What is the semantic meaning of a word. Semantics is a science without which it is unimaginably difficult to learn a language. Key rules of semantics

SEMANTIC

[gr. semantikos - meaning] - linguistic. relating to the meaning or meaning of a word, meaningful. C. multipliers- elementary units, components of meaning (the term is used in mathematical linguistics (LINGUISTICS)).

Dictionary of foreign words. - Komlev N.G., 2006 .

Semantic

(gr.; cm. semantics) semantic, relating to the meaning of a word; s factors are elementary semantic units used to describe the meaning of words in mathematical linguistics; these include grammes and meanings that are expressed using roots, word-forming affixes and full words, as well as combinations of words.

New dictionary of foreign words. - by EdwART,, 2009 .

Semantic

[] – semantic, relating to the meaning of the word (as opposed to the sound and formal side of the word); semantic philosophy is a direction in modern Anglo-American philosophy.

Large dictionary of foreign words. - Publishing house "IDDK", 2007 .

Synonyms:

See what "SEMANTIC" is in other dictionaries:

SEMANTIC, semantic, semantic (ling.). adj. to semantics. Semantic analysis of the word. Semantic contrast. Ushakov's explanatory dictionary. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

Semantic, semasiological Dictionary of Russian synonyms. semantic adj., number of synonyms: 2 semasiological (2) ... Synonym dictionary

semantic- oh, oh. semantique adj. linguistic Rel. to semantics. Semantics of the word. BAS 1. Semantic contrast. Ush. 1940. In this semantic atmosphere, the phrase firmly settled only in the 30s of the 19th century. Vinogradov 1994 215. Enduring difficult and... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

SEMANTICS, and, g. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

semantic- - Topics information protection EN semantic ... Technical Translator's Guide

Adj. 1. ratio with noun semantics, associated with it 2. Characteristic of semantics, characteristic of it. 3. Belonging to semantics. Ephraim's explanatory dictionary. T. F. Efremova. 2000... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

Semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic, semantic,... ... Forms of words

See semàntico… Five-language dictionary of linguistic terms

Adj. from Semantics... Handbook of Etymology and Historical Lexicology

semantic- semantic... Russian spelling dictionary

Books

Semantic Web, Antoniou G., Gros P., Harmelen F., Hoekstra R., The book is devoted to a comprehensive discussion of the W3C consortium initiative called “Semantic Web”, which actually defines the transition to a new stage in the development of the World Wide Web WWW.… Category: Website development and optimization. Web design
Semantic Web. Guide, Antoniou Grigoris, The book is devoted to a comprehensive discussion of the W3C consortium initiative called the Semantic Web, which actually defines the transition to a new stage in the development of the World Wide Web... Category: Databases Publisher: DMK Press, Manufacturer:

We've released a new book, Social Media Content Marketing: How to Get Inside Your Followers' Heads and Make Them Fall in Love with Your Brand.

Site semantics are keywords corresponding to suitable user search queries, on the basis of which the structure of a particular resource is built.

More videos on our channel - learn internet marketing with SEMANTICA

Keywords do not exist in isolation, but form an interconnected network to fully cover all queries related to the portal’s subject matter. In this way, a semantic core is created, which contains all the queries that are relevant for a particular site.

Let's look at the semantics for website promotion using an example.

You are creating web resources. The user enters a search query: “How to make a website.” If your site does not answer this question, then there are problems with semantics, i.e. you have poorly composed the semantic core, without which it is difficult to promote the site and raise it to the TOP of search results by keywords that are interesting to you.

What is the semantics of the site

Any type of activity presented on the Internet falls under search engine optimization. Among the key tools with which promotion is carried out are the semantics of the site or the creation of a semantic core for a specific resource. This is a list of word combinations and phrases that fully describe the topic and focus of the resource. The size of the kernel depends on how large the project is. The task of working out the semantics of a site is considered relevant and in demand when its owner decides to start promoting in search in order to increase customer traffic.

How to collect semantics for a site

To correctly compose a semantic core, you need to take into account two issues:

What does the target audience need?
What services and products are you going to sell.

When composing the semantic core and the site structure based on it, remember the important facts:

The content must meet the expectations of resource users.
A website page is the answer to a visitor’s question.
The site as a whole should provide maximum answers to all questions on the topic.
The full semantics of the site repeats its structure.

Main groups of requests by frequency

In the process of forming semantics for website promotion, it is necessary to understand the frequency of requests, which may differ in the features of promotion on them, but in general contribute to an increase in traffic.

Highlight:

high frequency;
mid-frequency;
low frequency queries.

This division is made to understand the structure of the site as a whole, the formation of meta tags, and the search for queries for internal page optimization.

Key rules of semantics

One request – one page. It is impossible for one request to correspond to several pages of a resource. But one page can be assigned several keys for promotion.
The semantic core should include all types of queries by frequency.
In the process of arranging requests into groups, it is necessary to include only those that are used to promote a specific page.

In the Yandex top there may be only 1-2 places on a certain topic, which increases competition. In addition, Yandex.Direct and other advertising tools shift organic search results down. In this case, semantics alone will not be enough for successful site optimization.

Stages of creating a semantic core

Make a list of products, services and other information that are covered on the site. Analyze potential visitors and target audience in general. For example, when selling expensive goods, it makes no sense to use the phrase “buy cheap”, etc.
Select queries that match your topic. Take into account all the queries that may be used to search for an offer on the site.
Select queries from search engines using special services (for example, Yandex.Wordstat).
Filter requests. Eliminate empty phrases and repetitions. Combine all lists of phrases collected in different ways for subsequent analysis. Use special programs. The most popular is Key Collector.
Group requests into separate categories, according to which sections and pages of a particular resource will be promoted.

How to gain additional advantages over competitors

The question of how to collect the semantics of a site cannot be solved by selecting search queries alone. For promotion, you need to correctly use SEO tags. They contain key data for search engines, which is not recommended to be ignored.

SEO tags for site semantics:

Title – page title displayed in the status bar. The title must be clear because it attracts the attention of users.
Description – brief content of the page. The tag has a service value - it assists the search engine in the search process.
IMG – text description of the image on the page.
A – link tag.
Noindex – used when site page indexing is not needed for a certain period.
Robots – a tag that gives instructions to the search robot.
Revesit – determining the frequency of resource indexing for the robot.

It is extremely important to know how to create the semantics of a site and follow the stated standards in the process. This will greatly facilitate the process and help eliminate many of the problems associated with optimizing your site for search.

Having created semantics once, do not leave it unchanged over a long period. New products and services appear regularly, and old ones lose their relevance. Therefore, you should not only know how to work out the semantics of the site, but also update it once every six months or a year in order to introduce new search queries and delete old ones that have lost their relevance.

from Greek semanticos - denoting) - the doctrine of the meaning of signs, the relationship between signs, that is, between words and sentences and what they mean. Synonyms - semasiology, significa (both contain the word “sign”). Simantic - semantic, related to the meaning of a word or concept.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

SEMANTICS

a discipline that studies signs and sign systems from the point of view of their meaning, as a rule, is considered within the framework of semiotics (the science of sign systems) together with its two other sections: syntactics and pragmatics. The first of them studies the relationships of signs among themselves (syntax), the second - the relationships between signs and the subjects producing and interpreting them, while semantics considers signs in their relation to designated (not having a sign nature) objects. The most important subject of study for semantics is language, and therefore it is included as an integral part in linguistics (as the semantics of natural languages) and in logic (as the semantics of formal languages). Semantic problems that arise in both logic and linguistics are an expression of the general philosophical problem of the connection between thinking and being. The question of the extent to which language is capable of expressing non-linguistic reality is closely correlated with the question of the ability of thought to understand an object external to it. Of the main views on the nature of the sign that underlie semantic constructions, it is necessary to highlight those that were formulated at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. in the works of G. Frege kf.de Saussure. Their concepts (largely opposing each other) still determine research methods and terminology in linguistics and logic. Frege has a theory of the triple nature of the linguistic sign. The sign itself (a single object), firstly, points to another object (the meaning of the sign), and secondly, to the concept corresponding to the signified object (the meaning of the sign). Entered so. the distinction between sense and meaning subsequently became key for many logical and linguistic theories, which, however, adopted a different terminology than Frege’s. For the signified object, the terms “referent”, “denotation”, “designatum” are used. What Frege called "sense" is sometimes called "sense". However, the interpretation of these terms by different researchers varies greatly. The pair “extensional” - “intension” is also often used to express the semantic distinction introduced by Frege. Frege also introduced the distinction between sense and meaning for sentences of language, arguing that for a wide class of sentences meaning is truth or falsity. He also pointed out the existence of linguistic constructions that have meaning but do not have meaning (for example, statements about fictitious objects).

According to Frege, the basis of any mental act is the desire to express an essence, an independently existing object, which is designated in language by its name and about which its concept speaks. Saussure views the nature of the sign as dual, calling the sign the unity of the signifier and the signified. The latter means exactly what Frege called meaning, but Saussure’s approach is fundamentally different. The semantic properties of a language are determined by the fact that it is a system. Signs exist only in relation to each other, and it is these relations, and not the connection with extra-linguistic entities, that determine the meaning of the sign. Therefore, referential semantics is completely absent from Saussure. This position is still shared by many linguists (mainly French). Greimas and Kurte call “the elimination of the referent a necessary condition for the development of linguistics.”

Saussure's approach is a linguistic correlate of that philosophical attitude that seeks to exclude the category of essence from consideration. It was developed, for example, in the Marburg school, for whose philosophers the criterion for the objectivity of knowledge is not the relation of knowledge to a “really existing” object (which is completely impossible to establish), but the internal consistency of knowledge itself. The latter is considered as a structure, that is, a set of relations of elements determined (like Saussure’s units of language) only by their place in the system and relationships with each other.

In logic and mathematics, an analytical apparatus has been developed that allows one to describe the semantics of formal languages. This apparatus is based on the concept of interpretation. The latter is a function that associates to each name (individual constant) of a language some object from a given set, and to each language expression (predicate constant) some relation of objects of the same set. The most important element of the semantics of formal languages is the concept of truth, which is considered as a formal property of a correctly constructed language expression. Essential in this case is the need to introduce a metalanguage. Only with its help can one describe a domain of objects, set an interpretive function, and draw conclusions regarding the truth of linguistic expressions. Formal grounds for distinguishing between object language and metalanguage were obtained by A. Tarehim. The subsequent development of logic (S. Krinke, R. Martin, P. Woodruff) led, however, to the construction of “semantically closed” languages, i.e. those that themselves contain the ability to draw conclusions about semantic properties (in particular, about truth) of linguistic expressions. However, a common feature of any formal approach is the need to express non-linguistic objects using language (even a metalanguage). The study of the semantics of properties therefore turns out to be a study of relations between signs, and not of relations between a sign and an object that does not have the nature of a sign. That. semantics turns into syntactics.

When describing the semantics of natural language, linguists also resort to the concept of functional dependence, implementing a scheme very similar to the scheme for interpreting formal languages. In this case, the apparatus of semantic categories introduced by K. Aidukevich is used (see Theory of Semantic Categories). The simplest categories are name and sentence. The first has an object as an extension, the second has the meaning of truth or falsehood. The intensional of a linguistic sign belonging to these categories is a function (in the strict, set-theoretic sense - D. Lewis, and even earlier R. Carnap), which corresponds to its extension. More complex categories are obtained from the simplest ones according to the rules of syntax and must include all possible grammatical forms. Their semantics is determined by the construction of intensions, which are also functions, but more complex. The nature of the intension is often defined in different ways. N. Chomsky, for example, sees in them innate patterns of action inherent in the human psyche. R. Montague presents them as objective ideal entities that are grasped by consciousness.

Essentially, logic, which describes formal languages, and linguistics, which studies natural language, introduce the same procedures: establishing a functional connection between language expressions and “real” objects and relations. However, logic (and to an even greater extent mathematics) requires an explicit description (again using language) of both functions and areas of interpretation. In linguistics, when we talk about the interpretive function (intension), it may mean some cognitive operation (not at all explicitly described) performed by a native speaker who produces and interprets signs. Therefore, if logic brings semantics closer to syntactics, then linguistics turns it into pragmatics. This “loss” of semantics occurs in those theories that share an essential element of Frege’s teaching: language is considered as a means for expressing non-linguistic entities, that is, for representing objective reality. Such theories try to establish a connection between thought and the unthinkable, which gives rise to natural difficulties. An alternative to the Fregean understanding of semantics (in addition to the Saussure school, which is mentioned above) is the theory of semantic primitives (A. Wierzbicka). It is directly related to the teaching of R. Descartes, that every complex idea can be reduced to simple ones that are intuitively understandable and do not need any clarification. The theory of semantic primitives reveals an even greater dependence on the philosophy of G. Leibniz, since it can be presented as a development of his attempt to create a universal characteristic. According to Verzhbitskaya, every discourse is a construction built from fairly simple elements according to known rules. The meaning of any linguistic construction is clear to the extent that the construction procedure is clarified, as well as the meaning of these elements. The latter, called semantic primitives, are intuitively clear. Their description does not require resorting to special techniques (for example, the introduction of intensions and extensions), since their meaning is absolutely transparent and does not need any expression. It is important that the number of these primitives is small and their numbering is easily achievable.

Lit.: Shreider Yu.A. Logic of sign systems. M., 1974; Semiotics (collection of works; ed. Yu. S. Stepanov). M., 1983; Smirnova E. D. Logic and philosophy. M., 1996; Saussure F. Works on linguistics. M., 1977, p. 31-288; TondlL. Problems of semantics. M., 1975; Frege G. Selected works. M., 1997, p. 25-49; WientuckaA. Semantic Primitives. Fr./M., 1972.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Semantics is a word that came into our language from Greek, where its meaning was “meaningful”. In philology, it was first used in France by M. Breal, who was involved not only in the development of language, but also in history. Many linguists can tell you what semantics is. The term is usually understood as a science that is devoted to the meaning of a word, a variety of letters and sentences.

What if it’s clearer?

The most general meaning of the term (this is what is usually meant) can be specified as “lexical semantics”. She deals with the meaningful load of individual words. But linguists who study alphabets preserved from antiquity know what the semantic load of individual letters is. Some specialists work on texts, phrases, and complete sentences. This area is another field of application of the semantic scientific approach.

When analyzing what semantics is, it is necessary to mention its relationship with other disciplines. In particular, there are close connections with:

logic;
linguistic philosophy;
communication theories;
anthropology (language, symbols);
semiology.

Considering science in more detail, it is necessary to immediately formulate the object that it studies: the semantic field. This is a complex of terms that are characterized by a certain common factor.

Object of study

If you ask a philologist what semantics is, the specialist will tell you: the term is usually used to designate a science that deals not only with the meaningful load of words, but also with philosophical linguistic aspects. In addition, the discipline extends to the languages used by programmers, formal logic, and semiotics. Using the tools developed in semantics, it is possible to conduct an effective text analysis. Thanks to this science, it is possible to isolate the relationships between phrases, words, symbols, and the relationship with meanings.

However, the described meaning is only a general idea of what semantics is. In fact, nowadays the concept is much broader. It is used for some specialized philosophical movements and even within the framework of one of the approaches calling on people to change their attitude in the world, to move away from the “consumer culture”. This problem has become really relevant in recent years, and one of its solutions is called “general semantics”. It is worth admitting that she has many fans.

Understanding the essence

It so happens that the semantics of language is a science for which the problem of understanding is very relevant. Simply put, the average person can easily say what mathematics or physics does, but not everyone can quickly navigate the field of semantics research. Surprisingly, it is not so much linguists as psychologists who have set themselves the task of formulating an understanding of the essence of semantics. At the same time, the interpretation of symbols and signs is a question inherent strictly in linguistics and no other science. The meaning is sought taking into account the environment in which the objects were used: the specifics of the community, context, circumstances.

Linguistic semantics pays special attention to facial expressions, body movements, and sounds as ways of transmitting information. All of this forms a meaningful context. In written language, paragraphs and punctuation play the role of such structural factors. The general term for this area of information is semantic context. Analytical activity in the field of semantics is closely related to a number of related disciplines dealing with vocabulary, the etymology of symbols and words, and the rules of writing and pronunciation. Science is also connected to pragmatics.

Features of science

The semantics of language deals with strictly defined issues and is characterized by a specific area of knowledge. The properties of this discipline often allow it to be characterized as synthetic. The area under consideration is closely intertwined with linguistic philosophy and has connections with philology and semiotics. At the same time, there is a sharp contrast with syntactic rules and combinatorics, which does not pay attention to the semantic load of the symbols and signs used.

The peculiarity of semantics is the presence of significant connections with representative semantic theories, including those considering relationships, correspondences and the truth of meaning. This is no longer just a linguistic science, but a philosophical discipline that focuses on reality and its reflection through the capabilities of language.

Linguistics

This science is one of the additional areas included in the general tree of semantics as a discipline of study. The object of attention of this sphere of semantics is vocabulary. Linguistics deals with the meaning inherent in vocabulary levels, sentences and phrases. Equally, linguistics analyzes larger objects - texts, extended narratives.

When studying linguistics and semantics, it is necessary to clearly understand the close relationships between subjects. For linguistics, cross-references and applied notations become important. The peculiarity of this direction is the study of relationships inherent in units of linguistics. Like sentence semantics, linguistics pays special attention to phrases, albeit in a slightly different way. Here researchers focus on homonyms, anonyms, synonyms, paronyms, metronomes. The task facing them is to comprehend fairly large elements of the text, combining them from small ones, and expand the semantic load as far as possible.

Montag grammar

The author of this semantic structure was Richard Montague. He first voiced his theories in 1960. The idea was to organize definitions in a way that would use the terminology of lambda calculus. The materials he demonstrated clearly proved that the inherent meaning of a text can be broken down into parts, elements, using combination rules. Attention was also drawn to the fact that there are relatively few such rules.

At that time, the term “semantic atom” was first used. His understanding, as well as work with primitives, formed the basis of the semantics of questions in the seventies. Thus a mental hypothesis began to develop. And today many recognize that Montagu's grammar was an exceptionally harmonious, logical invention. Unfortunately, its difference from the semantics of speech was its pronounced variability, determined by the context. Language, as Montagu believed, was not just a system of labels assigned to objects and phenomena, but an instrumental set. He drew attention to the fact that the significance of each of these tools is not in connection with specific objects, but in the specifics of their functioning.

How about examples?

The semantics in Montague's reading is well illustrated as follows. Philologists are familiar with the concept of “semantic uncertainty.” This is a situation when, in the absence of a number of parts of the context, it is impossible to determine the exact meaning of an object (word, phrase). Moreover, there are no words whose identification would be completely possible and correct in the absence of an environment.

Formal semantics

This idea was formulated as an improvement on Montagu's postulates. It belongs to theoretical, highly formalized approaches and works with natural languages. Russian semantics can also be analyzed using this method. The peculiarity is in assigning meanings to various units: truth, functional dependence, individuality. For each unit, the truth, the relationship in aspects of logic relative to other sentences is then revealed. All this allows us to obtain a sufficient amount of information for analyzing the text as a whole.

True-conditional semantics

The author of this theory was Donald Davidson. The theory is one of the formalized ones. The main idea is to identify connections between sentences. The approach involves working with natural languages. The semantics of a word, sentence, text obliges us to seek out and describe the conditions under which some object of study becomes true.

For example, only in a situation where the snow is white will the expression “snow is white” be true. That is, in fact, the task of a philologist is to determine under what conditions the meaning of a phrase becomes true. In the semantics of a word, a set of meanings is predetermined, selected on the basis of a specific object, and a set of rules is specified that allows them to be combined. The practical application of this method is the formation of abstract models, at the same time, the essence of the approach is to determine the correspondence between expressions and real things and events, and not the abstract results of modeling.

Artificial semantics

This term is usually understood as phrases and words on the basis of which useful content is formed. The linguist’s task is to create a semantic core that will attract the reader’s attention. This term is most relevant at present when applied to modern technologies, in particular the Internet. To increase traffic to a virtual page, it is important to formulate its text content in such a way that there are keys that can interest the user. Artificial semantics is currently widely used for advertising purposes.

Computer science proposes to interpret semantics as a branch that deals with the meaningfulness of constructions inherent in language. This is, to some extent, the opposite of syntax, whose responsibility is the form of expression of constructs. Semantics is a set of rules that allow you to interpret syntax. At the same time, the meanings are given indirectly; the possibilities of understanding the declared words and symbols are only limited. It is customary to talk about semantics as relations, properties that give a formal idea of an object. A logical approach is used, on the basis of which models and theories are built based on the interpretation of the information received.

Semantics as a method of project promotion

By applying the basic rules of semantics, a specialist can develop such a core, which will then serve as the basis for the formation of an SEO program. The semantic core is a list of queries that the audience can enter in a virtual search system to get acquainted with the services and goods they need. To form such a core correctly, you need to understand what the client needs and what his goals are.

Determining the needs of the target audience most often involves interviews or a brief survey. By approaching this task correctly, it is possible to formulate with a high degree of accuracy what the user needs.

Semantic core: features

In order to correctly form this basic object for promoting the project, you must first understand the nature of user requests. These are divided into four large categories:

information;
transactions;
navigation;
general requests.

Information search queries

These people ask the search engine if they have any question that needs to be solved. The system produces a list of sites that more or less correspond to the given one, after which the client begins to alternately move through the pages from the top list of results, studying the results for relevance. The person stops when he manages to find the necessary data.

Most often, information requests begin with a question word, although they often resort to expressions of thought that are relatively unobvious to machine language - they ask for help or advice, feedback or rules (instructions). If the owner of the resource knows which queries most often lead the user to it (or could lead), it is necessary to form a semantic core for each page, taking this information into account. If the project is non-commercial, then it is information requests that bring almost the entire volume of traffic. To monetize your site, you can resort to contextual advertising or other similar opportunities.

Navigation and transactions

Navigation queries are those that give a clear description of the virtual page. It is thanks to them that transitions will take place in the future.

Transactions, according to many SEO experts, are the most interesting category of all possible queries. Through them you can get an idea for what purposes the client is looking for a site. Some people need material to familiarize themselves with, others download files, and others make purchases. Knowing the features of transactional requests, you can build your own business on the Internet. By the way, some time ago it was through them that almost everyone offering services, websites, as well as virtual stores developed.

Feature of the question

Not everything is so easy and simple. Queries that an SEO specialist can identify, making up the semantic core, are used by all competitors. On the one hand, their use cannot guarantee the success of the promotion program - there are too many competitors. At the same time, their absence makes the site development program almost impossible. By using competitive queries, you can successfully attract your audience to your promoted page. If you plan to promote based on just such requests, you need to control that the user, once on the page, can make the corresponding transaction.

Not everyone is sure whether it is worth using this type of request if the page being promoted is not of a commercial, but of an informational nature. Experts assure that this is an absolutely correct decision. In this case, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of the user performing actions on the page. The simplest option is contextual advertising that matches the content, an affiliate program.

General inquiries

These are formulations that make it difficult to understand what exactly the user is looking for. For example, it could be “car engine” or “blush brush”. For what reason the user is looking for information is not at all clear from the request itself. Someone is interested in how an item works and what it is made of, another is looking for an opportunity to buy, and a third is exploring the range of offers on the market. Perhaps the user wants to find instructions for making an item or doing a job on his own, but another person is interested in ordering a service - for example, wallpapering a room. It is necessary to take into account general requests when forming a contextual core, but you should not place special emphasis on them if the project is not devoted, for example, to all possible types of blush brushes or wallpaper and everything connected with it, from production issues to coloring rules.

Frequency: competition at every turn!

The frequency characteristic is one of the key ones when choosing the appropriate content for the semantic core. In general, all queries are divided into three large groups, with low frequency including questions that appear in the search engine less than two hundred times per month, high frequency including questions requested more than a thousand times, and medium level - everything between the indicated boundaries.

The indicated values are general, for each specific area they will be unique, the numbers vary significantly. To correctly form the semantic core, you need not only to know the search engine indicators for the queries that are supposed to be included, but also to imagine the hierarchical structure of the site being developed and to work on internal optimization. Experts recognize Yandex.Wordstat as one of the most useful modern tools for forming a semantic core. It helps to identify the frequency of requests, on the basis of which you can create an expanded list and get rid of unnecessary, empty requests. To create a structure, it is recommended to do at least three cycles of working with the list of queries when using the capabilities of Yandex.Wordstat.

Yu. S. Stepanov.

Semantics of the Russian language

(from the Greek σημαντικός - denoting) - 1) all content, information transmitted by language or any of its units (a word, a grammatical form of a word, a word-with-anything, a sentence); 2) a section of linguistics that studies this content and information; 3) one of the main branches of semiotics.

Semantics (in the 1st meaning) is a non-rigidly determined system. The directly observable cell of semantics - a full-meaning word (for example, a noun, verb, adverb, adjective) - is organized according to the principle of a “semantic triangle”: external element- a sequence of sounds or graphic signs (meaning) - connected in the mind and in the language system, on the one hand, with subject of reality(thing, phenomenon, process, sign), called in the theory of semantics denotation, referent, on the other hand - with concept or idea about this subject, called meaning, significate, intension, signified. This diagram summarizes the semantic relationships; a more complete system is given in Art. Concept. Since it is possible to connect a word with an object only on the condition that the object is somehow recognized by a person, denotation, like significatum, is some reflection (representation) of a class of homogeneous objects in consciousness, however, unlike significatum, this reflection is with a minimum number identification features, often unsystematic and not coinciding with the concept. For example, for the word “straight” the significative (concept) is “the shortest distance between two points”, while the denotation is associated only with the idea of “a line that does not deviate either to the right or to the left, neither up nor down” (significate and intension usually come closer to a scientific concept to one degree or another). There are also words that are predominantly denotative (referential), such as pronouns, personal names, and words that are predominantly significative (non-referential, non-denotative), such as abstract nouns.

Another universal cell of semantics is a sentence (statement), which also distinguishes a denotation (or referent) as a designation of a fact of reality and a significative (or meaning) corresponding to a judgment about this fact. Denotation and signification in this sense refer to the sentence as a whole. In relation to parts of a sentence, usually the subject (or subject) is denotative, referential, and the predicate (or predicate) is significative.

The semantics of all language units is organized similarly to the word and sentence. It breaks down into two spheres - subject, or denotative (extensional), semantics and the sphere of concepts, or meanings - significative (intensional) semantics. The terms “extensional semantics” and “intensional semantics” go back to the description of a separate word-concept, where even in the tradition of medieval logic, the scope of the concept (i.e., the scope of its applications to objects, the subject area covered) was called the term extensio 'extension', and the content concepts (i.e., a set of conceivable features) - with the word intensio 'internal tension'. The denotative and significative spheres of semantics in natural languages (unlike some special artificial languages) are built quite symmetrically, while the significative (conceptual) sphere largely copies the denotative (subject) sphere in its structure. However, there is no complete parallelism between them, and a number of key problems of semantics are solved only in relation to each area separately. Thus, objective, or denotative, synonymy, extensional identity of linguistic expressions do not necessarily entail significative, or conceptual, synonymy, intensional identity, and vice versa. For example, the words “poison” and “poison” in Russian mean the same phenomenon - “poisonous substance” (they are extensionally identical), but have different conceptual content, different meaning (intensionally different): it is impossible to say “Some diseases are treated with poison " On the other hand, the expressions “armed forces” and “army, navy, aviation” (the last three words taken together) are intensionally identical, but not necessarily interchangeable: one can say “Petya serves in the armed forces “, but you can’t - “Petya serves in the army, air force and navy.” The semantics of words and sentences is perceived by native speakers to a certain extent directly, which is what communication consists of.

With the help of linguistic analysis, the semantics of parts of a word - morphemes and parts of a sentence - syntagmic phrases can be established. Full word morphemes - roots and affixes - carry two different types of meanings. The roots express the so-called real value - the main part lexical meaning of the word, for example, in Russian the roots krasn- ‘the concept of redness’, dvig- ‘the concept of movement’, etc. Affixes express grammatical meanings, which, in turn, fall into two types: some called categorical, serve to generalize real values, subsuming them under the most general categories; others called relational,intralingual,syntactic, serve to connect words and other significant parts in a sentence. Relational grammatical meanings are closely related to the morphology of a particular language and, as a rule, are nationally and historically specific. These include features of coordination, control, case system, “coordination of tenses” (consecutio temporum), etc. Categorical meanings include 'subject - predicate' (or 'name - verb'), 'subject - object', 'activity - inactivity', 'animation - inanimateness', 'certainty - uncertainty', 'alienable - inalienable belonging', 'action - state', etc.; Wed also genders of nouns, number, verb tense, case, etc. Unlike relational ones, categorical values constitute systems of paired oppositions from positive and negative members, oppositions and always form a hierarchy. They are universal (see Linguistic universals) and are associated primarily with the universal laws of construction of sentences (statements) in all languages (the morphology of each language in this case acts only as a “technique” of their design). Thus, depending on what categorical opposition is implemented in a sentence, there are three main types of sentences, which largely determine the difference between the three main types of language: the opposition “subject - object” determines the nominative type of sentence and the type of language (see. Nominative system); the opposition “activity - inactivity” of the subject determines the active type (see Active system); the opposition “active subject and inactive object” (to a certain extent it can be considered as a combination of the two previous features) is characteristic of ergative structure offers. Categorical grammatical meanings thus act simultaneously both as relational, syntactic categories, and as elementary semantic features, semes in the lexicon; for example, in the Russian language, the animacy of nouns acts as a special category (seme) in the lexicon and requires a special type of agreement - control in the syntagm, in the sentence; in the Georgian language, so-called inverse verbs (verbs of feelings, etc.) are a special category of the lexicon and require a special sentence structure.

Semantic relations are described by semantics as a branch of linguistics from different points of view. Towards paradigmatics include groupings of words in the language system, the basis of which is opposition - synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, paronymy, nest of words, family of words, lexical-semantic group, as well as the most general grouping of words - field. There are two main types of fields: 1) combinations of words in their relation to one subject area - subject, or denotative, fields, for example, color designations, names of plants, animals, weights and measures, time, etc.; 2) combinations of words in their relation to one sphere of ideas or concepts - conceptual, or significative, fields, for example, designations of states of mind (feelings of joy, grief, duty), thinking processes, perception (vision, smell, hearing, touch), possibilities, necessity, etc. In subject fields, words are organized primarily according to the principle of “space” and according to the principles of the relationship of things: part and whole, function (purpose) and its arguments (producer, agent, tool, result); in conceptual fields - mainly according to the principle of “time” and according to the principles of the relationship of concepts (subordination, hyponymy, antonymy, etc.). Paradigmatic relations are formalized using mathematical set theory.

To syntagmatics groupings of words according to their location in speech relative to each other ( compatibility, arrangement). The basis of these relations is distribution (see. Distributive analysis). They are formalized using the mathematical theory of probability, the statistical-probabilistic approach, predicate calculus and propositional calculus, and the theory of algorithms.

When correlating the results of the description of semantics in paradigmatics and syntagmatics, some of their common features are revealed, the presence of semantic invariants, as well as smaller and more universal semantic units than the word - semantic features, or semes (also called a component, sometimes a semantic parameter or function). The main semes in the lexicon coincide with the categorical grammatical meanings in the grammar (grammemes). In paradigmatics, seme is identified as a minimal sign of opposition, and in syntagmatics - as a minimal sign of compatibility. For example, the verbs “burn” and “burn” in paradigmatics are contrasted on the basis of “state” - “calling to life, causation of this state”, and in syntagmatics one of these signs in the verb “burn” requires an active subject capable of causation (“ person”, “enemy”, “stoker”, etc.), while for the verb “to burn” one of these signs requires a subject state (“coal”, “manuscript”, “village”, etc. ). Thus, a sentence always contains some common feature of the subject and the predicate - a semantic component (seme).

The semantics of words in different languages can be largely reduced to different sets of the same or similar semantic features. For example, a set of features: 1) 'solid formation', 2) 'in the body of an animal, in meat', 3) 'in the body of a fish, in fish', 4) 'in the composition of a plant, in a plant' - distributed in Russian differently than in French. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd characteristics are summarized in the Russian language in the word “bone”, the 1st, 4th - in the word “ost”; in French, 1st, 2nd - in the word os, 1st, 3rd, 4th - in the word arête. Fields in semantics are ultimately also organized on the basis of similarities and differences not of words, but of semantic features, so the same word can be included (according to different features) in several semantic fields.

The semantics of natural language consolidates the results of reflection and cognition of the objective world achieved in the social practice of people. Thus, European culture has developed the concepts of “to be”, “to have”, “time”, “past”, “present”, “future”, “form”, “content” and others, which are expressed by the corresponding words and grammatical forms in every European language. The same concepts in the same combination of features may not be present in other languages; for example, in the Hopi language (the language of the North American Indians) there are no nouns like “spring”, “winter”, “present”, “future”, and the corresponding (but not identical) concepts are conveyed in the form of adverbs - “when it’s warm”, etc. .; "rain" - an object in Indo-European languages - is categorized as a process (lit. - 'it falls') in the Amerindian language Hupa. At the same time, the opposition of object and process, object and attribute is objective and universal - in every language they exist as the opposition of name and predicate in a statement. Thus, vocabulary, nationally unique and historically changeable, also acts as a “technique” for the design of more universal and historically stable entities of semantics, subject only to the fundamental laws of evolution.

The semantics of a sentence (statement) is determined, on the one hand, by the subject area (which can be structured differently in different areas of the world, cf., for example, the contrast between the “active” human principle and the “inactive” natural principle in the “active” languages of the American Indians ), on the other hand, with the same communicative purpose for all languages of the world. The latter determines its universal features. In a sentence, patterns of the relationship between subject and predicate that are common to all languages are formed. The universal laws of historical changes in semantics also originate there: the formation of subjective linguistic expressions and predicate expressions different from them: metaphorization of lexical meanings, which occurs differently in the position of the subject and in the position of the predicate; transfer of lexical meaning according to a linguistic function (for example, the designation of a process can always turn into a designation of a result, cf. “organization” as a process and “organization” as a result, institution), etc.

The similarity of sentences in meaning (significative, intensional) with possible differences in the subject of designation (denotation, or referent) is the source of the existence of transformations (for example: “The workers are building a house” - “The house is being built by workers”, the so-called transformation of the voice); the proximity of sentences on the subject of designation with differences in meaning is the source of the existence of periphrases (for example: “Peter buys something from Ivan” - “Ivan sells something to Peter”), Relations of sentences as in paradigmatics (for example, intensional and extensional identity), and in syntagmatics (for example, the connection of sentences in a text) constitute the main direction of scientific research in the semantics of sentences.

The difference between the concepts of paradigmatics, syntagmatics, etc. (used simultaneously in modern linguistics) was initially associated with different approaches in the history of semantics as a science.

Semantics as a science (as well as the semantics of language) is characterized by a cumulative type of development: the stages of the formation of science are formed into constant trends in it.

Semantics as a science began to develop in the 2nd half of the 19th century, when, based on the pioneering ideas of W. von Humboldt, expressed at the beginning of the century, the fundamental linguistic and epistemological concepts of H. Steinthal, A. A. Potebnya and V. Wundt appeared, determined 1st stage in the development of semantics, which can be called psychological and evolutionary. This stage is characterized by a broad evolutionary (but not always specifically historical) approach to culture and the assimilation of linguistic semantics to the psychology of the people. The unity of semantics is explained by the common psychological laws of humanity, and the differences are explained by the difference in the “psychology of peoples.” According to Potebnya’s teachings, thinking evolves in close connection with language according to patterns that are semantic in nature (i.e., in Potebnya’s understanding, psychological, but not logical). The most important of the regularities is constant sign substitutions that occur both in the word (“internal form of the word”) and in the sentence (“replacement of parts of speech”). Potebnya was the first to substantiate these theses with numerous facts. Like Wundt, he viewed these patterns in close connection with “folk life,” which also manifests itself in the field of folklore and “folk psychology” (a number of Potebnya’s views almost literally coincide with the views of the literary historian A. N. Veselovsky in the field of historical poetics). The weaknesses of the theoretical views of this period are the refusal to consider logical patterns in favor of exclusively psychological ones and insufficient attention to specific history, which was relegated to the background by the ideas of general evolution and universal typology. In the 20th century global ideas of evolution and typology served as the starting point for the concepts of the “linguistic picture of the world” (neo-Humboldtianism in Germany, the concepts of E. Sapir and B. L. Whorf in the USA, etc.), for the fundamental semantic-syntactic concept of I. I. Meshchaninov, but they also led to the abandonment of a specific historical study of semantics in the forms of morphology and vocabulary in "new teaching about language" N. Ya. Marra. However, Marr is responsible for the generalization of the principle of “functional semantics,” i.e., the transfer of a name from an old object to a new one, which began to perform the function of the former in material culture (for example, Russian canning knife, breaker hammer; Old Indian takṣ = ‘cut, hew’ reflects the early stage of this Indo-European root, while Lat. tex- 'to weave' - a later stage when the terms of twig weaving were transferred to weaving).

2nd stage, comparative historical, was marked by the separation of semantics into a special area of linguistics under the name “ semasiology"(in the works of M. M. Pokrovsky and other Russian and German scientists) or "semantics" (initially in 1883 in the work of M. Breal, and then other French linguists). This period is characterized by the introduction of general principles of concrete historical comparative research into semantics and an attempt to formulate—mostly successful—the historical laws of semantics. Thus, Pokrovsky formulated the following basic principles: 1) the laws of semantics are revealed not in individual words, but in groups and systems of words, in “fields of words”; 2) these groups are of two kinds: intralingual associations, according to “spheres of representation” (or, in modern terminology, significative), and extralinguistic associations, according to subject areas, for example, the concepts of “fair”, “market”, “games and spectacles”, “weights and measures”, etc. In extralinguistic associations there are specific historical patterns associated with the industrial and social life of society: in intralingual associations other, psychological patterns operate; both can be combined, leading, in particular, to the conceptualization of the spiritual world on the model of the material (for example, the philosophical term “matter” goes back to the Latin māteria ‘wood, the base of the trunk’ and the same root as the Russian “mother”), cf. above about copying the objective world in the significative sphere of semantics; 3) universal, mainly syntactic, patterns are associated with the construction and transformation of sentences (statements), for example. transition from the abstraction of a process, from a verb, to the designation of the material result of a process, an object: “institution” ‘establishment’ → “institution” ‘public or state organization’. Extra-linguistic associations of words and patterns of semantics became the main subject of research by scientists grouped around the journal “Wörter und Sachen” (“Words and Things”, 1909—).

The comparative historical approach is further developed in modern research, mainly in connection with the study of etymology. Based on the ideas of “functional semantics” and “fields”, O. N. Trubachev (1966) showed the massive transition of ancient Indo-European terms for weaving and pottery production to weaving; see also: under his editorship, the multi-volume publication “Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages. Proto-Slavic Lexical Fund", in. 1-15, 1974-88; “Dictionary of Indo-European social terms” by E. Benveniste, vol. 1-2, 1969; “Historical and etymological dictionary of the Ossetian language” by V. I. Abaev, vol. 1-3, 1958-79, “Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans” by T. V. Gamkrelidze and Vyach. Sun. Ivanova, vol. 1-2, 1984, etc. A special branch is the study of the terms of spiritual culture, which in Russia was started by J. Groth’s “Philological Research” (1873) and in the USSR continued by the works of V. V. Vinogradov, Yu. Sorokin, V.V. Veselitsky, R.A. Budagov, Yu.A. Belchikov and others.

The universal syntactic approach, only outlined at this stage, was fully developed later.

3rd stage starts around the 20s. 20th century It is characterized by the convergence of semantics with logic and philosophy, orientation towards syntax, therefore it can be called syntactical-semantic or logical-semantic. This stage is characterized by the following basic theoretical provisions: 1) the objective world is considered not as a set of “things”, but as a set of occurring events or “facts”; accordingly, the main cell of semantics is not a word - the name of a thing, but a statement about a fact - a sentence; 2) some words of the language have direct “outputs” to extra-linguistic reality, they are definable in terms of observable objects or facts, for example “forest”, “to make noise”, “children”, “to walk”: “the forest is noisy”, “children are walking”; other words and expressions of the language are definable only through their intralingual transformations carried out through a sentence, for example, “noise”, “walk” are defined through the “noise of the forest”, “children’s walk” and are ultimately reducible to “the forest is noisy”, 'children are walking'; 3) for the latter, the main method of analysis is the nature of the relative arrangement of such words and expressions in a sentence and in speech in general - their distribution, as well as their mutual transformations - transformations (see. Transformation method), paraphrases, functions; 4) the description of the primary, initial meanings to which the rest are reduced constitutes a special task - the so-called establishment of “semantic primitives”. These linguistic views were formed and the tasks corresponding to them were posed and solved in close connection with the evolution of general methodological views on language (see. Methodology in linguistics, Method in linguistics). They initially arose in Anglo-American linguistics, where they turned out to be closely connected with the general evolution of logical positivism - from the “logical atomism” of B. Russell and the early L. Wittgenstein (works of the 20s) to the “logical analysis of language” of the 50s-70s x years (works by Wittgenstein, A. J. Ayer, W. O. Quine, J. R. Searle, P. F. Strawson, Z. Vendler, etc.). In the early period associated with logical atomism, the prevailing desire was to establish some “primary”, “core”, etc. expressions (mainly sentences), from which other expressions could be produced through various transformations. In a later period, associated with logical analysis, a view of “meaning as use” was established (“Meaning is not any object associated with a given word; the meaning of a word is its use in language” - Wittgenstein’s thesis). There is a direct connection between this statement and the concept of distribution in semantics among American linguists: the meaning of a word is the totality of its surroundings by other words, together with which this word is found when it is used in the language. Despite the limitations of this understanding of meaning, distributive analysis of meaning played a role in the development of semantics and, as a particular technique, continues to be used.

By the beginning of the 70s, mainly in Soviet linguistics, thanks to the criticism of distributional analysis by Soviet linguists, a more harmonious and complete, comprehensive approach to semantic phenomena was established. On the one hand, objective, extra-linguistic, denotative connections between words and other signs and statements, the reflection of reality in their semantics are studied, for which special methods are used (see Thesaurus, Component analysis method, Oppositions) in the works of Yu. N. Karaulov, L. A. Novikov, A. A. Ufimtseva and others. On the other hand, their intralingual connections are explored, for which other methods are used (transformation analysis, distributional analysis, paraphrasing) in the works V. A. Zvegintseva, Yu. D. Apresyan, N. D. Arutyunova, E. V. Paducheva, O. N. Seliverstova, etc. In this case, the main orientation is not the analysis of an abstract, isolated sentence, but the consideration of the sentence in real speech , in dialogue or text, taking into account the pragmatics of language. Research continues on the so-called grammatical semantics, mainly the semantics of morphological forms (A. V. Bondarko, T. V. Bulygina, etc.). The search for “semantic primitives” remains an independent task of semantics (for example, the work of A. Wierzbicka).

Grotto Ya., Philological research. Materials for the dictionary, grammar and history of the Russian language, 4th ed., St. Petersburg, 1999;
Veselovsky A.N., Historical poetics, Leningrad, 1990;
Pokrovsky M. M., Selected works on linguistics, M., 1999;
New in linguistics, in. 2 - Problem of meaning. M., 1992;
Sorokin Yu. S., Development of the vocabulary of the Russian literary language of the 90s of the 20th century, M.-L., 1995;
Trubachev O. N., Craft terminology in Slavic languages. (Etymology and experience of group reconstruction). M., 1996;
Ufimtseva A. A., Word in the lexical-semantic system of language, M., 1998;
Budagov R. A., History of words in the history of society, M., 1991;
Shmelev D.N., Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary. M., 1993;
Apresyan Yu. D., Lexical semantics. Synonymous means of language, M., 1994;
Belchikov Yu. A., Russian literary language in the second half of the 20th century, M., 1994;
Benveniste E., General linguistics, trans. from French, M., 1994;
Principles and methods of semantic research, M., 1996;
Arutyunova N.D., Sentence and its meaning. Logical-semantic problems, M., 1996;
Karaulov Yu. N., General and Russian ideography, M., 1976; Language nomination. General questions, M., 1997;
Vinogradov V.V., Selected works. Lexicology and lexicography, M., 1997;
Bondarko A.V., Grammatical meaning and meaning. L., 1988;
Mulud N., Analysis and meaning, trans. from French, M., 1999;
New in foreign linguistics, in. 10 - Linguistic semantics, M., 1981;
Stepanov Yu. S., Names. Predicates. Offers. Semiological grammar, M.. 2000.