Analysis of Meaning in terms of Context: Semantics and Pragmatics

The fields of semantics and pragmatics are devoted to the study of conventionalized and context or
use dependent aspects of natural language meaning, respectively. In some definitions of semantics
don’t consider context and it is indicated to mere sentences, phrases and words regardless of
context. In these definitions, language users, usage environments, and purposes are not considered.
The abstract formation of meaning in the mind and the object and its emphasis is placed on the
relationship between symbolic design. Pragmatics, on the other hand, is approached in the form of
meaning in context or use, and it is emphasized that it deals with the meaning of the language used
in the context. van Dijk (1981) emphasizes that semantics focuses on the meaning of an expression,
while pragmatics addresses its function. Morris relates the triad of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics
in terms of sign systems as follows: Syntax, order relationship between signs; semantics, sign and its
the relationship between meaning; and pragmatics examines the relationship between the sign and
the one who perceives and interprets it. Let's explain with an example of traffic lights. syntax
examines the order and layout of the three colors (red > yellow > green) , semantics examine the
meaning of each color (red “stop”, yellow “get ready”, and green “go”) and pragmatics examines the
behavior that a person exhibits each time they see a color (stopd at the red light or do something
else , be ready in yellow or do something else and go in green or do something else ).
First, let's consider the Turkish equivalents of these two concepts. Both semantics pragmatics can be
a logical problem if semantics is met with the term semantics, which can be the general term of the
field of meaning, and the other with the term pragmatics. Just as the general term science is the
name of one of the sub-branches of physics, chemistry, and biology. In reality, semantics and
pragmatics are subunits of the field of semantics. Therefore, as a Turkish translation of the phrase
semantics, it may be more appropriate to use a term to indicate that it is a subunit of mainstream
science. According to Piaget, man first creates thought and then explains it through language. The
person builds a thought infrastructure from the objects around him, the relationships between
objects, and the regularities arising from these relationships. Language is in the form of a
consequence or extension of this infrastructure. So, the meaning derives from events in nature. In
other words, the physical context, environment, nature and reality must be at the center of meaning
theory. Therefore, context is a meaning that can be created without participating in the study ,its
theory would not be firm.
The relationships between objects and objects are the source of meaning. Basic things that have
been transformed into objects by people who perceive and interpret them in contexts, the states of
concepts of these objects in minds, and the concepts of these concepts into sound or image the
process of transformation takes place. Basic contexts are the sum of relationships and operations in
which things are transformed into objects. The dimensions that make social communication possible
are not actually linguistic, but contextual partnerships that are the source of common linguistic
forms. It can be noticed that relationships between entities persist in meaningful contexts and
transitions to contexts. The realities that people reflect through language are the expression of these
contexts and networks of context. That is, contexts that are already present in nature are outlined in
the syntax of language, the contents of meaning, and the projection of verbal actions.
The basic condition for communication is context. The simplest context covers the least person. Both
parties have a certain amount of knowledge of the basic variables of this context. In some ways,
there may be individual situations. Communication between at least two people and based on
fundamentalism can be called semantic communication.
Linguistic structures can provide the transformation of the root meaning to artanlam* ; also, tone of
voice and body language can be used . In fact, in the process of acquiring a person's language, it can
be said that the placement of linguistic icons and, perhaps more importantly, the stories and fictions
of event development that enable these icons to gain activity takes place in memory. A person digs a
large number of events in his head with their general lines, such as a series of film writers, and when
the general lines of an event appear, he activates linguistic and communicative elements that are
appropriate and generalized to the event, although he reserves the opportunity to develop unique
expressions and attitudes at any time of his will. It is natural that in all people and at different times,
the same person may not be exactly the same. But the main lines are semanteme and, if they
exist,artanlam*. That's how the sociality of language is born. Otherwise, linguistic communication
cannot be mentioned.

Each language has its own unique features of indexology, kökanlam science and artanlam science.
Differences in these characteristics are even deeper between languages that are members of
different language families. Historical, cultural, social and geographical originality can distract
languages from each other. There may be a small number of partnerships other than very general
root ties. Moreover, the formation of artanlams can occur entirely in relative conditions. If a person
who learns a foreign language cannot live in a society that speaks that language for a certain period
of time, it may be difficult to adequately learn the semantics of a foreign language, especially
artanlams*.
Meaning is considered in two main areas, semantics and pragmatics, while context and the user are
often covered by the second area. In the first field, there is an abstracted view from the user. As
Kecskes emphasized, since meaning cannot be realized without context, this view must be
reconsidered and context must be incorporated into the work. In addition, there are logical problems
in the Turkish equivalents of the two terms. Instead of the terms semantics and pragmatics, it seems
that the expressions root meaning science and artanlam* science may be more acceptable as
subunits of the general term semantics.

*artanlam : is a Turkish term used to describe pragmatics.

ALİŞAN BİLİK
180058041
syntax examines the order and layout of the three colors (red > yellow > Yesil)