The semantic meaning of the word antenna. Humanitarian sciences

Dotsenko Evgeny Leonidovich

An attempt is made to uncover the underlying interpersonal communication processes by which ancient layers of social experience are inherited by man. It is shown how these processes are actually reproduced in interpersonal interaction how they provide a constant revitalization of the underlying relationship patterns

Motivational semantics in the structure of archetypal consciousness (on the example of the study of mythology "Transforming

Borko Tatyana Iosifovna.

Motivational and semantic aspects of the phenomenon of the emergence of the mythology of likening a beast in the archaic consciousness are considered. The representations of the semantics of "transformation" into an animal by shamans are described, obtained on the basis of the reconstruction of plots about an animal-totem, ritual practice of initiations and shamanic ritual attire.

Semantics of visual communications

Mosin V.G.

A mathematical model of the semantic content of a visual message and an experimental scheme are proposed that allow, in accordance with this model, to evaluate its reception in numerical form.

Semantics of speech: name, word, statement

Ushakova Tatyana Nikolaevna

The term "semantics" refers in this work to that area of ​​psychological functioning, where the subject "comprehends", "understands" phenomena or aspects of reality, including linguistic elements. The central moments of the formation of semantics in ontogenesis are considered: its initial manifestations in infants, development in early period, the emergence of the phenomenon of naming. The psychological and psychophysiological content of the semantics of the word is revealed. A new understanding of the process of verbal formulation of thought is proposed.

Semantics of Religious Values ​​in Aggressive Behavior

This article continues 1 study of the semantic features of everyday religious consciousness. Manifestations of religious values ​​in persons with aggressive behavior are considered. The subjects were people who function normatively in society and differ from each other in the level of aggressive reactions. High performance aggressive behavior are not a criterion for deviance. The results of the study allow us to consider religious values ​​not just as part of religion, but as a regulator of social behavior. The dynamics shows that religious values ​​are internalized into the structure of public consciousness. Subjects with more high rates aggressiveness show a simpler differentiation and understanding of values, while subjects with normative indicators show a broader understanding of religious values.

Semantics of ideas about work and leisure in the image of the world of professionals

Abdullaeva M.M.

The article is devoted to the description of the semantic characteristics of ideas about work and rest of specialists related to professions of different subject of work - chemists-analysts and doctors. The main idea of ​​the study is based on the proposition that the content of professional activity is reflected in the semantic categorical structures that determine the special typification of the objects of the world, characteristic of a particular "world of profession". The aim of the work was to search for semantic features of the studied representations that describe the subjective meaning of work and rest. different specialists and can serve as the basis for the development of psychological support programs for their work.

Semantics of manipulative behavior among student teachers

Basov Dmitry Alexandrovich

The results of the study using the method of semantic differential of perception by students of pedagogical specialties of the situation of manipulation are presented. The dependence of the assessment of the victim of manipulation and the manipulator on their cultural identification is shown. The semantic features of the subjects' self-assessment in the context of a situation of manipulation are considered. A tendency towards criticality and a lower assessment of Russian characters, compared to American ones, is revealed. Studies of the propensity to manipulate and the level of development of empathy among students of pedagogical specialties complete the portrait of the personality of future teachers. The results obtained can be used to clarify the psychological portrait of the manipulator and the victim of manipulation, as well as to develop methods and techniques for protecting against manipulation.

Semantics of psychological concepts associated with deviant behavior in adolescents

Pronin M.V., Koroleva O.V.

The work is devoted to the psychological aspects of deviations in the behavior of adolescents, their possible reasons and developed some options to minimize data variance.

Verbal semantics of ideas about urban monuments among the youth of the metropolis

Bogdanovskaya I.M., Didenko P.A., Koroleva N.N.

The article presents a psychosemantic analysis of verbal representations of the city monuments of St. Petersburg in the minds of young people. Individual meanings and meanings associated with monuments can be considered as psychological mechanisms for constructing urban identity. In the course of the experimental study, the following groups of personal meanings of city monuments were identified: experiencing interest and respect for the history of imperial St. Petersburg and Russia, pride associated with the naval traditions of St. Petersburg; "humanization" of official monuments significant for the city and Russian history figures; the formation of a "framework" of urban space, in which monuments serve as reference points; formation of personal, emotional ties with a specific city monument; interest in urban folklore and mythology; interest in the work of A.S. Pushkin; associative connection with urban subcultures; experiencing acts of vandalism against monuments. This paper presents an analysis of verbal representations psychosemantic urban monuments of St. Petersburg in the minds of young people. Individual values ​​and meanings associated with the monuments can be seen as a psychological construct urban identity. In the experimental study identified the following groups of personal meanings: the experience of interest and respect for the history of imperial St. Petersburg, Russia, and the pride associated with naval traditions of St. Petersburg Petersburg; "Humanizing" the official monuments significant for the city and the history of the Russian; the formation of "skeleton" of the urban space in which monuments to serve as reference points; formation of personal, emotional connections with a specific urban monument; interest in urban folklore and mythology; interest in the work of A. Pushkin; associative connection with the urban subcultures; experience acts of vandalism against the monuments.

What is "Semantics" and what does it mean? The meaning and interpretation of the term in dictionaries and encyclopedias:

Psychological Dictionary» Semantics

(from the Greek semantikos - denoting). There are several types of C.1. Linguistic S. is a branch of linguistics that studies the lexical meanings of words and expressions, changes in their meanings (the meaning of a word, figure of speech, or grammatical form). Syn. semasiology.2. Logical logic is a branch of mathematical logic that studies the relationship between formally constructed calculi and the real content reflected in them; meaningful interpretation of these calculations. Distinguish between descriptive and purely logical S. 1st explores the relationship of the sign to the content of the concept (signification) and the relationship of the sign to the thing that it designates (denotation). 2nd is building artificial systems semantic rules that establish the conditions for the truth of the language. Although logical reasoning deals with fully formalized languages, opinions have been expressed about the applicability of its basic concepts to the analysis of meanings in natural languages. (R. Carnap, A. Tarsky.)3. Psycholinguistics (see) distinguishes between objective and subjective S. The 1st is the semantic system of language meanings, the 2nd is represented as an associative system that exists in the individual's brain. In this regard, semantic features are divided into those related to the field of associations (subjective) and belonging to the semantic components of the vocabulary, taken in an abstract-logical (objective) plan. The psycholinguistic concept "semantic field" is a collection of words together with their associations ("associates"). There are several attempts to experimentally determine subjective semantic fields and relationships within them using the methods of associative experiment (J. Dees) and conditioned reflex(A. R. Luria, O. S. Vinogradova). See also Semantic Radical Method, Psychosemantics, Semiotics, Subjective Semantic Space.

Big Encyclopedic Dictionary» Semantics

(from the Greek. semantikos - denoting) -1) the meaning of language units. 2) The same as semasiology, a section of linguistics that studies the meaning of language units, primarily words. 3) One of the main sections of semiotics.

Psychological Dictionary» Semantics

(semantic(s)) Originally, the field of philology dealing with the meaning of words. Nowadays it is more often understood as the study of MEANING in general. According to Szasz (1961), Noshe (1966) and Rycroft (1966), psychoanalysis - or at least parts of it - is a semantic theory because it shows that DREAMS and neurotic SYMPTOMS make sense.

Psychological Dictionary» Semantics

Word meanings.

Psychological Dictionary» Semantics

The semantic meaning of a word, a stable phrase (phraseological unit), a simple phrase, grammatical forms, texts, etc.

Psychological Dictionary» Semantics

The study of meaning in any of its manifestations.

sociological dictionary» Semantics

(from the Greek semantikos - denoting, sign) - English. semantics; German semantics. 1. A branch of linguistics and logic that studies problems related to the meaning, meaning and interpretation of signs and sign expressions. 2. A branch of semiotics that studies sign systems as a means of expressing meaning, that is, the rules for interpreting signs and expressions made up of them.

sociological dictionary» Semantics

A branch of linguistics that studies from semiotic (semiotics - the science of signs and sign systems) positions the meanings and meanings of language units (words, sentences, etc.), its expressions and logical forms involved in its generation, construction and change. In computer programming, it defines the essence of codes, commands, messages and covers a set of operations that serve to determine or encode the meaning of data.

sociological dictionary» Semantics

(semantics) - a branch of linguistics dealing with meaning. attempts to systematically study the meanings of minimally significant semantic elements and their combinations with more complex meaningful expressions. Semantic connections seeks to explain a variety of theories, ranging from behavioral psychology, component analysis, and theories based on modern logic, to sociological explanations that take meaning for the inevitably local achievement of conversational discussions. Currently, in logical semantics, the search is directed towards a unified syntax and semantics. In this quest, syntax develops as a structural means for meanings ranging from "possible worlds" to "true values". The project comes to a technical revision of the principle of verification, according to which the value must be equal to the totality of true conditions. If the program is successful, it will have great importance for sociology.

Philosophical Dictionary» Semantics

Section of semiotics.

Philosophical Dictionary» Semantics

(Greek "semantikoz", "meaning") - a section of linguistics that studies the meaning of words and expressions. In a broad sense - "meaning".

Philosophical Dictionary» Semantics

branch of linguistics and logic, which explores the problems associated with the meaning, meaning and interpretation of signs and sign expressions. In a broad sense, semantics, along with syntactics and pragmatics, is part of the semiotics of a complex of philosophical and scientific theories, the subject of which is the properties of sign systems.

Philosophical Dictionary» Semantics

(from the Greek. semanyikos - denoting) - 1) the philosophical science of the meaning and meanings of concepts and expressions; 2) the same as semasiology, a branch of linguistics that studies the meaning of language units, primarily words.

Philosophical Dictionary» Semantics

A branch of semiotics that studies the meaning and meaning of various sign forms, including linguistic signs and expressions. Singling out S. as part of semiotics, along with the theory of syntax - syntactics and the theory of the use of signs - pragmatics belongs to C. W. Morris, who limited the meaning of the term S. (1946), which was previously used as a synonym for the term "semiotics". As a theory of meaning, S. is usually subdivided into a theory of meaning and a theory of reference. The first deals with the connection of the sign form with the corresponding linguistic concepts and representations (the meaning or intension of the sign), the second deals with the relationship of the sign form to extralinguistic (extra-sign) reality (the denotation or extension of the sign). The first relation is also called eignification (meaning), and the second - designation, or reference. "sign. In linguistics, the term S. was introduced at the end of the 19th century by M. Breal, in connection with the study of the historical change in linguistic meanings. A more traditional name for the corresponding research areas - semasiology (for example, the work of M. M. Pokrovsky "Semasiological research in the field of ancient languages", 1895). In linguistics, the term "semasiology" is often used as a synonym for S. Semasiology studies the historical and dialectal features of linguistic meanings, starting from the linguistic form and without considering the problem of reference.In linguistic S. semasiology, onomasiology (the theory of naming) is opposite. Here, the opposite direction of semantic analysis is adopted: from subject areas and conceptual contents to their linguistic expression. Problems of naming are associated with the theory of reference. In onomasiology, questions of word formation and polysemy are considered. , phraseology, etc. Linguistic S. includes not only lexicology, but also S. sentences, statements, text. The development of the latter was greatly influenced by analytic philosophy (S. sentences) and structuralism (S. text). For S. the problems of translation, synonymy and homonymy, the meaning of normative, imperative, expressive, and other linguistic forms of expression are topical. Logical S. began to be actively developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, although its origins can be traced back to antiquity. S., considered in the theory of reference, is also called extensional S. (from Latin extensio - extension, extension). The extension, or scope of the concept, was understood in medieval logic as a set (class) of objects denoted (called) by the word. Intension (from lat. inten - internal tension, strengthening) was understood as content, i.e. as a set conceivable signs called object. Extensional S. is the S. of nomination (naming), and intensional S. is signification (meaning): “... everyone almost claims the same thing, namely: one should distinguish between what appellatives mean and what they name. Singular objects are named, and universals are signified" (John of Salisbury, "Metalogic"; 12th century). In modern times, the problems of S. are being developed by J. S. Mill, G. Frege, B. Russell, and others. An especially important milestone was the research of G. Frege, who includes in S. both the concept of meaning and the concept of denotation (reference) for analysis statements of identity (identity) of expressions. Its method can be called the "naming relation method" because it treats all language expressions as names. Frege distinguishes between the meaning that expresses the name and the denotation (referent) and which the name designates as the real thing of the object. Frege proceeds from names to sentences, considering the judgment expressed by it as the meaning of the sentence, and its truth value as the denotation. Sentences that have both meaning and denotation have cognitive value. These are affirmations, affirmative propositions. At all stages of analysis, Frege distinguishes meaning from subjective images and ideas, considering it to be objective knowledge, a cultural value. Frege's views contain an element of Platonism. The "naming relation method" was developed by A. Church, H. Scholz, and others; a very perfect sibling system was developed by C. I. Lewis. However, R. Carnap and subsequent researchers instead of Frege's "meaning" often use the term "intension". R. Carnap proposed the "method of intension and extension", in which he departs from the nominal paradigm of semantic analysis, considering all linguistic expressions not as names, but as predicates. It should be taken into account that the intension is defined not only through the opposition to the extensional (denotation), but also through the opposition to the linguistic form of the sign (sign means). The last opposition is in the center of attention of structural linguistics. Starting with F. de Saussure, the intension (concept, representation) is called the "signified" of the sign, and its linguistic form is called the "signifier" of the sign (problems of reference are not considered). Accounting for all the components of these oppositions is presented in the "semantic triangle" or the "triangle of Ogden and Richards" ("Meaning of Meaning", 1923): meaning, symbolic means, referent of the theory of meaning ("theory of meaning") are shown by the side of the triangle connecting sign means with the meaning of the sign (intension, signified), and theories of reference connect this sign means with the designated object, as a rule, through the mediation of meaning. The sign expresses some concept (meaning, intension), and the latter reflects the object. It can be assumed that the remoteness of the apex of meaning from the excluded side of the triangle is inversely proportional to the artificiality of the language used. The sequence "sign means - meaning - referent (denotation)" is more typical for the position of the sign interpreter; the sequence "meaning - symbolic means - referent" characterizes the S. producing given sign (speaking, writing, etc.). The communicator inevitably uses symbolic means ("signifiers") in some redundancy, while the perceiver produces their redundant interpretations (meanings, "signified"). There is an asymmetry of the act of communication: the listener understands not only what he wanted, but also what the speaker did not want to express (including his unconscious). Recent arguments testify to the connection of S. with pragmatics. L. Wittgenstein (of the linguistic period) links S. more closely with pragmatics when he speaks of meaning as use. S.'s connection with syntax (relationships between signs) is even more obvious and studied; it is taken into account in any logical and structural-linguistic analysis of meaning. However, in the "semantic triangle" this connection is not reflected in any way. In order to describe the relationship of the expressions of a certain language or the signs of a certain sign system to the signified concepts and designated objects, it is necessary to take care of the language of such a description. The described language (sign system) acts as a subject language, called the object language, and the describing language (the language of semantic description) acts as a metalanguage. Their indistinguishability leads to inadequacy of the description and semantic paradoxes. A. Tarski considered logical reasoning as "a set of reasoning concerning those concepts that, roughly speaking, express certain dependencies between language expressions and objects and states or actions to which these expressions refer." The main requirements for a metalanguage in logical S. are as follows: all expressions of the object language must be expressible in the metalanguage (translatable into the metalanguage), so the latter must be richer than the object language; further, in a metalanguage there must be concepts (semantic concepts) that cannot be expressed by means of the language-object, otherwise paradoxes of autoreference are inevitable. Additional requirements depend on the accepted C. description. In linguistic S. the requirements for metalanguage are usually not so strict. It is allowed to use to describe a certain language as another natural language (translation), and use as a metalanguage some part of the natural language itself being described (the language of linguistics). One of the central categories of logical S. is the category of truth (having both a syntactic aspect - consistency, grammatical correctness of expressions, and a pragmatic aspect - the truthfulness of the speaker, etc.). The aspect of S. is already emphasized in the classical definition of truth, as the correspondence of the statement to the actual state of affairs in Aristotle. Tarski gave a semantic definition of truth, where he expressed in logical form what is said in the classical definition. Its definition is suitable for a large group of formalized languages. The predicate "true" is considered by Tarski as a metalanguage term, as a S. term, correlating the name of the statement with the statement itself in relation to some state of affairs. For example, the statement "Water is wet" is true if and only if the water is wet. Here the name of the statement is marked with quotation marks, and the statement itself is without quotes. The extension of the semantic definition of truth to the realm of natural languages ​​Tarski considered problematic, since the latter are "semantically closed." A semantically closed language includes both expressions related to extralinguistic objects and expressions of a semantic plan, i.e., related to the given language itself. This leads to the emergence of semantic paradoxes. For example, known since antiquity paradox "liar". One of its simplest formulations is as follows. A person who says "I'm lying" and says nothing more, if he speaks the truth, then he really lies; but if he tells a lie (lies), then he does not lie. There are no satisfactory means in natural language to distinguish between this case subject content and form of its expression, language-object and metalanguage (considering quotes as a metalinguistic marker limits their actual grammatical functions). The class of expressions analyzed in logical logic can be substantially extended. In modal and intensional logics, the meaning of expressions is determined by their reference to some possible world ("possible course of events", "state of affairs", etc.). S. same based classical logic limited to the "real world". D. V. Ankin

Philosophical Dictionary» Semantics

(from the Greek. semantikos - denoting) - a section of linguistics and logic, which explores problems related to the meaning, meaning and interpretation of signs and sign expressions. In a broad sense, C, along with syntactics and pragmatics, is part of semiotics - a complex of philosophical and scientific theories, the subject of which are the properties of sign systems: natural languages, artificial languages ​​of science (including partially formalized languages ​​of natural science theories, logical and mathematical calculus), various systems sign communication in human society, the animal world and in technical information systems. Under certain assumptions, sign systems can be considered the means of fine arts, music, and architecture, and we can speak of symbolism as the language of art. The core of semantic research is the development of the semantics of natural languages ​​and logical semantics. These problems are traditional for philosophy; they are considered in the context of epistemological problems and questions about the essence and functions of language. For example, in ancient and medieval philosophy, one of the central questions was the relationship between the name and the named reality. The philosophical aspects of natural language semantics were further developed in the works of Descartes, Leibniz, W. von Humboldt, Peirce, Husserl, and others. Representatives of linguistic philosophy made a great contribution to semantic research. S. natural language is studied by specific methods in linguistics, in particular mathematical (Chomsky and others). The key problems of calculus have received precise expression in connection with the construction and study of formalized languages ​​and formal systems (calculi). The meaningful interpretation of such languages ​​is the subject of logical C, a section of logic that studies the meaning and meaning of concepts and judgments as expressions of a certain logical system and is focused on the meaningful justification of logical rules and procedures, the properties of consistency and completeness of such a system. The tasks of logical reasoning include the explication of the concepts "meaning," "meaning," "truth," "falsity," "following," and so on. In his modern form logical S. was formed thanks to the works of Pierce, Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine, A. Church, Tarski, J. Kemeny, Kripke. Logical semantics is often divided into the theory of reference (notation) and the theory of meaning. The first uses such categories as "name", "definability", "feasibility", etc., the second explores the relation of formalisms to what they express. Its main concepts are the concepts of meaning, synonymy, analytical and logical truth. At the level of concepts and judgments, the most important questions in logical reasoning are those related to the distinction between the scope and content of a concept, between the truth value and the meaning of a judgment. This distinction is expressed in the main semantic triangle - a three-term relationship between the subject (event), content (meaning) and name. At the level of a formal system, the central semantic concept is interpretation, i.e. mapping of the formalisms of the system to some area of ​​real or ideal objects, to some meaningful theory or part of it. S. studies the consistency and completeness of such systems with the help of various semantic models; the main role in this is played by the definitions of the concept of truth. Currently built many various types semantic models. P. I. Bystrov

Economic dictionary» Semantics

Learning how words are used and the meanings they convey.

Psychological Encyclopedia» Semantics

(from the Greek semantikos - denoting). There are several types of C.1. Linguistic S. is a branch of linguistics that studies the lexical meanings of words and expressions, changes in their meanings (the meaning of a word, figure of speech, or grammatical form). Syn. semasiology .2. Logical logic is a branch of mathematical logic that studies the relationship between formally constructed calculi and the real content reflected in them; meaningful interpretation of these calculations. Distinguish between descriptive and purely logical S. 1st explores the relationship of the sign to the content of the concept (signification) and the relationship of the sign to the thing that it designates (denotation). 2nd deals with the construction of artificial systems of semantic rules that establish the truth conditions "

Semantics Boolean

A branch of logic (metalogics) that studies the relation of linguistic expressions to designated objects and expressed content. The problems of semantics were discussed in antiquity, however, as an independent discipline, it began to take shape at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. thanks to the works of C. Pierce, G. Frege, B. Russell. A significant contribution to the development of S.'s problems l. introduced A. Tarsky, R. Carnap, W. Quine, J. Kemeny, C. I. Lewis, S. Kripke, and others. For a long time, S. l. focused mainly on the analysis of formalized languages, but in the last 20 years more and more research has been devoted to natural language. In S. l. Traditionally, two areas are distinguished - the theory of reference (notation) and the theory of meaning. The theory of reference explores the relation of linguistic expressions to designated objects, its main categories are: "name", "designation", "feasibility", "truth", "interpretation", "model", etc. The theory of reference serves as the basis of the theory of proofs in logic. The theory of meaning tries to answer the question of what is the meaning of linguistic expressions, when the expressions are identical in meaning, how the meaning and denotation correlate, etc. A significant role in S. l. plays a discussion of semantic paradoxes, the solution of which is an important criterion for the acceptability of any semantic theory.

Semantics Boolean

A branch of logic (metalogics) that studies the relation of linguistic expressions to designated objects and expressed content. The problems of semantics were discussed in antiquity, however, as an independent discipline, it began to take shape at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. thanks to the works of C. Pierce, G. Frege, B. Russell. A significant contribution to the development of S.'s problems l. introduced A. Tarsky, R. Carnap, W. Quine, J. Kemeny, C. I. Lewis, S. Kripke, and others. For a long time, S. l. focused mainly on the analysis of formalized languages, but in the last 20 years more and more research has been devoted to natural language. In S. l. Traditionally, two areas are distinguished - the theory of reference (notation) and the theory of meaning. The theory of reference explores the relation of linguistic expressions to designated objects, its main categories are: “name”, “designation”, “feasibility”, “truth”, “interpretation”, “model”, etc. The theory of reference serves as the basis of the theory of proofs in logic. The theory of meaning tries to answer the question of what is the meaning of linguistic expressions, when the expressions are identical in meaning, how the meaning and denotation correlate, etc. A significant role in S. l. plays a discussion of semantic paradoxes, the solution of which is an important criterion for the acceptability of any semantic theory.

SEMANTICS, in the broad sense of the word, an analysis of the relationship between linguistic expressions and the world, real or imaginary, as well as this relationship itself (cf. an expression like word semantics) and the totality of such relations (for example, we can talk about the semantics of a certain language). This relation consists in the fact that linguistic expressions (words, phrases, sentences, texts) denote what is in the world - objects, qualities (or properties), actions, ways of performing actions, relationships, situations and their sequences. The term "semantics" is derived from a Greek root associated with the idea of ​​"designation" (cf. semantikos "signifying"). The relationship between natural language expressions and the real or imaginary world is explored by linguistic semantics, which is a branch of linguistics. Semantics is also called one of the sections of formal logic, which describes the relationship between the expressions of artificial formal languages ​​and their interpretation in some model of the world. In this article we are talking about linguistic semantics.

Semantics as a branch of linguistics answers the question of how a person, knowing the words and grammatical rules of a natural language, is able to convey with their help a wide variety of information about the world (including his own inner world), even if he is faced with such a task for the first time, and understand what information about the world is contained in any statement addressed to him, even if he hears it for the first time.

The semantic component has long been recognized necessary part full description language - grammar. Your contribution to the formation general principles semantic description contribute different theories of language. For example, for generative grammars, the principles of constructing a semantic component were laid down by the American linguists J. Katz and J. Fodor and further developed by R. Jackendoff, and, say, for grammars (models) of the "Meaning - Text" type, the corresponding component was developed by representatives of the Moscow Semantic School: Yu D. Apresyan, A.K. Zholkovsky, I.A. Melchuk and others. The semantic component necessarily includes a dictionary (lexicon), in which each word is reported what it means, i.e. each word is compared with its meaning in a given language, and the rules of combination (interaction) the meanings of words, according to which the meaning of more complex structures, primarily sentences, is formed from them.

The meaning of a word in a dictionary is described using a dictionary definition, or interpretation, which is an expression in the same natural language or in an artificial semantic language specially developed for this purpose, in which the meaning of the interpreted word is presented in a more detailed (explicit) and, ideally, strictly. So, the meaning of the Russian word bachelor in the dictionary of the semantic component of the description of the Russian language, it can be represented, as is done in ordinary explanatory dictionaries, in the form of the usual Russian phrase "a man who has reached marriageable age and unmarried and never married" or as a notation in a special semantic language, for example, (l x) [HUMAN ( x) & MALE ( x) & ADULT ( x) & (MARRIED-( x)]. There are quite a few different artificial semantic languages, and they are arranged in very different ways.

As can be seen from the above examples, when interpreting the meanings of words and phrases using natural language, the resulting expressions, as well as their individual components, if they are mentioned separately, are usually written in single quotes in writing; dictionaries do not do this, because from the very structure of the dictionary entry it is already clear that to the right of the word that is the entry to the entry explanatory dictionary, it is worth the interpretation of this word (). Natural language expressions that interpret the meaning of sentences are usually written in double quotes. Recording natural language words capital letters and using hyphens in unusual places means that these words in this entry are elements of an artificial language that may not coincide with natural language; so, MARRIED is one element, not three words; variable x and the conjunction sign & are also elements of an artificial language. Artificial languages ​​can be used to interpret the meanings of both words and sentences. Regardless of whether natural or artificial language is used for interpretation, in relation to the language whose expressions are interpreted, it has the status of a metalanguage (from the Greek meta "after"), i.e. the language spoken about the language; natural language can thus be a metalanguage in relation to itself. Metalanguage elements can also be (and often are, for example, in illustrated dictionaries) various kinds of graphic images - diagrams, drawings, etc.

How dictionary definitions are created and what requirements are imposed on them will be discussed below.

The semantic component of a complete description of a language is a model of that part of language knowledge that is related to the relationship between words and the world. In this model, such empirically established phenomena as equivalence (synonymy), ambiguity (polysemy), semantic anomaly (including inconsistency and tautology) of linguistic expressions should be explained. So, it is easy to check that for all native Russian speakers the sentence On it was broad-brim denotes the same state of affairs as the sentence He was wearing a wide hat fields. It is believed that this fact is adequately reflected in the semantic component of the language description, if, taking the interpretation of the meanings of the corresponding words from the dictionary and acting according to the explicit rules for combining meanings, we get the same semantic records, called "semantic representations" or "semantic interpretations" of these sentences. Likewise, all native speakers of Russian would agree that the sentence Visiting relatives can be exhausting denotes two different possibilities: the possibility of being tired by visiting relatives, and the possibility of being tired by receiving relatives who have visited you. This means that in the semantic component, this sentence must be compared with two semantic representations that differ from each other, otherwise it will not be an adequate reflection of semantic knowledge about the Russian language.

As an independent linguistic discipline, semantics emerged relatively recently, at the end of the 19th century; the term "semantics" itself to designate a branch of science was first introduced in 1883 by the French linguist M. Breal, who was interested in historical development language meanings. Until the end of the 1950s, along with it, the term "semasiology" was also widely used, now preserved only as a not very common name for one of the sections of semantics. However, questions related to the conduct of semantics were raised and, one way or another, resolved already in the oldest linguistic traditions known to us. After all, one of the main reasons forcing us to pay attention to the language is a misunderstanding of what the oral or written statement (text) addressed to us, or some part of it, means. Therefore, in the study of a language, the interpretation of individual signs or entire texts is one of the the most important types activities in the field of semantics - has long belonged to important place. So, in China, in ancient times, dictionaries were created that contained interpretations of hieroglyphs. In Europe, ancient and medieval philologists compiled glosses, i.e. interpretation of incomprehensible words in written monuments. A truly rapid development of linguistic semantics began in the 1960s; at present, it is one of the most important sections of the science of language.

In the European scientific tradition, the question of the relationship between words and "things", the objects to which they belonged, was first raised by ancient Greek philosophers, but to this day various aspects of this relationship continue to be refined. Let us consider the relation of the word to the "thing" more closely.

in the broad sense of the word analysis of the relationship between linguistic expressions and the world, real or imaginary, as well as this relationship itself (cf. an expression like word semantics) and the totality of such relations (for example, we can talk about the semantics of a certain language). This relation consists in the fact that linguistic expressions (words, phrases, sentences, texts) denote what is in the world, objects, qualities (or properties), actions, ways of performing actions, relationships, situations and their sequences. The term "semantics" is derived from a Greek root associated with the idea of ​​"designation" (cf. semantikos "signifying"). The relationship between natural language expressions and the real or imaginary world is explored by linguistic semantics, which is a branch of linguistics. Semantics is also called one of the sections of formal logic, which describes the relationship between the expressions of artificial formal languages ​​and their interpretation in some model of the world. This article deals with linguistic semantics.

Semantics as a branch of linguistics answers the question of how a person, knowing the words and grammatical rules of a natural language, is able to convey with their help a wide variety of information about the world (including his own inner world), even if he first encounters with such a task, and to understand what information about the world is contained in any statement addressed to him, even if he hears it for the first time.

The semantic component has long been recognized as a necessary part of a complete description of the language grammar. Various theories of language contribute to the formation of general principles of semantic description. For example, for generative grammars, the principles for constructing a semantic component were laid down by the American linguists J. Katz and J. Fodor and further developed by R. Jackendoff, and, say, for grammars (models) of the “Meaning Text” type, the corresponding component was developed by representatives of the Moscow Semantic School: Yu D. Apresyan, A.K. Zholkovsky, I.A. Melchuk and others. The semantic component necessarily includes a dictionary (lexicon), in which each word is reported what it means, i.e. each word is compared with its meaning in a given language, and the rules of combination (interaction) the meanings of words, according to which the meaning of more complex structures, primarily sentences, is formed from them.

The meaning of a word in a dictionary is described using a dictionary definition, or interpretation, which is an expression in the same natural language or in an artificial semantic language specially developed for this purpose, in which the meaning of the interpreted word is presented in a more detailed (explicit) and, ideally, strictly. So, the meaning of the Russian word bachelor in the dictionary of the semantic component of the description of the Russian language, it can be represented, as is done in ordinary explanatory dictionaries, in the form of a common Russian phrase "a man who has reached marriageable age and is not married and has never been married" or as an entry in a special semantic language, for example , (l x) [HUMAN ( x) & MALE ( x) & ADULT ( x) & (MARRIED-( x)]. There are quite a few different artificial semantic languages, and they are arranged in very different ways.

As can be seen from the above examples, when interpreting the meanings of words and phrases using natural language, the resulting expressions, as well as their individual components, if they are mentioned separately, are usually written in single quotes in writing; dictionaries do not do this, because from the very structure of the dictionary entry it is already clear that to the right of the word that is the entrance to the entry in the explanatory dictionary is precisely the interpretation of this word ( see also DICTIONARY). Natural language expressions that interpret the meaning of sentences are usually written in double quotes. Recording natural language words in capital letters and using hyphens in unusual places means that these words in this notation are elements of an artificial language that may not coincide with natural language; so, MARRIED is one element, not three words; variable x and the conjunction sign & are also elements of an artificial language. Artificial languages ​​can be used to interpret the meanings of both words and sentences. Regardless of whether natural or artificial language is used for interpretation, in relation to the language whose expressions are interpreted, it has the status of a metalanguage (from the Greek meta "after"), i.e. the language spoken about the language; natural language can thus be a metalanguage in relation to itself. Metalanguage elements can also be (and often are, for example, in illustrated dictionaries) various kinds of graphic images schemes, drawings, etc.

How dictionary definitions are created and what requirements are imposed on them will be discussed below.

The semantic component of a complete description of a language is a model of that part of language knowledge that is related to the relationship between words and the world. In this model, such empirically established phenomena as equivalence (synonymy), ambiguity (polysemy), semantic anomaly (including inconsistency and tautology) of linguistic expressions should be explained. So, it is easy to check that for all native Russian speakers the sentence He wore a wide-brimmed hat denotes the same state of affairs as the sentence He was wearing a wide hat fields. It is believed that this fact is adequately reflected in the semantic component of the language description, if, taking the interpretation of the meanings of the corresponding words from the dictionary and acting according to the explicit rules for combining meanings, we get the same semantic records, called "semantic representations" or "semantic interpretations" of these sentences. Likewise, all native speakers of Russian would agree that the sentence Visiting relatives can be exhausting denotes two different possibilities: the possibility of being tired by visiting relatives, and the possibility of being tired by receiving relatives who have visited you. This means that in the semantic component, this sentence must be compared with two semantic representations that differ from each other, otherwise it will not be an adequate reflection of semantic knowledge about the Russian language.

As an independent linguistic discipline, semantics emerged relatively recently, at the end of the 19th century; the term "semantics" itself to designate a branch of science was first introduced in 1883 by the French linguist M. Breal, who was interested in the historical development of linguistic meanings. Until the end of the 1950s, along with it, the term "semasiology" was also widely used, now preserved only as a not very common name for one of the sections of semantics. However, questions related to the conduct of semantics were raised and, one way or another, resolved already in the oldest linguistic traditions known to us. After all, one of the main reasons forcing us to pay attention to the language is a misunderstanding of what the oral or written statement (text) addressed to us, or some part of it, means. Therefore, in the study of language, the interpretation of individual signs or entire texts, one of the most important activities in the field of semantics, has long occupied an important place. So, in China, in ancient times, dictionaries were created that contained interpretations of hieroglyphs. In Europe, ancient and medieval philologists compiled glosses, i.e. interpretation of incomprehensible words in written monuments. A truly rapid development of linguistic semantics began in the 1960s; at present, it is one of the most important sections of the science of language.

In the European scientific tradition, the question of the relationship between words and "things", the objects to which they belonged, was first raised by ancient Greek philosophers, but to this day various aspects of this relationship continue to be refined. Let us consider the relation of the word to the "thing" more closely.

Words allow us to mention things both in their presence and in their absence, to mention not only what is "here", but also what is "there", not only the present, but also the past and the future. Of course, the word is just noise that has come to be used to talk about something; in itself this noise has no meaning, but acquires it through its use in the language. When we learn the meanings of words, we learn not some fact of nature, like the law of gravity, but a kind of convention about what noises usually correspond to what things.

The words of a language, being used in speech, acquire a relation or reference to the objects of the world about which the statement is made. In other words, they have the ability to "refer" to objects by introducing these objects (of course, into perfect shape) into the recipient's mind. (Of course, it would be more accurate to say that speakers, using words, can “refer” to this or that fragment of the world.) That entity in the world to which the word refers is called its referent. So, if I, describing an event that happened to someone, say: Yesterday I planted a tree under my window, then the word tree refers to a single individual entity that very one-of-a-kind tree that I planted under my window yesterday. We may well say that the word tree in this statement means this most tree planted by me. Perhaps this real individual essence is the meaning of the word tree?

Representatives of that relatively young trend in semantics, which is commonly called "strong semantics" (it can include "formal semantics" and other varieties of model-theoretic semantics that follow formal logic in resolving the issue of the nature of relations between language and the world), would give a positive answer to this question. In any case, from the point of view of “strong semantics”, the goal of a semantic description of a language is that each linguistic expression should be interpreted in one or another model of the world, i.e. in order to establish whether any element (or configuration of elements) of the world model corresponds to this expression, and if so, which one (which one). Therefore, the problems of reference (relationship to the world) are in the focus of "strong semantics".

In contrast, the more traditional "weak semantics" in the study of the relationship between language and the world dispenses with direct reference to the actual state of affairs in this world. She recognizes as the subject of her research the meaning of a linguistic expression not the element (fragment) of the world to which this expression refers, but the way in which it does it, those rules of use, knowing which a native speaker in a particular situation is able to either implement a reference to the world using this expression, or to understand what it refers to. In the future, we will consider the problems of semantics from this position.

If someone wants to invent a procedure for applying words to the world, it may at first seem to him that for every real entity there must be a word. But if this were so, then the number of words required for this would be as infinite as the number of things and relations in nature is infinite. If every tree in the world needed a separate word, then just for trees alone it would take several million words, plus the same number for all insects, for all blades of grass, etc. If a language were required to adhere to the principle “one word one thing”, then it would be impossible to use such a language.

In fact, there are some words (there are relatively few of them) that really correspond to a single thing, and they are called proper names, for example Hans Christian Andersen or Beijing. But most words are applied not to a single person or thing, but to a group or class of things. generic name tree is used for each of those many billions of things we call trees. (There are also words for subclasses of trees, maple,birch,elm etc., but these are the names of smaller classes, not individual trees.) Run is the name of a class of actions distinguished from other actions, such as crawling or walking. Blue there is the name of a class of colors that smoothly turn green at one end and blue at the other. Above is the name of the relationship class, not given name for the relationship between the lamp on my ceiling and my desk, because it also applies to the relationship between your lamp on the ceiling and your desk, and innumerable other relationships. Thus, languages ​​have achieved the necessary economy through the use of class names. A class, or a set of those entities, in relation to which a given linguistic expression (in particular, a word) can be used, is called the denotation or extension of this expression (often, however, the term "denotation" is also used as a synonym for the term "referent" introduced above ). In one of the existing approaches to defining the meaning of a word in semantics, the meaning is precisely the denotation the set of entities that can be denoted using given word. But another understanding of meaning is more widespread, in which it is identified with the conditions of its applicability.

What allows us to use a relatively small number of words for so many things is similarity. Things that are sufficiently similar to each other, we call the same name. Trees differ from each other in size, shape, distribution of foliage, but they have some similar features that allow us to call them all trees. When we wish to draw attention to the differences within this gigantic general class, we look for more detailed similarities within more sub-groups and thus identify specific tree species. Finally, if we intend to repeatedly refer to a particular tree, we can give it its own name (for example, Elm on Povarskaya) just like we name a child or a pet.

In addition to the economy of linguistic means achieved, the existence of generic names has another advantage: it emphasizes the similarities between things that are in many respects different from each other. Pomeranian Spitz and Russian Borzoi are not very similar to each other, however, both belong to the class of dogs. The Hottentot and the American manufacturer are in many respects physically and mentally different, but both belong to the human class. However, the existence of common nouns also carries with it a possible drawback: the indiscriminate dumping of dissimilar things can make us consider only similarities between things, not differences, and therefore think not about distinguishing features, characterizing this or that separate thing as an individual, but about the label standing on this thing (that is, about a generic term applicable to all things of the same class). “Another pensioner,” the saleswoman thinks, thinking only in labels and stereotypes.

These similarities between things certainly exist in nature before and independently of our use of language. But which of the innumerable similarities of things will be the basis for classification depends on people and their interests. As a basis for assigning birds and mammals to certain species and subspecies, biologists usually use the structure of the skeleton: if a bird has one bone structure, then it is assigned to class X, and if another, then to class Y. Birds could be classified not by structure skeleton, but by color: then all yellow birds would receive one generic name, and all red birds another, regardless of other characteristics. Biologists have not yet classified animals in this way, mainly because the offspring regularly have the same skeletal structure as the parents, not the same color, and biologists would like to be able to apply the same name to the offspring as to the parents. But this is a decision made by people, not nature; natural things do not appear before us with labels that tell us which sections of the classifications they fall into. Miscellaneous groups people with different interests classify things in different ways: a certain animal may be listed by biologists in one classification heading, by fur producers in another, and by tanners in a third.

Bringing natural objects under classification headings is often a simple matter. For example, animals called dogs usually have a long nose, bark and wag their tail when they are pleased or excited. Things made by people are also often quite easily subsumed under specific headings: this building belongs to the class of (residential) houses, then to the class of garages, and then to the class of sheds, etc. But here a problem arises: if a person, say, lives in a garage or a barn, then isn't this building also his home? If the garage was once used to house cars, but last years used to store firewood, isn't it a shed now? Do we assign a structure to one class or another on the basis of its external appearance, or on the basis of the purpose for which it was originally created, or on the basis of what it is used for? currently? Obviously, the way in which a particular object is assigned to a class depends on the criterion we use, and we choose the criterion depending on what kind of groupings we are most interested in.

Shmelev D.N. Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary. M., 1973
Novikov L.A. Semantics of the Russian language. M., 1982
Bendix E. Empirical base of the semantic description
Naida Yu.A. Procedures for analyzing the component structure of a reference value. In the book: New in foreign linguistics. Issue. XIV. M., 1983
Katz J. Semantic theory. In the book: New in foreign linguistics. Issue. Kh. M., 1985
Vasiliev L.M. Modern linguistic semantics. M., 1990
Stepanov Yu.S. Semantics. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1990
Apresyan Yu.D. Selected writings, v. 1. Lexical semantics. Synonymous means of language. M., 1995
Vezhbitskaya A. Language. Culture. Cognition. M., 1995

Find "SEMANTICS" on

A branch of semiotics that studies the meaning and meaning of various sign forms, including linguistic signs and expressions. The separation of semantics as part of semiotics, along with the theory of syntax—syntactics and the theory of the use of signs—by pragmatics belongs to C.W. As a theory of meaning, S. is usually subdivided into a theory of meaning and a theory of reference. The first deals with the connection of the sign form with the corresponding linguistic concepts and representations (the meaning or intension of the sign), the second deals with the relationship of the sign form to extralinguistic (extra-sign) reality (the denotation or extension of the sign). The first relation is also called eignification (meaning), and the second - designation, or reference. "sign. In linguistics, the term S. was introduced at the end of the 19th century by M. Breal, in connection with the study of the historical change in linguistic meanings. A more traditional name for the corresponding research areas - semasiology (for example, the work of M. M. Pokrovsky "Semasiological research in the field of ancient languages", 1895). In linguistics, the term "semasiology" is often used as a synonym for S. Semasiology studies the historical and dialectal features of linguistic meanings, starting from the linguistic form and without considering the problem of reference.In linguistic S. semasiology, onomasiology (the theory of naming) is opposite. Here, the opposite direction of semantic analysis is adopted: from subject areas and conceptual contents to their linguistic expression. Problems of naming are associated with the theory of reference. In onomasiology, questions of word formation and polysemy are considered. , phraseology, etc. Linguistic S. includes not only lexicology, but also S. sentences, statements, text. The development of the latter was greatly influenced by analytic philosophy (S. sentences) and structuralism (S. text). For S. the problems of translation, synonymy and homonymy, the meaning of normative, imperative, expressive, and other linguistic forms of expression are topical. Logical S. began to be actively developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, although its origins can be traced back to antiquity. S., considered in the theory of reference, is also called extensional S. (from Latin extensio - extension, expansion). The extension, or scope of the concept, was understood in medieval logic as a set (class) of objects denoted (called) by the word. Intension (from lat. inten - internal tension, strengthening) was understood as content, i.e. as a set of conceivable features of the called object. Extensional S. is the S. of nomination (naming), and intensional S. is signification (meaning): “... everyone almost claims the same thing, namely: one should distinguish between what appellatives mean and what they name. Singular objects are named, and universals are signified" (John of Salisbury, "Metalogic"; 12th century). In modern times, the problems of S. are being developed by J. S. Mill, G. Frege, B. Russell, and others. An especially important milestone was the research of G. Frege, who includes in S. both the concept of meaning and the concept of denotation (reference) for analysis statements of identity (identity) of expressions. Its method can be called the "naming relation method" because it treats all language expressions as names. Frege distinguishes between the meaning that expresses the name and the denotation (referent) and which the name designates as the real thing of the object. Frege proceeds from names to sentences, considering the judgment expressed by it as the meaning of the sentence, and its truth value as the denotation. Sentences that have both meaning and denotation have cognitive value. These are affirmations, affirmative propositions. At all stages of analysis, Frege distinguishes meaning from subjective images and ideas, considering it to be objective knowledge, a cultural value. Frege's views contain an element of Platonism. The "naming relation method" was developed by A. Church, H. Scholz, and others, and a very perfect sibling system was developed by C. I. Lewis. However, R. Carnap and subsequent researchers instead of Frege's "meaning" often use the term "intension". R. Carnap proposed the "method of intension and extension", in which he departs from the nominal paradigm of semantic analysis, considering all linguistic expressions not as names, but as predicates. It should be taken into account that the intension is defined not only through the opposition to the extensional (denotation), but also through the opposition to the linguistic form of the sign (sign means). The last opposition is in the center of attention of structural linguistics. Starting with F. de Saussure, the intension (concept, representation) is called the "signified" of the sign, and its linguistic form is called the "signifier" of the sign (problems of reference are not considered). Accounting for all the components of these oppositions is presented in the "semantic triangle" or the "triangle of Ogden and Richards" ("Meaning of Meaning", 1923): meaning, symbolic means, referent of the theory of meaning ("theory of meaning") are shown by the side of the triangle connecting sign means with the meaning of the sign (intension, signified), and theories of reference connect this sign means with the designated object, as a rule, through the mediation of meaning. The sign expresses some concept (meaning, intension), and the latter reflects the object. It can be assumed that the remoteness of the apex of meaning from the excluded side of the triangle is inversely proportional to the artificiality of the language used. The sequence "sign means - meaning - referent (denotation)" is more typical for the position of the sign interpreter; the sequence "meaning - symbolic means - referent" characterizes the S. producing this sign (speaking, writing, etc.). The communicator inevitably uses symbolic means ("signifiers") in some redundancy, while the perceiver produces their redundant interpretations (meanings, "signified"). There is an asymmetry of the act of communication: the listener understands not only what he wanted, but also what the speaker did not want to express (including his unconscious). Recent arguments testify to the connection of S. with pragmatics. L. Wittgenstein (of the linguistic period) links S. more closely with pragmatics when he speaks of meaning as use. S.'s connection with syntax (relationships between signs) is even more obvious and studied; it is taken into account in any logical and structural-linguistic analysis of meaning. However, in the "semantic triangle" this connection is not reflected in any way. In order to describe the relationship of the expressions of a certain language or the signs of a certain sign system to the signified concepts and designated objects, it is necessary to take care of the language of such a description. The described language (sign system) acts as a subject language, called the object language, and the describing language (the language of semantic description) acts as a metalanguage. Their indistinguishability leads to inadequacy of the description and semantic paradoxes. A. Tarski considered logical reasoning as "a set of reasoning concerning those concepts that, roughly speaking, express certain dependencies between language expressions and objects and states or actions to which these expressions refer." The main requirements for a metalanguage in logical S. are as follows: all expressions of the object language must be expressible in the metalanguage (translatable into the metalanguage), so the latter must be richer than the object language; further, in a metalanguage there must be concepts (semantic concepts) that cannot be expressed by means of the language-object, otherwise paradoxes of autoreference are inevitable. Additional requirements depend on the accepted C. description. In linguistic S. the requirements for metalanguage are usually not so strict. It is allowed to use to describe a certain language as another natural language (translation), and use as a metalanguage some part of the natural language itself being described (the language of linguistics). One of the central categories of logical S. is the category of truth (having both a syntactic aspect - consistency, grammatical correctness of expressions, and a pragmatic aspect - the truthfulness of the speaker, etc.). The aspect of S. is already emphasized in the classical definition of truth, as the correspondence of the statement to the actual state of affairs in Aristotle. Tarski gave a semantic definition of truth, where he expressed in logical form what is said in the classical definition. Its definition is suitable for a large group of formalized languages. The predicate "true" is considered by Tarski as a metalanguage term, as a S. term, correlating the name of the statement with the statement itself in relation to some state of affairs. For example, the statement "Water is wet" is true if and only if the water is wet. Here the name of the statement is marked with quotation marks, and the statement itself is without quotes. The extension of the semantic definition of truth to the realm of natural languages ​​Tarski considered problematic, since the latter are "semantically closed." A semantically closed language includes both expressions related to extralinguistic objects and expressions of a semantic plan, i.e., related to the given language itself. This leads to the emergence of semantic paradoxes. For example, known since antiquity paradox "liar". One of its simplest formulations is as follows. A person who says "I'm lying" and says nothing more, if he speaks the truth, then he really lies; but if he tells a lie (lies), then he does not lie. In natural language, there are no satisfactory means to distinguish in this case the subject content and the form of its expression, the language-object and the metalanguage (the consideration of quotation marks as a metalinguistic marker limits their actual grammatical functions). The class of expressions analyzed in logical logic can be substantially extended. In modal and intensional logics, the meaning of expressions is determined by their reference to some possible world ("possible course of events", "state of affairs", etc.). S., on the basis of classical logic, is limited to the "real world." D. V. Ankin