The combinative semantics is the research of the total direction of a stated by “calculation” starting from its constituent units.

Support of combinative semantics

Syntax and semantics

Certain linguists proposed to simply base the calculation of the direction of the statements on their Syntaxe. On this assumption, the direction would be only one reinterpretation of the “major syntactic structure” of the statement.

Others on the contrary think that the semantic relations of the statement constitute a specific network, whose syntax provides only indices. Combinative semantics would rest then on the combinative syntactic one without however in being a simple reinterpretation; they would be two networks in relation, but distinct.

Semantic units

Sow and sémèmes

If the basic unit of syntax is the Morphème, in semantics the basic unit is the Sème, or semantic Trait (English: semantic feature ), i.e. in theory a “atom of direction”. Contrary to the morpheme, sows it always does not have, it is necessary oneself some, of tangible aspect, it is frequently subjacent, i.e. present in the conscience of the speaker, but not expressed. The units such as the words are then regarded as “packages of sow” or sémèmes .

Seek sow

Sow can be identified in particular:

• by the study of the terms used in the definitions of the dictionaries
• by the practice of the language and the dependant culture
• by the analyzes semic or componentielle Analyze between close terms. For example if one compares to wish and to fear , one can distinguish in both cases (inter alia) one sows “absence”, dependant in the first case on one sows positive (“good”), in the second with one sows negative (“bad”). As in Phonetic, one seeks the relevant minimal oppositions.

Cataloguing of sow

The identification of sow installation a problem of method: can one put on the same plan one sows fundamental such as “animated”, and one sows to some extent ad hoc such as “has a file”, which makes it possible semantically to distinguish a chair from a stool? The question of the cataloguing and the hierarchisation of sow joined the research of the semantic primitive then.

Feature semantic inherent and contextual

One distinguishes the semantic features suitable for a term given (ex: sincerity has the feature “not animated”), and the contextual features, which make it possible to restrict the use of a term in a statement (ex: to admire refers “requires an animated subject”). As one is here in extreme cases of syntax and semantics, certain partisans of the generative grammar thought of being able to bring back the semantic analysis to combinative syntactic.

Semantic relations

Simple relation

One can imagine a simple version of combinative sow in a unit: two terms which would have the same ones sow would be synonymous. This principle is applied in the information retrieval based on key words, in particular in the current search engines, on Internet or other.

Clusters and sequences

However this method finds its limits quickly, since it does not make it possible to distinguish for example between “garage” and “trunk”, the two words containing of sow such as “car” and “to arrange”. Weinreich proposed an embryo of relational model between sow, by distinguishing the additive association or cluster (agglomerate), whose configuration is a particular case, sequence ( linking ), when the association of the terms constitutes new a cluster. As follows:

• “boy” is a cluster composed of the features “child” and “male” (these two features being independent one of the other)
• “dwarf” is a configuration connecting “man” and “small”, in small direction the “as a man”
• “boy nice” is a sequence between the independent features “child”, “male” and “nice”
• “dwarf nice” is a sequence between the configuration (“small man →”) and the “nice” feature.

Complex underlying structure

The school of the generative Sémantique goes beyond the thesis of Weinreich by considering that words, or morphemes, of a language, are only indication of surface of a deep semantic organization much more complex (one joined here the fields of the Cognition and the Artificial intelligence). Mc Cawley provides the example of the statement “it almost broke the vase”, which can be interpreted, either as “it failed to break the vase”, or as “he about broke it”: the modifier “almost” would apply to elements different from the underlying structure “to break”, definite for example as “to be cause, by a shock, than an object finds of pieces”.

If one wishes to be able to make really apprehend the “direction” of a statement to a computer program, it is then necessary to consider a rigorous logical formalization of this major semantic structure. This remains an open-ended question and very difficult, especially if one does not wish to confine oneself with a specialized field, and should hold account in particular:

• of the general design of the world which an human being can be made (that this one is “scientifically exact” or not); for example, we generally consider that there exist categories of concepts called “animals”, “human beings”, “tools”, “actions”, “methods” etc which have each one a certain number of common distinctive features, and are semantically dependant.
• of the context of the stating, the intention of the speaker, etc (see Pragmatic).

Semantic organization of the statement

One can put the question to know if it is possible to reduce the totality of the possible statements to a single semantic model, or at least with a small number of basic models. This question is far from being distinct. One can mention inter alia the following ideas:

• the logical articulation between Prone and Predicate in the assertive statements , which seem to have for function to provide a judgment of truth on the attribution of a property to an object (ex: this apple is red , Pierre does not love Marie ). One can however discuss the object of the assertion (a particular element of the statement, the statement as a whole?), which can lead to a different logical analysis, based on the relation and the arguments .
• distinction (of a psychological nature) between topic and Rhème (or: matter)
• the opposition between posed and presupposed
• the multiplicity from the points of view (“bursting of the direction”) which can reflect a statement (what joined the concept of polyphony of the text of Mikhaïl Bakhtine).

Sources

This article, essentially, is based on the chapter Combinatoire semantics of the Nouveau encyclopedic dictionary of sciences of the language , of Oswald Ducrot and Jean-Marie Schaeffer, ED. Threshold (coll Points), in its edition of 1995.

Random links:

YHWH | Ernst Thommen | (607) Jenny | Maćija | Equip with the Netherlands of field hockey