The Quotidian Practice of Semantics for Philosophical Analyses

Semantics, a branch of study within the larger disciplines of both philosophy and linguistics, is foundationally connected to the construction and conveyance of meaning. Philosophers routinely practice semantics by analytically studying textual language expressing abstract concepts in order to accurately construe it. However, the practice of semantics need not be reserved for only the philosophers and linguists among us. Given the universality with which practical semantics can boost the construction and meaning of almost any given topic, I believe that both practitioners and theoreticians in most all fields could benefit greatly by developing even a basic, informal system for practicing semantics.

What follows is by no means a technical or academic method for practicing semantics; it is merely an imperfect system that I have, with the benefit of a modicum of knowledge on the subject, stumbled upon through experience to enhance my appreciation and understanding of subjects as varied as philosophy and international tax law. I have found practicing semantics particularly helpful in studying technical subjects which require precise thought in order to be grasped accurately. Likewise, the practice of some rudimentary form of semantics will also obviously enhance one’s appreciation for non-technical subjects such as, let’s say, literature. One must, based on their unique personal and professional development goals, decide whether the cognitive effort necessitated to delve into semantic detours is worth it if one is engaged for mere personal enjoyment or leisure.

My approach is, at its core, lexicological in nature. I usually, as I imagine do most people, intuit the meaning of unfamiliar words through the context within which such words are employed. While that doesn’t necessarily help me understand the definitions of such words, the contextual reference does nonetheless facilitate enough meaning making on my part that I’m able to comprehend, to a lesser or greater degree of accuracy, the broader message. Though the intuitive approach is otherwise perfectly fine, such a lax approach is, at least in my opinion, wholly inadequate with respect to technical issues that demand a precise understanding and/or issues that bear real-world consequences.

I have found that in such cases a proper lexical inquiry should precede an eventual philosophical one. Immediately gravitating toward the dictionary upon contact with unfamiliar words, though certainly helpful, is not optimal. Referencing the dictionary permits a meaningful (no pun intended) understanding of the verbiage. However, gaining a precise, overall understanding of the subject matter requires the effort to gain a deeper—technical, one might say—understanding of both key terms and, based on their placement, other important words the meaning to which is not sufficiently disambiguated through contextual reference.

Getting to the nuts and bolts, I have found the following framework for practicing semantics illuminating:

Step 1. Upon initial encounter with an unfamiliar word, before referencing the dictionary, it is helpful to take a moment to ponder its meaning using such word’s context and one’s own current vocabulary.

Step 2. Look up the root words (i.e., the prefix, base, suffix, what have you) constituting such word. Root words are the irreducible morphemes that represent the smallest unit of lexical meaning.

Step 3. Based on the meaning of the constituent root words, try defining the word. This step, in most all cases, helps me to get to an approximate, though not precise, meaning of the word; notwithstanding, this is, for reasons mentioned ahead, the most important step in the study process.

Step 4. Look up the dictionary definition of the word.

Step 5. Compare the dictionary definition of the word with the root-based construction of the meaning of the word. Assess how far off the mark the root-based construction of the meaning of the word is from its dictionary definition and how the two could be reconciled based on the connotative range of the root words.

As tangentially mentioned above, Step 3 above has proven to be most transformative. A precise grasp of immediate key terms aside, it has greatly sharpened my intuition regarding unfamiliar words in general. I realized that this is facilitated by the fact that despite my unfamiliarity with the dictionary definition of unfamiliar word complexes, I slowly developed an understanding of the connotation of common root words. This permits me the meaning to at least a portion of unfamiliar words. Moreover, facility with root words has also enabled me to associate words that I am unfamiliar with, with those I am familiar with.

Over time this lexicological practice has not only helped to consistently point me in the right direction for inferring the meaning of new verbiage but it has also greatly enhanced my appreciation for the science of language. The centrality of Step 3 to this framework is such that Step 1 above becomes maximally beneficial only to those who have already dedicated some time developing an aptitude for root words. Otherwise the first step in the process does not bear enough fruit to justify the effort in its performance. This is not a game that offers immediate payoff.

Though intellectually effortful, this semantic practice has the capacity to eventually pay dividends well in excess of the upfront effort it demands. Those committed to this practice will undoubtedly see that over time, due to a higher lexical aptitude, the practice becomes less effortful. I have found this practice to be unquestionably contributory to my personal and professional development and I feel privileged to be able to share it with those of similar interests.