 1977, Organon , Paris, Vrin. 3

Vienna Circle: Moritz Schlick, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, George Edward Moore, David Hilbert, Henri

Poincaré, Karl Popper, Gottlob Frege...

4

According to Jean Louis VAXELAIRE, “ A new terminological problem arises when approaching the shores of logic:

if Mill used grammatical proper names for his examples, the proper names of Frege and Russell are very different from

the classical definition. Thus, for Frege, the capital of the German empire or What increased by 2 gives 4 are proper

nouns since they designate a singular object. Russell's definition is of another order: logical proper names are limited to

this and that , the only terms which are simple symbols and irreducible to analysis. » Cf. Vaxelaire JL, 2008, Etymology,

significance and meaning, in World Congress of French Linguistics (CMLF), Paris, Institute of French Linguistics, p.

2189.

5

MORAND Bernard writes about the modes of expression that: “ All are not necessarily verbalized, and even less

written in the written sentence of the language. » Cf. MORAND Bernard, 1996, The senses of meaning. For an a priori

theory of the sign, in Intellectica , Vol., 2, no 25 , p. 232.

Page 3 of 12

133

Liele Madzou, D. A. (2022). Expressions and Meanings: A Phenomenological Approach to Semantics. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,

9(9). 131-142.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.99.13057

identify the content of the object? In order to express oneself, does meaning necessarily pass

through formal propositions? In other words, is every expression significant? Doesn't the

meaning emerge rather from the noetic-noematic relationship? In other words, how does the

judgment reveal the fundamental meanings?

The expected results correspond to the verification of the following hypotheses:

- Axiomatic would not suffice to define the meaning of saying;

- Meaning would result from the noetic-noematic relationship;

- The judgment would hint at the basic meanings

METHOD

To verify these hypotheses, we follow the method of phenomenological hermeneutics. We

analyze the concepts summoned in a noetic sphere where understanding is an experience of

consciousness. It is a dialogue of our consciousness in relation to the problem of the meaning

of discourse. The conclusions that flow from this research are an articulation between the

present of the reader's consciousness and the world of the texts summoned and their authors (C.

Boundja, 2019, p. 17). Which means that it is a phenomenological interpretation of the problem

raised in this research. To do this, it is a philosophical necessity to clearly elucidate the terms

expressions and meaning, to then join them in order to better understand the crux of the

formulation of this research.

- Phrases

An expression is a communication of ideas; it is the fact of expressing oneself through language,

therefore through a sign code. It is a manifestation of thought. Philosophically, the term

expression implies bringing outside a cognitive pressure, in terms of the desire to speak in order

to be understood. If it is established that the term expression has for root the verb to express,

expression would mean to take precedence outside as an assembly of words carrying a semantic

density. To express is thus an “exposure of a signified and of an original meaning”6. Expression,

as the action of representing, is the expression of a meaning.

- Meanings

The term signification, derived from the Latin significatio or the verb significare, evokes the idea

of the meaning attached to a thing. In linguistics, signification is the correlation between the

signifier and the signified, the object and its objectivity. The signifier is what signifies, what

expresses signification; it is the object that expresses a meaning. The signified, moreover, is

what a signifier represents, the concept. This is the meaning of a sign. French Rastier presents

this approach in these terms: " the sign results according to us from the process of interpretation,

because its signifier is not given to a simplex apprehensio , but identified only in a practice, and

its signified is not immanent to it: in short, a sign can only be identified as a moment in an

interpretative journey. ” 7Here is a fairly realistic position of what is called par signified.

However, this approach is not unanimous. Faced with these linguistic nuances, it is a successful

intelligence to approach the concept of meaning on a philosophical field in order to spare us

these grammatical turns and return to the concept as it appears to us.

6

BOUNDJA C., 2018, Thus spoke, Studies on the language of Nietzsche and African orality , Paris, Presses

Académiques Francophones, p. 3.

7

RASTIER F., 1996, Issues of sign and text, Intellectica , Vol., 2, no 23 , p. 31.