Section 6.6 Denotation and connotation
[Content warning: the second part of this section mentions several examples of slurs — offensive words for people of a particular ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability, etc. If you decide that reading these might impact you negatively, please talk to your instructor.]
We use language not only to describe entities and situations, but also to express our attitude towards them. We can do so by stating such an attitude explicitly, but we can also do so by choosing a particular word. Imagine that Zoe comes home to find Aylin in the kitchen cooking, and that she says one of the following:
- (1a)
- What’s that smell, I like it!
- (1b)
- What’s that smell, I don’t like it!
The same word
smell is used in both cases, but if Zoe says (1a) we know that she likes the smell and if she says (1b) we know she does not like it. The reason we know is that she says so explicitly.
Now imagine the same situation, but this time Zoe says one of the following:
Again, if Zoe says (2a) we know that she likes the smell and if she says (2b) we know she does not like it at all. But how? No part of these sentences refers to Zoe or mentions the idea of liking. The only difference between the two sentences is the word that Zoe uses to refer to the smell of the food —
aroma in (2a) and
odor in (2b), so it must be the word choice that is telling us.
Again: how? The extension of the words
smell,
aroma and
odor are identical: if we can truthfully say ‘x is a
smell’ we can truthfully say ‘x is an
aroma’ or ‘x is an
odor’ as well. This should mean that their intension is identical as well, something like ‘a property detected by breathing in through the nose’.
However, while the intensions of the three words are identical to the extent that they outline the same extension of referents, they each express something different about the way the language user relates to the referent: by calling a smell
aroma, language users of English express that they like the smell, by calling it
odor, they express that they do not like it, and by simply calling it
smell, they do not express anything about themselves. Languages may even provide words for expressing different degrees of an attitude towards a referent — if we
really don’t like a smell, we can call it a
stench, and if we really like a smell, we can call it a
fragrance.
So, the intension of a word includes the descriptive components that allows us to determine their extension — this is sometimes called the
(primary) denotation of the word. In addition, the intension of a word can (but does not have to) include expressive components that allow us to determine what the language user thinks or feels about the referent — this is sometimes called the
connotation (or
secondary denotation).
Note that the word
connotation is used in different ways in different disciplines — in logic, it is sometimes used to refer to what we call
intension here (while denotation is used to refer to what we call
extension), in rhetoric and literary studies it is sometimes used to refer to any non-literal, evocative aspect of meaning. That different disciplines use terms in different ways is often not a problem, but it can become one in overlapping disciplines like logic, linguistics and literary studies, so make sure that you always know in which sense an author uses the term
connotation!
Both denotation and connotation are part of a word’s intension, then. This is reflected in dictionary definitions, which typically define
aroma as ‘a pleasant smell’,
fragrance as ‘a very pleasant smell’,
odor as ‘an unpleasant smell’ and
stench as ‘a very unpleasant smell’. However, denotation and connotation work in very different ways. Imagine that Zoe comes into the kitchen as Aylin is cooking and says one of the following:
- (3a)
- Is that the smell of garlic?
- (3b)
- Is that the fragrance of garlic?
- (3c)
- Is that the stench of garlic?
If there is a smell of garlic and Aylin wants to be truthful, she has to respond with
yes to any one of these questions, whether or not she herself likes the smell of garlic. In contrast, if what Zoe smells is not garlic but, for example, chives, Aylin would have to respond with
no to all these questions, whether or not she likes the smell of garlic.
In other words, the denotation of a word is involved in whether or not you can truthfully apply a word to a particular referent (or class of referents), and we can confirm or deny questions about it. The connotation, in contrast, is not involved in determining the truth of a statement, and we cannot confirm or deny it. Imagine the following dialogue:
- (4)
-
Zoe: Is that the stench of garlic?
Aylin: But I can see the chopped garlic right there next to the pan!
Aylin: Yes, but garlic smells nice, so there is no stench.
Aylin’s answer to Zoe’s question would be considered a lie, and her justification feels more like word-play than like a contribution to the conversation. The meaning components that make up the denotation of a word must be kept separate from those that make up its connotation. A full account of how this is possible will have to wait until
Chapter 8, but for now, we can imagine that the connotation is a kind of incidental thought that is communicated along with the main idea as though enclosed by metaphorical parentheses. The meaning of the word
stench would be something like this:
Connotations can involve any aspect of meaning that goes beyond the components of a word that outline its extension. This includes value judgments, emotional attitudes, and ideological stances.
Question 6.6.1.
Consider the following sets of words:
-
lazy, passive, lethargic, unhurried, easygoing, relaxed, laid back
-
businessman/businesswoman, entrepreneur, industrialist, suit, capitalist, tycoon, class enemy
-
dog, mongrel, mutt, man’s best friend, flea-bag
For each set, think of a sentence where all of the words could occur in a particular position, and describe the value judgments that are expressed by each choice of word.
Subsection Slurs
A special case of connotation is presented by slurs — offensive words that degrade people based on aspects such as ethnicity (think of the
N‑word or words like
Chink or
Polack), sex class (think of words like
bitch or
slut), sexual orientation (think of words like
fag or
dyke), ability (think of words like
cripple or
idiot) etc. Such slurs have a denotational meaning that can typically be expressed in neutral terms — sometimes as a single word, sometimes as a paraphrase —, and a connotational meaning that expresses the language user’s view of the relevant group as having less value, or even less humanity, than other people. As is characteristic of connotative meanings, these degrading meaning components are difficult to affirm or deny.
Imagine Zoe telling her grandfather about her linguistics studies, mentioning the name of her professor. Her grandfather, who is not very familiar with Eastern European names and the languages they come from, then says one of the following:
- (5a)
- Your professor is called “Stefanowitsch”? I bet he is a Pole.
- (5b)
- Your professor is called “Stefanowitsch”? I bet he is a Polack.
In the first case, Zoe’s grandfather is using the neutral word
Pole, making a single statement:
- (5a’)
- ‘the person called Stefanowitsch is Polish’
In the second case, he is using the ethnic slur
Polack and in doing so is making two statements:
- (5b’)
-
‘the person called Stefanowitsch is Polish’
(‘Polish people have less value than other people’)
The first statement is identical to that he would make by using the neutral word
Pole, showing that the denotation of the words
Pole and
Polack is identical. The second statement is due to the connotation of the word
Polack — as is typical of connotations, it cannot be affirmed or contradicted. Zoe can respond to the statements in (5a) or (5b) with
yes (if she knows her professor to be Polish),
no (if she knows her professor not to be Polish), or
I don’t know (if she does not know).
In both cases, these responses only apply to the denotation — the connotation of (5b) is not contradicted or affirmed. Instead, Zoe implicitly accepts it as true regardless of her response! The only possibility she has to contradict it is to switch to the metalinguistic level and say something like (6):
- (6)
- You should not refer to people from Poland as ‘Polack’.
Zoe’s grandfather could then feign ignorance of why one should not do so, claiming that this was a perfectly normal word when he was younger, that he has nothing against Poles, that some of his best friends are Poles, etc. He could not do any of these things if, instead of relying on the connotation of the word
Polack, he had made the statement in (5b) explicitly, by saying something like the following:
- (7)
- I bet he is a Pole, and Poles are worthless.
This is what makes slurs so insidious: not only do language users using a slur suggest that the group referred to has less value or humanity than other people, but they do so in a way that makes it difficult to contradict them or to hold them responsible for the connotations of the slur.
Subsection
CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0. Written by Anatol Stefanowitsch
