Meaning is often discussed as if it were a single phenomenon, yet two very different kinds of accounts can be offered: ontologies of meaning and theories of meaning. While they are related, they operate at distinct levels and serve different purposes.
Ontology of Meaning
An ontology of meaning is concerned with what meaning is, in its most fundamental sense. It specifies the relational structure, potentiality, and conditions of existence for meaning itself. It addresses questions such as:
What kinds of meaning events are possible?
How do different instances of meaning relate to each other?
How can meaning be actualised without reference to representation or convention?
Ontologies describe the space of possibility within which meaning occurs. They are meta-structural: they do not explain how meaning is encoded, interpreted, or communicated within specific systems, but rather outline the relational and structural conditions under which meaning can exist at all.
Illustrative Example: Cuts and Admissibility
In a relational ontology, a system defines the admissible cuts—the selections that can be actualised without violating the system’s structure. Consider a network of distinctions where each node represents a potential meaning. Some configurations are coherent and admissible, while others are impossible. The ontology defines this space of possibility, showing which cuts can exist and how they relate, but it does not dictate which cut will be realised in any instance.
Theory of Meaning
A theory of meaning, by contrast, explains how meaning operates within a particular system or medium. Theories address questions such as:
How are meanings represented and communicated?
What mechanisms govern interpretation and understanding?
How do signs, symbols, or grammatical structures produce coherent meanings?
Theories are applied and functional. They offer explanatory models for the processes, rules, and dynamics through which meaning manifests in specific contexts, whether in language, semiotics, or other symbolic systems.
Illustrative Example: Systemic Functional Linguistics
Within a language like English, a theory such as Hallidayan SFL explains how register, metafunctions, and clause structures realise meanings in context. It describes how actualisation of meaning occurs in linguistic practice, but it presumes the underlying space of possible meanings (the ontological ground) rather than defining it.
Key Distinctions
| Aspect | Ontology of Meaning | Theory of Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Describe the nature and structure of meaning itself | Explain how meaning functions within a system |
| Focus | Possibility, structure, relational potential | Representation, interpretation, operation |
| Level | Meta-structural, fundamental | Applied, functional |
| Scope | Universal; independent of specific systems | Contextual; system-specific |
| Examples | Relational ontology: systems, cuts, admissibility, actualisation | Hallidayan SFL: register, metafunctions, realisation, clause structures |
Why the Distinction Matters
Recognising this distinction clarifies the conceptual landscape of meaning. An ontology identifies what is possible, without dictating how it must be realised. A theory operates within that space, offering explanations for how meaning is produced, interpreted, and communicated.
This perspective allows multiple theories to coexist without conflict: they can be understood as modelling different slices of the ontological space, each concerned with particular modes of representation or interpretation. Ontology provides the ground of possibility, while theory provides the mechanics of operation within that ground.
Illustrative Example: Actualisation Across Perspectives
Suppose two observers interact with the same system of distinctions. Each may actualise different admissible cuts: one may emphasise certain relationships, while the other enacts a distinct configuration. The ontology allows for both, but a theory would describe how each observer’s cut manifests, is interpreted, or communicated within a given semiotic system.
Conclusion
Separating ontology from theory illuminates the different levels at which meaning can be approached. Ontology addresses the conditions of possibility for meaning itself, while theory addresses the mechanisms of operation within specific systems. Illustrative examples from relational ontology—cuts, admissibility, and perspectival actualisation—demonstrate how ontology structures the space of potential meaning, while theories describe how meanings are realised and interpreted within that space. Understanding both levels enriches our grasp of meaning, offering a framework for thinking systematically about how meaning exists and how it functions.
No comments:
Post a Comment