- #1
JierenChen
- 11
- 0
This is kind of a dumb question but I really can't find a definition anywhere. Can anyone help?
Yes, the article mentions logical completeness (the article itself is about soundness). Logical completeness is certainly of interest to semanticists, but I have no idea what you could mean by 'semantic completeness' other than some kind of formal, logical completeness. Note that the meanings of 'semantics' and 'syntax' in logic can differ from their meanings in linguistics. What kind of completeness are you looking for? Can you give some context for the definition you're after? Why do you want to know? What is it in connection with? Completeness of what?JierenChen said:Yeah I think that's more the mathematical definition of semantic completeness. But thanks for the help.
Is it http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Brain-and-Cognitive-Sciences/9-59JSpring-2005/1A84AAA2-8DA5-4C62-B93E-492D2967A1C7/0/0203_syntax_1.pdf ?JierenChen said:Well I've been trying to look through a course in Psycholinguistics on MIT OCW and I got to a section about constituenthood, which requires a sequence of words to have syntactical and semantic completeness. I'm pretty sure it just means that the sequence makes sense, both in terms of meaning and grammar. However, I sort of want a more formal definition.
Is there anything in particular that you don't like about the definition? 'Interpretable component' jumps out at me. Do you know what that expression means? Interpretations will be part of the formalization of these structures, so it could tie in with that.Semantic completeness: The sequence of words is syntactically and semantically complete on its own. That is, it does not require other words and phrases to form an interpretable component of a sentence.
Depends on what you count as a sentence. A sentence normally is already associated with at least one meaning.JierenChen said:I presume interpretation means changing a sentence into a meaningful concept.
If you put it that way, perhaps. It seems like you're just taking two terms that you think are synonymous and are both rather meaningless to you and trying to use them to define each other. I guess that if that ends up not providing you with any additional information and you want a more satisfactory definition, take the terms as undefined or define them in terms of something else.But what makes a sentence interpretable? That it is syntatically and semantically complete, right? Seems like a tautology to me.
Semantic completeness in linguistics refers to the idea that a language system should be able to express any possible meaning or concept in a complete and unambiguous way. It is closely related to the concept of linguistic universals, which suggests that there are underlying principles that govern all languages.
Semantic completeness is achieved through a combination of lexical and grammatical resources in a language. This includes having a diverse vocabulary with precise and nuanced meanings, as well as a set of rules for organizing and combining words to convey complex ideas.
Semantic completeness is important because it allows for effective communication and understanding between speakers. It also helps to prevent misunderstandings and ambiguity in language, which can have significant consequences in various contexts, such as legal or technical settings.
No, it is not possible for a language to be completely semantically complete. Languages are constantly evolving and adapting to new contexts and ideas, so there will always be new concepts and meanings that may not have precise expressions in a given language.
Syntactic completeness refers to the ability of a language to express any possible grammatical structure. It is concerned with the arrangement of words and phrases in a sentence. Semantic completeness, on the other hand, deals with the meaning and concepts conveyed by a language. While both are important aspects of a language, they are distinct from each other.