'Meaning' is the function of a sentence or an expression. "Referring" or "mentioning" and "truth or falsity" are functions of the use of sentences or expressions. To assign the meaning of an expression is to give the general directions for its use to refer to or mention a particular object or person. In other words, to assign meaning to an expression is to know the referent of the expression. Thus, on the one hand, meaning is associated with the convention of use, and on the other hand, to assign the meaning of a sentence is to give the general directions for its use in making true or false assertions. In short, to know the meaning of a sentence is to know how to use the sentence. Meaning of a sentence thus cannot be identified with the assertion of the sentence and meaning of an expression cannot be identified with an object. The truth-value of a sentence thus determines when we use the sentence in the language system. Thus for him, to talk about meaning is to talk about convention and rules.
Strawson vehemently argues that Russell's arguments are not free from errors because he identified 'referring' with 'meaning'. For Russell, there is no difference between the meaning of a sentence and the sentence itself. But according to Strawson, there are differences found between meaning of a sentence and the sentence itself. For example, "If I talk about my handkerchief, I can perhaps, produce the object I am referring to out of my pocket. But I can't produce the meaning of the expression, 'my handkerchief', out of my pocket".6 Take another example, "The table is covered with books". In this case, arguing in line with Strawson, it is submitted that this sentence does not have any designated referent(s)7, but it is meaningful. It is so because it does not convey which table we should refer to. This sentence is meaningful without the referent(s). So it is a spurious use of the sentence that contrasts to its genuine use. Though it appears that we have used this sentence in our language system, but in reality it is not so. Thus for him, spurious use of a sentence contradicts the genuine use of that sentence. To know the meaning of a sentence is to know how it is used in a contextual paradigm of a language system. Thus spurious use of a sentence bears meaning only but not referent. In this regard, Strawson submits that knowing the meaning of a sentence has nothing to do with its referents.
| 6 | Ibid, p.327 |
| 7 | The expression 'identified reference' is understood as the cognizer refers to an object with a particular name. But the example "The table is covered with books" does not refer to any book in particular, nor does it refer to a table as an individual object. |