Basics of Semantic Formalization

1. To begin with, we point out that the semantics itself can a) either differ from the language; b) either not to differ from it. In the first case, we are successful in indicating which of the words of the language are semantic categories.

2. Also, usually c) either the semantics repeat the logic (in some aspects); d) either does not repeat the logic. In the latter case, we do not just distinguish semantics from logic, we cannot say that semantics is formalizable.

3. In most cases, (a&c) takes place. The fact that we distinguish semantic categories is the ability to indicate significant elements, and the fact of formalization is the ability to implement semantic rules through logic.

4. The main difference in semantics, which usually needs formalization, is both the definitions themselves and the definitions of some significant terms.

5. Significant terms in semantics are terms that e) speak about the utterance, and those that f) speak about everything that allows the utterance to speak.

6. Case (e) is a way of talking about expressive means, or language. We must be able to talk about how this becomes possible. This feature needs formalization.

7. Case (f) is a transcendental way, as we try to use means of expression or language to talk about objects that are not language.

8. In general, it is assumed that (f) is some exaggeration. In any case, there is some cataleptic conviction that before talking about excretory means or the world, we must initially have some idea about it.

9. Semantics is autonomous or independent if there is a language with which the semantics can be described without the need for recourse to means (f).

10. It is assumed that a semantic expression of various entities, relationships and scenarios is possible, but the internal selection of elements is exclusively transcendental.

1. Terms (e) correspond to the ordinate axis (i.e. to y line); the terms (f) correspond to the abscissa axis (or x axis ). For example, phonetics - corresponds to the 1st quarter; grammar - corresponds to the II quarter; syntactics - corresponds to the III quarter; and semantics - IV quarter. 

2. Based on this:

    ▪ [0; 0] is a skeptical position; 

    ▪ [0; - ∞ ] - line of logical semantics; 

    ▪ [0; + ∞ ] - common language line; 

    ▪ [- ∞; 0 ] - idealism; 

    ▪ [+ ∞; 0 ] - materialism; 

    ▪ [+ ∞; + ∞ ] - realism. 

3. It is assumed that it is impossible not to imply the allocation of both the means by which the description takes place, and the material itself, which is the object of the description. Why is that? - The point is that one cannot both be aware of what is being described, and not be aware of the separation of the described from the means of description. After all, otherwise we would get that the description alone already gives the result. So, then, that describes would give the result that the description allows.

4. In view of this, significant terms are highlighted , which have already been said to be transcendental, however, taking into account the above, we will add an important component: the possibility of distinguishing between the means of description and what is described is a condition for transcendental cognition.

5. It's interesting to note how our vision of the world can operate our semantics. Depending on which conceptual representation we have - the different parts our language will have, and due to this - the polarization of semantics occurs in a relevant way. 

In a simple way to represent the idea of semantic formalization let's take a table:

the rows will be the words or the notions
the columns will be the stuff

This means that a row R_n what matches a column C_m results in a some way. Why we have R_n * C_m - we don't really know; it can be eventually or by the agreement. Nobody can say it for ceratin.