5. Developing an Alternative 203
community? Strictly speaking, the model cannot satisfactorily and consistently account for the hearer having understood the signal differently than the speaker intended.
Stated in Lewis Carroll’s terms, in the code model-view of meaning, Humpty Dumpty never has the prerogative of using a word or expression in a novel way. The
words are the master, and not the man see Carroll 1960
:269. As Saussure expresses it:
A language, as a collective phenomenon, takes the form of a totality of imprints in every- one’s brain, rather like a dictionary of which each individual has an identical copy. Thus it is
something which is in each individual, but is none the less common to all. At the same time it is out of the reach of any deliberate interference by individuals.
Saussure 1983 :[38]
5.2.3.2. The problem of context
The previous section addressed the problem of intention. Most linguists consider the problem of intention to be insignificant. They note that in those rare cases where ambi-
guity is supported by syntax, that ambiguity dissipates when the expression is viewed in communicative context. This sort of response fails to note the problem of context.
The problem of context is an extension of the problem of meaning, and is also related to the problem of intention. Simply stated, the problem is that the code model insists that
context is irrelevant. In a strict application of the model, context must be excluded. In part, this view stems from Shannon’s information theoretic model, in which the
transmitter and receiver are conceived as electronic devices. Understandably, the context in which the devices are operated has no bearing on the theory. As is discussed in section
3.4 , that application may be validly extended to human communication, but only in
applications concerning phonetics and phonology. That is, Shannon’s theory would only address whether or not the hearer can correctly interpret sound waves and recognize their
relationship to phonemes. Shannon’s theory is not concerned with semantics in any way whatsoever. As Shannon himself has said of his theory, “Somehow people think it can
tell you things about meaning,…but it can’t and wasn’t intended to”
Horgan 1996 :
207– 208.
The problem of context is more subtly defined in Saussure’s theory of signs. Remem- ber that in Saussure’s view, the langue involved a fixed system of values. In a fixed sys-
tem of values, context must be irrelevant, otherwise the system is easily compromised, even destroyed. A fixed-value economic market, for example, would be compromised by
a context-dependent black market.
In code model linguistics, then, the system of values is presumed to remain constant and to operate independently of context, even though the manner in which the exchange
is pursued and affected is considered to vary. To suggest an analogy, a customer in a restaurant cannot negotiate the cost of his meal. He can, however, determine for himself
what he will order and the amount of tip he will give to the waiter. In linguistic terms, he cannot determine what his words will mean, for the meaning of the words is set. He can,
however, determine for himself which words he will use and the way in which they will be presented to the communicative partner. As should be evident, this is the basis of the
204 5. Developing an Alternative
traditional split between semantics and pragmatics. That is, semantics addresses the meaning of the words, while pragmatics addresses the way in which those words are
employed in context.
The reality of the situation, however, is that language is not a fixed-value system see Harris 1987
:219ff.. To use the restaurant analogy again, if the problem is considered from a broader scope, it is apparent that the cost of the meal does vary according to
context. A lobster dinner may cost twenty-five dollars at one restaurant, fifteen at another, and five on the pier. Furthermore, the price of the meal is negotiated, although
rarely by the individual working alone. The cost of the meal is certainly negotiated behind the scenes by the restaurateur, who estimates what he thinks his customers will
pay. And it is negotiated nonverbally by the customer, who peruses the menu and determines what he is willing to purchase. The cost of the meal also fluctuates according
to supply and demand. In other words, it is grounded in context and varies according to context. The same may be said of meaning.
Words do not consistently mean the same thing from place to place, independent of context of usage. Rather, meaning is negotiated, although rarely by the individual work-
ing alone. That is, meaning fluctuates according to general usage. Just as the restaurant customer has a range of prices he is willing to pay, the user of language will normally
have a range of meaning he will be willing to associate or accept as associated with a particular word or expression. Over time and across space, the range of such accepted
meaning shifts according to the “supply and demand” for a particular “exchange.”
As stated previously, Saussure was well aware of semantic change and variation. He writes: “The first thing which strikes one on studying linguistic facts is that the language
user is unaware of their succession in time: he is dealing with a state” Saussure
1983 :[117]; italics added. Saussure was not ignorant of reality when he proposed a
fixed-value, context-independent approach to language. Rather, as he saw it, objectivist science and the synchronic approach made a fixed-value system a theoretical necessity.
As stated previously, for contemporary linguists focusing on the problem of real language and real communication, it is not a theoretical necessity, but rather, a theoretical stum-
bling block.
5.2.3.3. Revolutionary response to the problem of meaning
