by God's Little Boy
© MakeshiftDarkroom.com 2025
Posted 12/4/25

Semantics has to do with the science of meaning. This piece concerns the breakdown of semantics within conflicting human relationships. In the practical sense of rhetorical semantics there are perhaps two basic principles.

1. There is always an intended meaning behind what is communicated.

2. There is always an interpretive understanding of what is being communicated.

On the part of the communicator the first goal of semantics should be to properly communicate an intended meaning. On the part of the hearer the first goal of semantics should be to properly take the communicator's meaning, and to not misinterpret, either intentionally or unintentionally or for any reason or motive, the intended meaning of the communicator.

Meaning can sometimes be unclear, but most of the time this is not where semantic breakdown occurs. More times than not sematic breakdown occurs when the hearer misinterprets or even misrepresents what is communicated. The communicator is sure of his meaning, but it is the hearer, for any number of reasons, who may not properly follow or take his meaning. It is the duty of the hearer, therefore, to help the communicator out by properly hearing and understanding his intended meaning. If the hearer listens carefully without any ill motives or personal agendas he should not have too much trouble taking away the intended meaning behind what is communicated. If a man's meaning could be taken two different ways do we not owe it to him to first give him the benefit of the doubt, at least long enough for him to clarify his meaning? Is this not the reasonable service of love?

The social status of an individual can influence a perceived meaning. The words of well known and reputable people are well received, even if what they say sounds controversial or questionable; while the words of unpopular or undesirable people may be questioned or rejected even when they communicate what is widely received. When someone hears a reputable source say something questionable the hearer will quickly analyze the statement and seek to apply the best supporting interpretation that affirms both the statement and the communicator. Billy Graham could make an unorthodox sounding statement and people would say, "that's true, I know what he means by that." But if some unknown person speaks the same thing people might say, "what kind of tripe is this babbler spouting?" The hearer's response would be influenced so because they have already decided that such a one is an invalid source and unworthy of being heard. The difference is the willing readiness to take the meaning of one over another. So we see in this that semantics can oftentimes be selective and biased on the part of the hearer where there is respect of persons. Most people are strongly biased by where individuals fall within a given "pecking order" of perceived importance. A pecking order is a scale or numerical value system where individuals are ranked and is most often based upon the hollow shell of perception as well as comparison, according to natural preference. Few people are willing to hear and receive truth objectively through whomever it comes. People follow popularity and are strongly swayed by personalities and endorsement from high places as well as their own perceptions and prejudices.

Sometimes breakdowns in semantics come because of a strong need or desire to discredit a communicator for these kinds of social reasons, as well as selfish reasons. When communication becomes a disagreement that develops into an argument sometimes the hearer becomes an opponent instead of an interpreter and intended meaning takes a back seat to selective interpretation.

If a hearer desires, for any reason, to discredit or disqualify a communicator the hearer might take sematic breakdown a step further into intentional misrepresentation. When this happens it is no longer about understanding meaning, it is done to eliminate the communicator from relevance. If the hearer doesn't want the communicator to have any say in anything he certainly won't have much of a willingness to hear let alone interpret what this "intruder" is saying in the first place.

If I don't like someone I might call their meaning into question for the purpose of discrediting them in the eyes of others in order to fortify my own relevance and personal interests. Semantic maneuvering can be used as an effective weapon in character assassination (a form of theft, as well as murder) – just as we see in political contests. This was done to Jesus. The scribes and pharisees broke down semantics on purpose in an attempt to bring Christ to naught. They were not at all interested in taking Christ's meaning, they just wanted him gone. This was especially true after they discovered that they could not prevail over him in rhetoric. They had taken control of the institution of Judaism centered in the temple and were using it as a high ground of personal advantage over anyone outside of their monopoly of authority, and it seemed so legitimate because after all, this was the faith, and they were the "holy" guardians and custodians of it. Up until this point they had persuaded a large popular following that they were the chief people. When an opposition wants someone gone and out of the picture, or at least completely neutralized under foot, one of the things that will be done is to wage war against their words by contradiction and misrepresentation. What coveted thing is so precious that the lust for it could turn an otherwise simple brotherly hearer into such a determined and calculated adversary?

Back to Snapshots

Doctrinal Statement

A Safe Light in a Dark World.