Ever feel like you’re talking to someone, using the exact same words, but somehow you’re existing in two completely different universes? It’s frustrating. It’s basically the human condition. In 1923, two scholars named C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards decided to tackle this specific brand of madness. They wrote The Meaning of Meaning, a book that is, honestly, a bit of a beast to read but changed how we understand communication forever.
They weren't just linguists. Ogden was a polymath who later created Basic English, and Richards was a literary critic. Together, they looked at the messiness of human language and realized we don't actually talk to each other; we just throw symbols at each other and hope the other person’s brain translates them the same way ours did. Most of the time, it doesn't. This book isn't some dry grammar guide. It’s an autopsy of why we misunderstand each other.
The Triangle That Explains Everything
The core of The Meaning of Meaning is something called the Semiotic Triangle. Or the Triangle of Reference. Call it whatever you want, but it’s the skeleton of every conversation you’ve ever had.
Think about a dog.
🔗 Read more: Why It Is Well With My Soul Lyrics Still Hit So Hard After 150 Years
When I say the word "dog," that’s the Symbol. It’s just sounds or ink on a page. Then there’s the actual four-legged, barking creature sitting on your porch. That’s the Referent. The third point of the triangle is your Thought or Reference. Here’s the kicker: there is no direct line between the word "dog" and the actual dog. The only way they connect is through your brain.
If I grew up being chased by a mean Doberman, my "thought" point of the triangle is filled with fear. If you grew up with a cuddly Golden Retriever, your point is filled with warmth. We use the same symbol, but we aren't talking about the same thing at all. Ogden and Richards argued that most of our "great debates" in philosophy, politics, and religion are just people fighting over symbols because they assume everyone has the same "thought" point in their triangle. They don’t.
Words Are Not Things
This sounds obvious, right? But we act like it isn't. We treat words like they have some magical, inherent power. Ogden and Richards called this "Word Magic."
It’s the weird superstition that by naming something, we capture its essence. We see this in how people get genuinely angry over definitions. Think about how much digital ink is spilled over what counts as "art" or "freedom" or "justice." We treat these words as if they are solid objects we can weigh and measure. In reality, they are just placeholders for a massive, vibrating web of personal experiences and cultural baggage.
The authors were obsessed with clearing out this "linguistic superstition." They wanted us to realize that language is a tool, not a mirror of reality. It’s more like a map. And as the saying goes, the map is not the territory. When we forget that, we start living in the map and ignore the actual ground we're walking on.
Why This 100-Year-Old Book Is Still Vital
You’d think after a century, we would’ve figured this out.
Look at social media. It is a literal factory for the "Symbol-Referent" disconnect. We see a headline—a symbol—and immediately attach our own internal "Thought." We react to our own thoughts, not the actual reality behind the headline. Ogden and Richards predicted this kind of chaos. They saw how easily language could be used to manipulate people through emotive meaning.
They made a huge distinction between referential language (scientific, descriptive, "the water is 100 degrees") and emotive language (aimed at stirring feelings, "this is a disgusting betrayal"). Most of our daily talk is a messy soup of both. When someone says, "That’s a beautiful sunset," they aren't giving you a meteorological report. They are expressing a feeling. The problem starts when we treat emotive statements like they are hard facts.
📖 Related: How to Operate NutriBullet Without Breaking Your Blender (or Your Ears)
The Problem With Definitions
Most people think the solution to a misunderstanding is a dictionary. Ogden and Richards would probably laugh at that. They dedicated a huge chunk of The Meaning of Meaning to showing how definitions are often circular.
If you look up a word, you get more words. It’s words all the way down.
They proposed that we need to look at "functions" of language instead. What is the speaker trying to do?
- Are they pointing to a fact?
- Are they expressing a feeling?
- Are they trying to get you to do something?
- Are they just keeping the conversation going (phatic communication)?
If you don't know which function is being used, you're going to have a bad time.
The Critics and the Complexity
Is the book perfect? No. It’s incredibly dense. Even for philosophy nerds, the prose can be a slog.
Some critics, like the later philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, would argue that Ogden and Richards stayed too focused on the "mental" side of things. Wittgenstein eventually moved toward the idea that "meaning is use"—that words get their power from the "language games" we play in social settings, not just private thoughts in our heads.
🔗 Read more: Smallest U.S. State Population: What Most People Get Wrong
There's also the critique that the Semiotic Triangle is too simple. It doesn't fully account for power dynamics or how history shapes what symbols mean to entire groups of people. But as a starting point? It’s legendary. It forced people to stop looking at language as a transparent window and start looking at it as a distorted lens.
How to Actually Use This Today
You don't need to read all 300+ pages of academic jargon to get the value out of this. You can start applying "Triangle Thinking" immediately to stop half the arguments in your life.
Slow down the translation. When someone says something that triggers you, ask yourself: "What is the Referent here?" Are they actually talking about the thing you think they are, or is their triangle wired differently?
Identify the "Word Magic." When you find yourself getting heated over a definition, stop. You're fighting over the symbol. Shift the conversation to the "Referent"—the actual real-world actions or objects involved.
Watch for the Emotive Shift. In every meeting or news clip, try to separate the descriptive facts from the emotive fluff. If you strip away the "outrageous" and the "unbelievable," what is the actual data left on the table? Usually, not much.
Stop assuming your "Common Sense" is common. Your "Thought" point in the triangle is built from your specific life. No one else has had your life. Therefore, no one else has your exact meanings.
Next Steps for the Curious
If you want to go deeper into how language shapes your reality, start by observing your own conversations for one day. Don't try to change them. Just watch for the "Symbol" vs. "Referent" gap. Every time you feel a ping of confusion, visualize the triangle. Ask the other person, "When you use that word, what do you actually see in your head?" It sounds a bit weird, but it’s the fastest way to bridge the gap that Ogden and Richards identified a hundred years ago. You can also look into the field of General Semantics, which was heavily influenced by this work and offers even more practical tools for staying sane in a world made of words.