The phrase "it's just a matter of semantics" is not a meaningless phrase. Two people can agree on meaning, and still differ on semantics. Semantics is defined as
All this does is open a conversation on the nature of meaning. If the semantics of the conversation is defined as the meaning of their statements, how can it be that two people agree on meaning, and yet differ on semantics? The definition of semantics as the meaning of the utterances is not strictly correct. According to Wikipedia, meaning is derived not only from semantics, but also pragmatics. Semantics deals with the relationship of words (symbols) to their meaning. Pragmatics deal with how context affects meaning, and is one way that semantics does not reflect the complete picture when it comes to the meaning of a statement. In this way, the second definition is a loose, colloquial definition. It is possible for semantics to vary from person to person. That is, the mapping between words and meaning for one person may not hold for another person. It is possible for two people to agree on a position (their intended meaning) and still disagree on the meaning of the words. This would be better described as a "matter of terminology" however a disagreement about terms to use might occur even if you agree on the meanings of the terms. The claim that it is a matter of semantics says specifically that you have a disagreement on the meanings of words. An example of this (thanks to Bill Frank's comments) is two people arguing about same-sex marriage. In this scenario both take the position that laws need to change, and that same-sex unions should be supported legally. But one takes the position that gay people should be allowed to marry and have the legal rights that come with it. The other takes the position that civil unions should be accorded all the rights and privileges of marriage. The net effect is the same: same-sex couples gain key rights, but the positions differ on what to call this relationship. These debaters differ on semantics -- the meaning of the word "marriage" -- while meaning the same thing in terms of actions to change the world. The phrase is misused when people intend to say only that the difference in position is very small. It is also misused when just trying to dismiss the other as not being worth the bother. While the difference in meaning that two people have over words is likely to be small, the phrase is referring specifically to people having a difference of meanings associated with words. Thus, some of the citations in the question are proper uses of the phrase. I doubt if this answer is 100% correct, since the entire field of linguistics is highly philosophical, and there is still considerable disagreement among the various branches. This answer does clarify that "the semantics of a statement" is not necessarily the intended meaning of the speaker, nor is there necessarily a single "semantic meaning" of a given statement. I don't see a better answer than this one, so I am answering my own question, but I am very much grateful to the comments from others that have helped me clarify this concept. It seems, in the end, that this entire discussion, is just a matter of semantics, in more ways than one.
Semantic discord is the situation where two parties disagree on the definition of a word(s) that is essential to communicating or formulating the concept(s) being discussed. That is to say, the two parties basically understand two different meanings for the word, or they associate the word with different concepts. Such discord can lead to a semantic dispute, a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about the definition of a word or phrase. Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.[1][2] It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they are regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in philosophy. It is also sometimes held that when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.). Semantic disputes can result in the logical fallacy of equivocation. In politics, for example, semantic disputes can involve the meaning of words such as liberal, democrat, conservative, republican, progressive, free, welfare or socialist.[3] Semantic discord often arises due to differences in the cultural backgrounds or professional fields of the communicators. Any word or instance of communication that has its effectiveness reduced due to semantic discord is said to be semantically loaded, i.e., the information has semantic content and is "propositionally structured," wherein implicit beliefs are tacit.[4]
An example of semantic discord can be found in N-rays under pathological science. Avoiding semantic discord is a particular difficulty for language translators.
Semantics began its life in the late 19th century as a technical word in the field of semiotics, referring to such topics as the relation between signs and the things to which they refer. It was quickly adopted by the field of linguistics, and applied to the study of the meaning of words. When it is encountered in general use today (among non-specialists) the word is often seen in the phrase just arguing semantics, which appears to indicate that the speaker intends for semantics to signify something unimportant and trivial, or unrelated to the discussion.
The phrase doesn’t really indicate that the discussion is about something other than meaning, just that the precise nature of that meaning is not terribly important. This expression will occasionally puzzle people who understand that semantics has something to do with meaning, on the grounds that the meaning of words is of some importance in a discussion or argument. How has semantics come to be used to refer to two things that are fairly disparate in character: either meaning itself or unimportant things? It would appear to have gained this extended meaning over several decades, beginning in the middle of the 20th century. An early example of the broadened sense, used in a sneering fashion by Lewis Gannett, can be found in The New York Herald Tribune on June 15th, 1945:
Another article in the same paper, this one from 1956, shows semantics again being employed in a somewhat dismissive fashion, as the governor of the state of New York, W. Averell Harriman, used the word as he campaigned for the Democratic nomination for the presidency:
By the early 1960s arguing semantics has taken on a somewhat more refined meaning, referring more to a form of linguistic nit-picking than it did to a concerted attempt to decipher the true meaning of a word. Andrew Berding, in his 1962 book Foreign Affairs and You!, wrote “…the representative of the various departments spend too much time and mental energy arguing semantics and unimportant detail.” By the early 1960s we see the full phrase, just arguing semantics, being used to indicate that one is quibbling about something irrelevant or unknowable. It can be found in a transcript from a senate hearing from 1963, with testimony before the Committee on Armed Services:
Does this shift in usage indicate that semantics is now approaching a state of being a contronym (a word having two meanings that contradict one another)? Possibly, although it does not have quite the same degree of difference that such words often have, for instance cleave, which can mean both ‘to cut apart’ and ‘to stick together’. The phrase arguing semantics doesn’t really indicate that the discussion is about something other than meaning, just that the precise nature of that meaning is not terribly important. That's something to keep in mind if you find yourself in an argument with a linguist or a semiotician. |
When someone says a disagreement is related to semantics
Related Posts
Copyright © 2024 themosti Inc.
