Is the phrase "it's just a matter of semantics" meaningless?
I hear this phrase from time to time, and I really don't know what it means. Two people are debating, and one says "the difference between your position and mine is just a matter of semantics." This would seem to me to be quite an important difference. That is, if one person means one thing, and the other person means something else, then they really do have different positions.
If they said "it is just a matter of terminology" or "just a matter of phrasing" I would get it. But if someone says "we differ only what we mean" ... it kinda makes me chuckle because it seems to be saying that their meaning is not important, as if the argument was primary and the positions they take a secondary consideration.
So I started looking around for examples of this. I guess it seems that there is a popular notion that semantics is about very fine distinctions, such as: I think it's just a matter of semantics, not so much a difference per se
Another interpretation seems to be that semantics is the difference between two ways of saying the same thing: I usually involve the students in the creation of classroom rules. To me, we are just agreeing upon how we can make our classroom a safe and fun place to be. I don’t know if it’s really so different from a DWS approach of having procedures, but “no rules.” Isn’t this just a matter of semantics?
Maybe it is just a way of stopping an annoying conversation: In ordinary conversations, when people debate a point and the words they are using for discussion they often backhand this disagreement with the phrase “It’s a matter of semantics.”
And then there is some usage that I simply don't understand: I recently spoke at a mens' event in which one of the participants asked me if having a good and noble heart was just a matter of semantics. -- In other words, does it really matter?
And also: The Argument for and against the 6-3-3-4 system of education has raged on as stakeholders give conflicting position on whether it stays or not .... the 6-3-3-4 policy is just a matter of semantics, the government cannot take decisions without due consultations.
Still, to me it is just a meaningless phrase. Am I missing an important meaning here?
Solution 1:
As a commenter points out, it's a pejorative use of the term semantics, but I don't see why language enthusiasts should take offense any more than politicians would get offended if someone says dismissively "it's just politics." The phrase has a meaning, which I'll try to clarify by analogy to contract law (I paraphrase the key parts from S. Schane's book Language and the Law).
Two basic approaches to the theory of contract law are the objective and the subjective doctrine. According to the objective doctrine, the only thing that matters in deciding a contractual dispute is the language of the contract, and its meaning according to conventionally accepted meanings of the words and grammatical constructions contained in the contract. According to the subjective doctrine, a contract is not binding unless a consensus ad idem, or "meeting of minds" is established: the parties to the contract have a mutual understanding about what the contract means.
If we think of debates as metaphorical contractual disputes, saying that some issue in a debate is "a matter of semantics" means that those who are raising it are too stubbornly wedded to the objective theory; they only care about the words being used, and do not bother to look at the intentions of the disputants. I think this can be a legitimate kind of concern to raise, but on the other hand, in debate one should not be granted a handicap for inarticulateness.
Solution 2:
The phrase "it's just a matter of semantics" is not a meaningless phrase. Two people can agree on meaning, and still differ on semantics.
Semantics is defined as
- the study of meaning (Wikipedia) - this definition does not apply in this case, because we are not talking about the practice of studying language.
- The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form - this refers to the semantics of a particular statement, that is, the meaning of that statement.
All this does is open a conversation on the nature of meaning. If the semantics of the conversation is defined as the meaning of their statements, how can it be that two people agree on meaning, and yet differ on semantics? The definition of semantics as the meaning of the utterances is not strictly correct. According to Wikipedia, meaning is derived not only from semantics, but also pragmatics. Semantics deals with the relationship of words (symbols) to their meaning. Pragmatics deal with how context affects meaning, and is one way that semantics does not reflect the complete picture when it comes to the meaning of a statement. In this way, the second definition is a loose, colloquial definition.
It is possible for semantics to vary from person to person. That is, the mapping between words and meaning for one person may not hold for another person. It is possible for two people to agree on a position (their intended meaning) and still disagree on the meaning of the words. This would be better described as a "matter of terminology" however a disagreement about terms to use might occur even if you agree on the meanings of the terms. The claim that it is a matter of semantics says specifically that you have a disagreement on the meanings of words.
An example of this (thanks to Bill Frank's comments) is two people arguing about same-sex marriage. In this scenario both take the position that laws need to change, and that same-sex unions should be supported legally. But one takes the position that gay people should be allowed to marry and have the legal rights that come with it. The other takes the position that civil unions should be accorded all the rights and privileges of marriage. The net effect is the same: same-sex couples gain key rights, but the positions differ on what to call this relationship. These debaters differ on semantics -- the meaning of the word "marriage" -- while meaning the same thing in terms of actions to change the world.
The phrase is misused when people intend to say only that the difference in position is very small. It is also misused when just trying to dismiss the other as not being worth the bother. While the difference in meaning that two people have over words is likely to be small, the phrase is referring specifically to people having a difference of meanings associated with words. Thus, some of the citations in the question are proper uses of the phrase.
I doubt if this answer is 100% correct, since the entire field of linguistics is highly philosophical, and there is still considerable disagreement among the various branches. This answer does clarify that "the semantics of a statement" is not necessarily the intended meaning of the speaker, nor is there necessarily a single "semantic meaning" of a given statement. I don't see a better answer than this one, so I am answering my own question, but I am very much grateful to the comments from others that have helped me clarify this concept. It seems, in the end, that this entire discussion, is just a matter of semantics, in more ways than one.