Article · March 018 citations reads 50,772 author: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects

4. Conclusion 
In conclusion, it should be primarily stated that all three authors certainly have one 
common point – they all agree on the complexity of the topic, especially with regards to the 
difficulties numerous linguists and semanticists had with trying to define the word “meaning”. 
Therefore, it should not look surprising when each and every one of them has established his 
own theory and, in this case, classification. It should also not wonder when we take a look at 
these theories and see tremendous differences between approaches because the basic term, the 
one which represents the core of every research conducted in relation to this topic, is yet to be 
precisely defined and adopted by linguists worldwide. The controversy that engulfs “the 
meaning” has to be resolved for it is one of the main problems in semantics. 
When all three approaches are compared, it can be said that Palmer has given probably 
the simplest overview of the categorization of meaning but the lack of precisely defined terms 
which would be used to designate a specific type of meaning is certainly something that 
should have been avoided. 
On the other side, Lyons has endeavored to establish a comprehensive, or “all-
inclusive”, approach while dissecting every possible aspect of meaning and also to provide a 
linguistic and philosophical background for his classification. With his system of 
classifications and subclassifications, he managed to create something similar to the syntax 
tree with various constituents of the phenomenon “meaning” included. 
Lastly, between Lyons and Palmer, Leech’s approach appears to be the “mid-level” 
one on the scale where the complexity minimum and maximum are Palmer’s and Lyons’ 
approaches respectively. However, it can be stated that his overview might be the one which is 
formed in the clearest way with fewest ambiguities. Additionally, the structure of his approach 
may appear to be the user-friendliest one and the language used to describe his viewpoint 
might be considered as simple as Palmer’s. 

---

15