The question of meaning remains a central concern among philosophers and linguists, particularly in understanding how language conveys different forms of interpretation. While meaning encompasses a broad range of linguistic elements, there is ongoing debate regarding its precise boundaries. Rather than revisiting abstract philosophical disputes—especially those rooted in structuralist interpretations that link meaning to intangible concepts like beauty, love, or goodness—this paper focuses on a critical linguistic phenomenon: the treatment of English homophones and homographs. These lexical items often present challenges in communication, comprehension, and language instruction due to their surface-level similarities and underlying semantic differences.
This study critiques the representation of homophones and homographs in existing literature and provides a reanalysis grounded in Semantic Theory, particularly drawing from David Lewis’s (1983) distinctions between “Use” and “Referential” meaning. By reexamining available data, the paper illustrates how these word types function differently in context, despite orthographic or phonological similarities. The findings highlight a gap in semantic categorization where the nuance of usage and reference is often overlooked. Through this analytical lens, the study reveals the intricate ways in which homophones and homographs complicate meaning in English and underscores the need for a more nuanced, theory-informed approach to their study