Editing Semantics (section)

== Basic concepts ==
=== Meaning ===
Semantics studies meaning in language, which is limited to the meaning of linguistic expressions. It concerns how signs are [[Interpretation (philosophy)|interpreted]] and what [[information]] they contain. An example is the meaning of words provided in [[dictionary]] definitions by giving synonymous expressions or paraphrases, like defining the meaning of the term ''ram'' as ''adult male sheep''.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Cunningham|2009|pp=530–531}} | {{harvnb|Yule|2010|pp=113–114}} }}</ref> There are many forms of non-linguistic meaning that are not examined by semantics. Actions and policies can have meaning in relation to the goal they serve. Fields like [[religion]] and [[spirituality]] are interested in the [[meaning of life]], which is about finding a purpose in life or the significance of [[existence]] in general.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Leach|Tartaglia|2018|pp=274–275}} | {{harvnb|Cunningham|2009|p=526}} | {{harvnb|Löbner|2013|pp=1–2}} | {{harvnb|Seachris|loc=§ 2a. The Meanings of 'Meaning'}} }}</ref>

[[File:Latin dictionary.jpg|thumb|alt=Photo of a dictionary|Semantics is not focused on subjective speaker meaning and is instead interested in public meaning, like the meaning found in general dictionary definitions.]]

Linguistic meaning can be analyzed on different levels. [[Word meaning]] is studied by [[lexical semantics]] and investigates the denotation of individual words. It is often related to [[concept]]s of entities, like how the word ''dog'' is associated with the concept of the four-legged domestic animal. Sentence meaning falls into the field of phrasal semantics and concerns the denotation of full sentences. It usually expresses a concept applying to a type of situation, as in the sentence "the dog has ruined my blue skirt".<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Riemer|2010|pp=21–22}} | {{harvnb|Griffiths|Cummins|2023|pp=5–6}} | {{harvnb|Löbner|2013|pp=1–6, 18–21}} }}</ref> The meaning of a sentence is often referred to as a [[proposition]].<ref>{{harvnb|Tondl|2012|p=111}}</ref> Different sentences can express the same proposition, like the English sentence "the tree is green" and the German sentence {{lang|de|"der Baum ist grün"}}.<ref>{{harvnb|Olkowski|Pirovolakis|2019|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FhaGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT65 65–66]}}</ref> Utterance meaning is studied by pragmatics and is about the meaning of an expression on a particular occasion. Sentence meaning and utterance meaning come apart in cases where expressions are used in a non-literal way, as is often the case with [[irony]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Riemer|2010|pp=21–22}} | {{harvnb|Griffiths|Cummins|2023|pp=5–6}} | {{harvnb|Löbner|2013|pp=1–6}} | {{harvnb|Saeed|2009|pp=12–13}} }}</ref>

Semantics is primarily interested in the public meaning that expressions have, like the meaning found in general dictionary definitions. Speaker meaning, by contrast, is the private or subjective meaning that individuals associate with expressions. It can diverge from the literal meaning, like when a person associates the word ''needle'' with pain or drugs.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Yule|2010|p=113}} | {{harvnb|Griffiths|Cummins|2023|pp=5–6}} }}</ref>

=== Sense and reference ===
[[File:Wismar Marienkirche Bronzebüste Gottlob Frege (01-1).JPG|alt=Bust of Gottlob Frege|thumb|upright=0.7|The distinction between sense and reference was first introduced by the philosopher [[Gottlob Frege]].{{sfn|Zalta|2022|loc=§ 1. Frege’s Life and Influences, § 3. Frege’s Philosophy of Language}}]]

Meaning is often analyzed in terms of [[sense and reference]],<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Griffiths|Cummins|2023|pp=7–9}} | {{harvnb|Cunningham|2009|p=526}} | {{harvnb|Saeed|2009|p=46}} }}</ref> also referred to as [[intension and extension]] or [[connotation]] and [[denotation]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Cunningham|2009|p=527}} | {{harvnb|Griffiths|Cummins|2023|pp=7–9}} }}</ref> The referent of an expression is the object to which the expression points. The sense of an expression is the way in which it refers to that object or how the object is interpreted. For example, the expressions ''[[Venus|morning star]]'' and ''evening star'' refer to the same planet, just like the expressions ''2 + 2'' and ''3 + 1'' refer to the same number. The meanings of these expressions differ not on the level of reference but on the level of sense.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Cunningham|2009|p=526}} | {{harvnb|Griffiths|Cummins|2023|pp=7–9}} }}</ref> Sense is sometimes understood as a mental phenomenon that helps people identify the objects to which an expression refers.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Marti|1998|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Riemer|2010|pp=27–28}} }}</ref> Some semanticists focus primarily on sense or primarily on reference in their analysis of meaning.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Riemer|2010|pp=25–28}} | {{harvnb|Griffiths|Cummins|2023|pp=7–9}} }}</ref> To grasp the full meaning of an expression, it is usually necessary to understand both to what entities in the world it refers and how it describes them.<ref>{{harvnb|Cunningham|2009|p=531}}</ref>

The distinction between sense and reference can explain [[Equation|identity statements]], which can be used to show how two expressions with a different sense have the same referent. For instance, the sentence "the morning star is the evening star" is informative and people can learn something from it. The sentence "the morning star is the morning star", by contrast, is an uninformative [[Tautology (language)|tautology]] since the expressions are identical not only on the level of reference but also on the level of sense.<ref>{{harvnb|Marti|1998|loc=Lead Section}}</ref>

=== Compositionality ===
[[Compositionality]] is a key aspect of how languages construct meaning. It is the idea that the meaning of a complex expression is a function of the meanings of its parts. It is possible to understand the meaning of the sentence "Zuzana owns a dog" by understanding what the words ''Zuzana'', ''owns'', ''a'' and ''dog'' mean and how they are combined.<ref name="auto6">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Szabó|2020|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Pelletier|1994|pp=11–12}} | {{harvnb|Krifka|2001|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=-wt1aZrGXLYC&pg=PA152 152]}} }}</ref> In this regard, the meaning of complex expressions like sentences is different from word meaning since it is normally not possible to deduce what a word means by looking at its letters and one needs to consult a dictionary instead.<ref>{{harvnb|Löbner|2013|pp=7–8, 10–12}}</ref>

Compositionality is often used to explain how people can formulate and understand an almost infinite number of meanings even though the amount of words and cognitive resources is finite. Many sentences that people read are sentences that they have never seen before and they are nonetheless able to understand them.<ref name="auto6"/>

When interpreted in a strong sense, the principle of compositionality states that the meaning of a complex expression is not just affected by its parts and how they are combined but fully determined this way. It is controversial whether this claim is correct or whether additional aspects influence meaning. For example, context may affect the meaning of expressions; [[idioms]] like "[[kick the bucket]]" carry [[Literal and figurative language|figurative or non-literal]] meanings that are not directly reducible to the meanings of their parts.<ref name="auto6"/>

=== Truth and truth conditions ===
[[Truth]] is a property of statements that accurately present the world and true statements are in accord with [[reality]]. Whether a statement is true usually depends on the relation between the statement and the rest of the world. The [[truth condition]]s of a statement are the way the world needs to be for the statement to be true. For example, it belongs to the truth conditions of the sentence "it is raining outside" that raindrops are falling from the sky. The sentence is true if it is used in a situation in which the truth conditions are fulfilled, i.e., if there is actually rain outside.<ref name="auto5">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gregory|2016|pp=9–10}} | {{harvnb|Blackburn|2008|loc=[https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105953851 Truth Conditions]}} | {{harvnb|Kearns|2011|pp=8–10}} }}</ref>

Truth conditions play a central role in semantics and some theories rely exclusively on truth conditions to analyze meaning. To understand a statement usually implies that one has an idea about the conditions under which it would be true. This can happen even if one does not know whether the conditions are fulfilled.<ref name="auto5"/>

=== Semiotic triangle ===
[[File:Semiotic triangle.svg|thumb|alt=Diagram of the semiotic triangle|The semiotic triangle aims to explain how the relation between language (''Symbol'') and world (''Referent'') is mediated by the language users (''Thought or Reference'').]]

The [[semiotic triangle]], also called the triangle of meaning, is a model used to explain the relation between language, language users, and the world, represented in the model as ''Symbol'', ''Thought or Reference'', and ''Referent''. The symbol is a linguistic [[signifier]], either in its spoken or written form. The central idea of the model is that there is no direct relation between a linguistic expression and what it refers to, as was assumed by earlier dyadic models. This is expressed in the diagram by the dotted line between symbol and referent.<ref name="auto3">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Palmer|1976|pp=25–26}} | {{harvnb|Noth|1990|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=rHA4KQcPeNgC&pg=PA89 89–90]}} | {{harvnb|Dirven|Verspoor|2004|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=OM58J4nQJaYC&pg=PA28 28–29]}} | {{harvnb|Riemer|2010|pp=13–16}} }}</ref>

The model holds instead that the relation between the two is mediated through a third component. For example, the term ''apple'' stands for a type of fruit but there is no direct connection between this string of letters and the corresponding physical object. The relation is only established indirectly through the mind of the language user. When they see the symbol, it evokes a mental image or a concept, which establishes the connection to the physical object. This process is only possible if the language user learned the meaning of the symbol before. The meaning of a specific symbol is governed by the conventions of a particular language. The same symbol may refer to one object in one language, to another object in a different language, and to no object in another language.
<ref name="auto3"/>

=== Others ===
Many other concepts are used to describe semantic phenomena. The [[semantic role]] of an expression is the function it fulfills in a sentence. In the sentence "the boy kicked the ball", the boy has the role of the agent who performs an action. The ball is the theme or patient of this action as something that does not act itself but is involved in or affected by the action. The same entity can be both agent and patient, like when someone cuts themselves. An entity has the semantic role of an instrument if it is used to perform the action, for instance, when cutting something with a knife then the knife is the instrument. For some sentences, no action is described but an experience takes place, like when a girl sees a bird. In this case, the girl has the role of the experiencer. Other common semantic roles are location, source, goal, beneficiary, and stimulus.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Yule|2010|pp=115–116}} | {{harvnb|Saeed|2009|pp=152–155}} }}</ref>

Lexical relations describe how words stand to one another. Two words are [[synonyms]] if they share the same or a very similar meaning, like ''car'' and ''automobile'' or ''buy'' and ''purchase''. [[Antonyms]] have opposite meanings, such as the contrast between ''alive'' and ''dead'' or ''fast'' and ''slow''.{{efn|''Antonym'' is an antonym of ''synonym''.<ref>{{harvnb|Heffer|2014|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=7WOEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA42 42]}}</ref>}} One term is a [[hyponym]] of another term if the meaning of the first term is included in the meaning of the second term. For example, [[ant]] is a hyponym of [[insect]]. A [[prototype]] is a hyponym that has characteristic features of the type it belongs to. A [[European robin|robin]] is a prototype of a [[bird]] but a [[penguin]] is not. Two words with the same pronunciation are [[homophones]] like ''flour'' and ''flower'', while two words with the same spelling are [[homonyms]], like a bank of a river in contrast to a bank as a financial institution.{{efn|Some linguists use the term ''homonym'' for both phenomena.<ref>{{harvnb|Saeed|2009|p=63}}</ref>}} Hyponymy is closely related to [[meronymy]], which describes the relation between part and whole. For instance, ''wheel'' is a meronym of ''car''.<ref name="auto7">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Yule|2010|pp=116–120}} | {{harvnb|Saeed|2009|pp=63–70}} }}</ref> An expression is [[ambiguous]] if it has more than one possible meaning. In some cases, it is possible to [[disambiguate]] them to discern the intended meaning.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Edmonds|2009|pp=223–226}} | {{harvnb|Murphy|Koskela|2010|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=YO0WDRPHcWIC&pg=PA57 57]}} }}</ref> The term ''[[polysemy]]'' is used if the different meanings are closely related to one another, like the meanings of the word ''head'', which can refer to the topmost part of the human body or the top-ranking person in an organization.<ref name="auto7"/>

The meaning of words can often be subdivided into meaning components called [[semantic features]]. The word ''horse'' has the semantic feature ''animate'' but lacks the semantic feature ''human''. It may not always be possible to fully reconstruct the meaning of a word by identifying all its semantic features.<ref>{{harvnb|Yule|2010|pp=113–115}}</ref>

A [[semantic field|semantic]] or lexical field is a group of words that are all related to the same activity or subject. For instance, the semantic field of [[cooking]] includes words like ''bake'', ''boil'', ''spice'', and ''pan''.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Saeed|2009|p=63}} | {{harvnb|Reif|Polzenhagen|2023|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=DyPdEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA129 129–130]}} }}</ref>

The [[Context (linguistics)|context]] of an expression refers to the situation or circumstances in which it is used and includes time, location, speaker, and audience. It also encompasses other passages in a text that come before and after it.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Meulen|2008|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=tSKfSI-7ZncC&pg=PA1653 Philosophy of Language and Linguistics]}} | {{harvnb|Kuche|Rowland|2023|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Kaa7EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA13 13–14]}} }}</ref> Context affects the meaning of various expressions, like the [[deictic]] expression ''here'' and the [[Anaphora (linguistics)|anaphoric]] expression ''she''.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Cornish|1999|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=xip76JYlvygC&pg=PA18 18–19]}} | {{harvnb|Jiang|2016|loc=§ Summary}} }}</ref>

A syntactic environment is [[Extensional context|extensional or transparent]] if it is always possible to exchange expressions with the same reference without affecting the truth value of the sentence. For example, the environment of the sentence "the number 8 is even" is extensional because replacing the expression "the number 8" with "the number of planets in the [[Solar System]]" does not change its truth value. For [[Opaque context|intensional or opaque contexts]], this type of substitution is not always possible. For instance, the [[embedded clause]] in "Paco believes that the number 8 is even" is intensional since Paco may not know that the number of planets in the solar system is 8.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Blackburn|2008c}} | {{harvnb|Partee|1997|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=o1jGSavwQZIC&pg=PA833 833–834]}} }}</ref>

Semanticists commonly distinguish the language they study, called object language, from the language they use to express their findings, called [[metalanguage]]. When a professor uses Japanese to teach their student how to interpret the language of [[first-order logic]] then the language of first-order logic is the object language and Japanese is the metalanguage. The same language may occupy the role of object language and metalanguage at the same time. This is the case in [[monolingual dictionary|monolingual English dictionaries]], in which both the entry term belonging to the object language and the definition text belonging to the metalanguage are taken from the English language.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Riemer|2010|pp=22–23}} | {{harvnb|Gamut|1991|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ktqxlzcc5nQC&pg=PA142 142–143]}} | {{harvnb|Dummett|1981|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=EYP7uCZIRQYC&pg=PA106 106]}} }}</ref>