Semantics of the language

The signs of language, the rules of their combination, and the basic principles of reference give us the most general idea of the semantics of a language. In other words, they allow us to take a step from formally correct syntactic constructions to studying the meanings of individual signs, and further, to understanding complex communication in a particular language.

Semantics as a science of language is defined by the following types of questions:

• What does this expression mean?
• How is this expression specifically related to its meaning (what is the mode of reference)?
• Is this expression true?
• Under what conditions is this expression true?

Theoretical concepts in the science of semantics slightly (or even strongly) differ among different scholars, in various branches of semantics based on different philosophical or even neurobiological theories, especially now in the era of artificial intelligence. Many concepts are hypotheses, some of which contradict each other, but most coexist, describing different aspects of thinking and communication using different sign systems (different languages).

However, all people have some "everyday" understanding of semantics (even those who do not know this word), after all, we all use our native language for communication and sometimes succeed in it.

Ask those around you, "How is your reference structured and how do successful communications occur?" (Before that, you will have to explain to them what this "reference" is in general.)

Most likely, even if you explain about compositionality and contextuality, you will hear something like, "we say words or phrases, thus pointing to some things in reality, objects, or situations."

As we discussed, the word "laptop" refers to an object---a laptop. The expression "the laptop fell off the table" refers to a situation in which the laptop falls off the table. It is quite simple and clear, and there is nothing more complex behind these words and expressions.

It should always result in successful communication if a person chooses the correct words that refer to the intended object (situation). On the other end of the line, the message is heard and understood.

But you have all been in situations when you (in your opinion!) have correctly chosen words to convey the intended meaning, but communication failed. This often happens when communicating not about specific objects but about ideas.

Reaching an agreement on "justice" or "beauty" is much more complex than agreeing on "tables"!

When someone sends you a text or speaks words (especially individually familiar ones), you sometimes

• Do not understand what is meant.
• Understand what is meant but are unsure.
• Understand what is meant but later realize you were wrong,

As we can see, communication failures can occur for various reasons:

Firstly, the communication participant might not understand what was meant at all, which objects or ideas the received message points to. For that person, the communication is meaningless, it does not mean anything, the task of reference is unresolved entirely. Or the message is poorly understood, there is no certainty in the correctness of its understanding, which is only slightly better.

Secondly, the communication participant might have misunderstood the message, that is, decided that the signs refer to other objects or ideas than the author of the message intended. References can vary significantly. Such a misunderstanding can persist for quite some time until some contradiction in the worldviews of the participants is discovered. Much worse if one person’s message is perceived as false due to such a mismatch.

We will not delve into the concept of truth for statements in detail now; it is enough to say that truth is simply the correspondence of the interpretation of the message with the picture of what is happening in the real world---the correspondence to reality here and now or the potential correspondence under certain conditions of reality. Another name for this understood truth is adequacy. A statement, a message (like any model) should be connected to the situation in the real world and, in some significant aspects, should correspond to the world.

The third type of reasons for communication failures, pragmatic ones, we will consider later.

So, at the "everyday" level, the work of language is understood as follows:

"Words have meanings. When I say words, pointing to certain objects, I should be understood. If not understood, or understood incorrectly, or understood in the opposite manner---well, what can be done. The problem cannot be solved."

In the "everyday" understanding, this is where the story ends, no further actions can be taken. You are in a very narrow corridor of communicative strategies, from which there is no way out.

However, we already know that there are different ways to present a sign to denote an object, even in natural language. If understanding of language is expanded, there will be even more ways.

You can say out loud "Gagarin monument." You can, standing in the square, emphatically wave your hands towards the Gagarin monument. You can metaphorically play out in verses the Gagarin monument standing in the square. All these are different ways of forming a sign for the same object.

We also know that one and the same sign can have many signified objects, one and the same idea can be expressed by different signs and embodied in different objects.

Therefore in reality, the corridor of communicative strategies is not narrow at all. Potentially, the number of possible descriptions for one piece of physical reality is infinite, and for one and the same linguistic expression, there is just as infinite a set of interpretations, depending on the context.

If we want to learn to use signs (that is, to communicate) more effectively, we need to understand the reference model more precisely---how the image that you want to form in the interlocutor’s mind actually forms in their head.

Reference models can be very different. For example, above, we discussed the principles of compositionality and contextuality, and different people may combine them differently in their thinking. You have probably encountered people who take everything they hear literally (they favor compositionality) and people who everywhere look for references to something else, allegories, and even conspiracy theories (these people prefer contextuality).

Choosing a natural language is not just choosing "English" or "Russian." The next thing to consider is that within one natural language, there are many different dialects used by various groups of people. Geographical, social, cultural, or professional communities may have their dialects. When you say words that have a specific meaning in the field of engineering, you may mistakenly expect them to have the same meaning in the field of management.

For example, "project" in the sense of design in engineering and "project" in the sense of project in management are fundamentally different concepts. Because of this, misunderstandings still arise in some companies to this day.

As we discussed, within professional dialects (professional jargon), languages for different roles can be further distinguished.

Words work well for conveying concepts specifically within a particular language. Therefore, the use of words must be clarified depending on the language community we are communicating with, and to understand as accurately as possible the language in the head of the addressee of your communication. Saying that a word has a certain meaning "in the Russian language" is close to a "everyday" understanding of semantics, try to move away from this thought during our course. In the future, always try to take into account the presence of smaller language communities within a larger natural language.

A necessary condition for successful communication is when you can correctly select the language and convey the necessary ideas and concepts to the interlocutor in that language. It is important that the objects embodying these ideas are also understood identically by you and the person you communicate with. This is precisely what it means that you did not just express a thought, but ensured that on the other end of the line they understood it. This is the main difference of our approach to reference from the "everyday" one, in which it is somehow believed that there is a known unambiguous and correct correspondence of words, objects, and ideas.

But from our approach, it follows that there is no one right way to choose a word for a particular use. There is no one correct word for a specific meaning or idea. We judge correctness by how successfully we managed to convey this meaning or idea to another person.