Key Takeaways
Sometime in the late nineteenth century , people began using the countersign " semantics " to advert to " semiotics , " a philosophic hypothesis shroud the kinship between signaling and the things they cite — most notably , Book and their intended meanings . Sometime after that , masses began arguing over what " semantics " itself actually means ( ironic , do n’t you think ? ) .
These days , you ’re likely to hear someone criminate a debate cooperator of " just arguing semantics , " which , if you think about it , intend their argumentation partner is " just arguing about meaning , " which you would think is , like , the point of argue in the first place ? But in our forward-looking vernacular , the phrase has somehow become shorthand to intimate the speaker has arguedsomething trivial or unimportant . At its core , that ’s not what " semantics " is mean to represent at all . Or is it ? We asked an array oflanguageexperts to help us get to the bottom of the password ’s stock , its current version , and whether read someone ’s arguing is " just semantics " is a legit critique or just a major cop - out .
What Experts Say About Semantics
Jenny Lederer , assistant professor and linguistics adviser in the Department of English Language and Literature at San Francisco State University : " Semantics is the work of signification in context ; it ’s the investigation of how words , phrases and sentences call forth concepts and ideas in our judgment . As we hear spoken communication , we attach meanings to quarrel by hear what objects and concept each Holy Scripture refers to .
" ' It ’s just semantics ' is a common retort people use when arguing their point . What they intend is that their argument or impression is more valid than the other individual ’s . It ’s a room to be dismissive of language itself as carrier for idea . It implies that ideas and arguments can be severalize from the words and phrases used to encode those musical theme . The irony , of course , is that the Book and phrases we usearethe ideas . There is no way to transmit a complex argument or subject matter without nomenclature . Language and thought are entirely interconnected . In fact , words form conception and can lead to drastically different understandings of the same affair . For lesson , inheritance taxes can be ring ' death taxes ' or ' estate taxation . ' These two political phrases couch the same revenue enhancement law in drastically different ways . Semantics really matters . "
Robert Henderson , Associate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona : " Semantics is the study of meaning very broadly . We have semantics for human linguistic communication , but also for logics , or estimator languages . In the case of human terminology , to have a semantics for a language is to be capable to assign a meaning to every word in that language , and then to compute the meanings of judgment of conviction establish on the meaning of those word and how they are put together .
" The phrase , ' that ’s just semantics , ' is thus a little confusing . People seem to use it when they want to say that the disagreement they ’re presently accept is due to countersign choice and not due to a substantive dissonance . But that is not semantics at all . That would be , like , lexicography . The cause this idiom has nothing to do with actual semantics is that if we were having an argument that boiled down to ' just semantics , ' then we would be stimulate an contestation about what watchword mean . But that is not insubstantial at all ! In fact , it is unbelievably important for us to figure out what the various parties to an argument actually intend if we trust to purpose it . So , what is going on here ? I think that it seems that in popular parlance , people utilise ' semantics ' to stand for something like ' nitpicky note . ' That is , in the popular utilisation , when I dive into the semantics of what you ’re saying , I ’m tight parsing every little thing . Thus , if we are having an controversy and it ’s ' just semantics , ' then what you ’re saying is that we ’re having an argument over fine , nitpicky details that do n’t matter . I do n’t wish this use because I ’m a semiotician , and that is not what I do at all . I do logic , actually . But , what can you do ? the great unwashed will talk the mode people mouth . "
Dylan Bumford , assistant professor in the Department of Linguistics at UCLA : " There are various expert notions that go by the name ' semantics . ' Mostly , they are trying to characterise the style that linguistic forms ( like logical formula , or reckoner computer program or sentences in English ) are , or ought to be , consort with the thing they draw . In system of logic , this often take up the form of dominion that match pattern with mathematical social system . In computer skill , programme may be link up with procedures for metamorphose car states . In philosophy and linguistics , you might discover English expressions matched up with specific object and scenery , or at least histrionics of these . Outside of these inquiry field , my sentiency is that people practice the Christian Bible ' semantics ' to describe very all right eminence between dissimilar categories , particularly if those distinction are so subtle as to be irrelevant . In this sense , ' semantics ' would be something like the artistry of making annoyingly precise or pedantic lingual option .
" I take it when most people describe an contention as a ' topic of semantics , ' they mean that the two position are in effect saying the same thing , or that the difference between them is paltry ; the positions differ only in the words that are used ( to some , this would make it a matter of syntax , not semantics ; but of course , to others , that very dispute might be a matter of semantics ) . Sometimes , though , word really are about the substance of words . If two hoi polloi agree on all the facts — they know who did what to who , and what encounter when , etc . — but they still take issue on whether a certain sentence is truthful , they may be having a genuine public debate about semantics , about what objects or situations should be associated with various expressions . For illustration , if we disagree about whether Donald Trump withhold military aid in an effort to persuade the Ukrainian prime parson to plunge an investigation into Trump ’s political opponents , we are take a substantive dissonance about what actually happen , about what the world is like . But if we fit in that he did this , yet nevertheless take issue about whether such an action constituted a ' quid pro quo ' or ' high crime , ' we might or else be sustain a debate about semantics . As should be clear though , in this sense , semantic conflict can indeed be very big hatful ! "
Shane Steinert - Threlkeld , assistant professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Washington : " Semantics is the scientific subject field of signification as expressed in voice communication . commonly , this means doing matter like explaining formally under what conditions sentences in born languages are true or false , or when one sentence incriminate or presupposes another . The method can also be apply to courtly language like programming languages , where one would explicate , for model , how a computer program will behave .
" Indeed , a difference in a disputation that derive down to ' just semantics ' would be a passably expectant deal , since it means that we ’re using locution in different ways . There seems to be a use of the phrase that imply something more like ' this dispute ismerelyverbal : we in reality agree , but we look to dissent because we are using certain term in slightly different ways . ' I ’m not trusted that ' just semantics ' is a specially clever means of expressing that thought , but it ’s one that some people seem to employ . "
Toshiyuki Ogihara , professor and alum programme coordinator in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Washington : " In most cases , when people say that it is just semantics , they entail that two expression refer to the ' same situation ' or ' same matter ' but their connotation are different . "
So, In the End …
In the end , it seems that when something is " just a matter of semantics , " it ’s usually wording that potentially matters a lot , despite the somewhat passing intension of the phrase . watchword carry meaning , and gratefully , we ’re live on in a meter in which our society is starting to take that belief seriously ( case in point : preferent sex pronoun are finally becoming the average ) . And while people have always and will always disagree over perspectives and world views , simply writing off semantics as a somehow nit - picky or superficial conception isn ’s really a constructive path to move the conversation ahead . Instead , acknowledging that the things we say and the things we mean are undeniably interwoven and powerful might be a near jumping off point for deep ( and not so deep ) discussions .
