Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Submit your manuscript through SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Communication Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ELLIS, D. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Fixing Communicative Meaning

A Coherentist Theory

DONALD G. ELLIS

This article attempts to stabilize the concept of communicative meaning, responding to theorists who maintain that meaning has lost its moorings, that historical and linguistic forces disturb the idea of meaning so thoroughly it is impossible to achieve. In the first section, I argue that the assumption of semantic realism is necessary to any intellectual or disciplinary concept of communication. This section also distinguishes between meaning and significance: Meaning is a purposeful and constrained sharable message, and significance is the relationship of the message to other realms of importance. The second section outlines a coherentist epistemology for meaning by addressing issues in intelligibility, order, and verification. The final section contrasts a message perspective with a code perspective and explains how a theory of communication, not language, can use various considerations pragmatically (e.g., referential rules, intentionality, context) to bound meaning and keep it from slipping into incessant semiosis.

Communication Research, Vol. 22, No. 5, 515-544 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/009365095022005001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 LeadershipHome page
G. T. Fairhurst
Reframing The Art of Framing: Problems and Prospects for Leadership
Leadership, June 1, 2005; 1(2): 165 - 185.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Discourse SocietyHome page
D. G. Ellis
Book Reviews
Discourse Society, January 1, 1998; 9(1): 103 - 104.


Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
D. G. ELLIS
Coherence Patterns in Alzheimer's Discourse
Communication Research, August 1, 1996; 23(4): 472 - 495.
[Abstract]