Content indicated by one or another linguistic expression by a word, sentence, sign, etc. The question of the Z. of linguistic expressions is studied by linguistics, semiotics, and logical semantics. Distinguish subject, semantic and expressive Z. linguistic ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

meaning- MEANING, SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFIED Franz. signification, signifiant, SIGNIFIE. The basic concepts of modern linguistics for describing the sign were substantiated by the classic of this science F. de Saussure. According to the scientist, the signifier / signified are ... ... Postmodernism. Glossary of terms.

VALUE, VALUE, i; cf. 1. The main semantic content of what l. Z. concepts. Z. look, gesture. Z. speeches, speeches. Determine h. the words. Lexical words (the concept they denote). Full, direct, literal, figurative h. the words. 2.… … encyclopedic Dictionary

Meaning: Meaning is the semantic content of a word, phrase or character. The function value is the result of the function evaluation. The absolute value of the modulus of a number. The value of the quantity is the ratio of the measured physical quantity to the unit ... ... Wikipedia

The content associated with a particular expression (word, sentence, sign, etc.) of a certain language. The concept of linguistic expressions is studied in linguistics, logic, and semiotics. In the science of language, Z. (see Lexical Meaning) is understood as semantic ...

The semantic content of the word, reflecting and fixing in the mind the idea of ​​an object, property, process, phenomenon, etc. encyclopedic Dictionary

Meaning- (common Slavonic, from the word "sign") 1. quantity or value, expressed as a number; 2. information about something objectively existing, about its role in what is happening (the term sense rather conveys the personal value of an object or such information for an individual). *… … Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

meaning- meaning / ne 1) The main semantic content of what l. Meaning / concept. The meaning of a look, a gesture. Meaning / speech, speeches. Determine the meaning of the word. The lexical meaning / meaning of the word (the concept it denotes) ... Dictionary of many expressions

Philosophical Encyclopedia

A material object (phenomenon, event) acting as a representative of some other object, property or relationship and used for the acquisition, storage, processing and transmission of messages (information, knowledge). Distinguish… … Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Books

• , Chernyakhovsky S., Chernyakhovsky Yu. Few would argue with the fact that the Crimean events of 2014 became the most significant for world geopolitics and marked a new fork in world history. The future of all mankind after...
• Peak of Crimea. Crimea in Russian history and Crimean self-identification of Russia. From Antiquity to the Present Day, Sergei Chernyakhovsky. Few would argue with the fact that the Crimean events of 2014 became the most significant for world geopolitics and marked a new fork in world history. The future of all mankind after...

The definition of a sign given in the previous paragraph immediately reveals one of the most characteristic features of a sign. The sign, as has already been said, refers an organism or a cybernetic machine to some object. Considering this fact, we will say that any sign has an objective meaning for a certain organism or a certain machine. So, the call has a substantive meaning for the dog, which has developed a corresponding reflex to it. The same call may not have an objective meaning if the dog has not yet developed a conditioned reflex or has lost it as a result of non-reinforcement. This does not mean that such a dog does not notice the call at all. Under certain conditions (for example, a loud sound), the ringing may attract her attention. However, even when noticed by a dog, isolated from a complex of other stimuli, it does not refer to anything, does not point to anything; in this sense, it is devoid of objective meaning for the dog, that is, it does not function as a sign of something.

When a person hears words addressed to him, which refer him to some object, they have objective meaning for him. If the words are pronounced in an unfamiliar language, they have no objective meaning for the listener and are perceived by him solely from the side of their sound. The listener can only assume that the speaker does not just utter a series of meaningless sound combinations, but wants to send the interlocutor to something.

There is a two-way relationship between the sign and the objective meaning. On the one hand, there is no sign without objective meaning. On the other hand, there is no objective meaning without a sign - the bearer of objective meaning. Therefore, objective meaning is a necessary and sufficient sign of a sign.

The objective meaning does not exhaust that aspect of the sign which is called its meaning. As the well-known German logician G. Frege (1848–1925) showed in 1892, in addition to objective meaning, there is also semantic meaning. The discovery of two kinds of meaning was one of Frege's great achievements. One may agree or disagree with his interpretation of the objective and semantic meaning, but without these concepts, semiotics as a science is unthinkable.

To clarify the need for the concept of semantic meaning, let us return again to the sign situations described in § 1 of this chapter.

For a dog with a developed conditioned reflex, the call does not simply refer to some object, that is, it has an objective meaning for it. He signals to her about the presence of food in a strictly defined place. What makes this particular signaling possible? Why does the bell indicate to this dog that the food is in this box? Why can he send another dog to another place or even have no signal value for her at all?

Obviously, it's all about the past experience of the dog. If, after the call, the dog each time found food in a certain place, then the latter circumstance is fixed by its memory. The fact of finding food in a certain place leaves a certain trace in the memory of the dog, and the trace associated with the call. If the same Dog or some other found food in another box, the trail would be different and it would perform different actions.

When the dog hears the bell after it has been repeatedly reinforced with food, the trace left in its memory wakes up, becomes active, and the dog goes to a certain box for food. It is absolutely clear that the nature of her action (the direction in which she will go, the distance she will retire, etc.) is determined by the nature of the track. If there is no trace at all, there is no reference, the call has no objective, symbolic meaning for the dog. It is this trace that embodies the semantic meaning of the call. The call therefore refers the dog to the object, i.e., has an objective meaning for it, because it has a definite semantic meaning for it.

If we confine ourselves to a general description of the picture, then in principle this is the same state of affairs in the second sign situation. The words "Bring a glass of water!" send the listener to a particular subject. Why do they have this ability? Why is the latter not characteristic of words spoken in an unfamiliar language? Yes, all for the same reason. Familiar words awaken images of objects associated with these words in the process of their assimilation. Unfamiliar words do not find a response in the human mind. Words refer the listener to a certain subject due to the fact that the listener understands their semantic meaning. Without semantic meaning, the sign function could not be realized, and words would not have objective meaning for a person.

Let's consider the third situation. If the turtle hits an obstacle several times with a whistle, then one whistle is enough for it to turn back. Obviously, under the influence of the simultaneous action of an obstacle and a bell, certain changes, physical processes (capacitor charging, contact closure, etc.) occur in it. Of course, the physical processes that take place in a turtle are not identical to the physiological and psychological processes in animals and humans, but from a semiotic point of view, i.e., from the point of view of the structure and deployment of the sign process, it is not these differences that are of interest, but the general fact that present in all three situations. The whistle sends the turtle to the obstacle, causes it to act to avoid collision with the obstacle. This reference is impossible without the mediation of those changes that have remained in it from past experience. These changes perform the same function as traces in the memory of an animal or a person in similar circumstances. Thus, the whistle has a certain “meaning” for the turtle. If it were devoid of semantic meaning, she would not react to it, just as she does not react to the mass of objects surrounding her that left no trace in her.

Taking into account the existence of three main types of sign situations, one can define semantic meaning as a trace of an object to which a sign refers, a trace left in the memory of an animal or a person or in a cybernetic device by past experience.

When we began to elucidate the nature of the sign, at first we spoke only about the objective meaning, without mentioning a single word about the semantic meaning. Such a separation of the two types of sign meaning is possible only in theoretical analysis: when describing a complex phenomenon, one always begins with one particular feature, while temporarily digressing from others.

In reality, the situation is different. There are no two phenomena that exist independently of each other: objective meaning and semantic meaning. It does not happen that a sign refers to an object by itself, outside of semantic meaning. A sign refers to an object, i.e., has an objective meaning, only through the medium of semantic meaning. The characterization of an object as referring to another object, which avoids any mention of semantic meaning, is a product of abstract analysis. Singling out precisely this side of the sign process is quite enough to give a definition of the sign. However, this does not exhaust all the features of the sign. If we wished to go beyond the definition, which, as is well known, indicates only signs that make it possible to distinguish one phenomenon from another, and give a more complete characterization of a sign, we could say this: a sign is an object that refers to an organized system (an organism or a cybernetic device) to another object with the help of a trace of this other object, a trace left by past experience. Or, in short: a sign is an object that has an objective and semantic meaning for some organized system.

There is no sign without meaning, both objective and semantic. And from this follows an important conclusion: the formulation of the problem of the sign is, at the same time, the formulation of the problem of the meaning of the sign, in essence, these are two sides of the same problem. There cannot be a science of signs that is not at the same time a science of the meanings of signs. From this point of view, attempts to define semiotics as a science of signs and to oppose semantics to it as a science of meaning are erroneous, as, for example, Meredith does in his work “Semantics in its relation to psychology”. Precisely because semiotics is the science of signs, it is at the same time the science of the meanings of signs.

As the preceding presentation has shown, there is no objective meaning without semantic meaning. But is it possible to say that, conversely, there is no semantic meaning without objective meaning? It turns out that this cannot be said.

Let's say that a student memorizes 11 verbs related to the second conjugation and repeats to himself: “Drive, hold, breathe, hear ...”, etc. He knows the meaning of the spoken words. But does he want to communicate something to someone by means of them, to send someone to a certain subject? Of course no. He has nothing of the sort in his mind. This means that the words enumerated by the student do not function as signs, are devoid of objective meaning, but they have semantic meaning.

Consequently, not every word that has a semantic meaning is a sign. Semantic meaning is a necessary condition for a sign situation: if, say, a certain set of sounds is meaningless (for example, avet, dir), it cannot perform the function of a sign, refer to some object. However, one semantic meaning is still not enough for a sign situation to arise. The latter appears only when a certain set of sounds, which has a semantic meaning, begins to send the listener to a specific subject.

Further comparison of semantic and objective meanings reveals another important feature of them.

What can be from the side of semantic meaning, say, a certain set of sounds? It is clear, first of all, that this totality either has a semantic meaning or does not. If different sets of sounds do not have a semantic meaning, then in this respect there is no difference between them. For example, FSU, VUT, OL are equally devoid of semantic meaning in the system of the Russian language, they are equally meaningless sound combinations. If the totality of sounds has a semantic meaning (for example, a table, a street, a figure, a plan, a mermaid, etc.), then the latter can be, as is obvious from a simple enumeration of examples, of the most diverse nature. And this is understandable: in order for a semantic meaning to refer to any object, it must have an unlimited range of significance.

The nature of objective meaning is different. As in the case of semantic meaning, a certain set of sounds either has an objective meaning or does not have it. If different sets of sounds have no objective meaning, then in this respect they are exactly the same. Here, for the time being, the same picture is repeated, which is familiar to us in connection with the analysis of semantic meaning. But then an essential difference begins: sets of sounds that have objective meaning also do not differ in any way from each other in relation to objective meaning.

To make our thought clear, let's take concrete examples. The words “Bring a glass of water!” Addressed to a person refer him to a certain object, indicating the need to perform a certain action, that is, they have an objective meaning for him. The words "Get the book off the table!" or even "It's very cold outside today," uttered in similar circumstances, also has a substantive meaning: they refer someone to something. Does the objective meaning of some words differ from the objective meaning of others? If the question were put in this way regarding the meaning, then the answer would be an unconditional “yes”, because the meaning of the words “Bring a glass of water!” is not the same as the meaning of the words “Put the book off the table!” or “It’s very cold outside today.” But as regards the objective meaning of these sentences, the answer will be different, namely: the objective meaning of all of them is the same. It is equal to one (if the presence of an objective value is conventionally denoted by one, and its absence by the number zero).

This is due to the nature of the subject matter. Objective meaning is not the object denoted by the sign, but a feature of the sign itself. The sign, insofar as it is a sign, refers to the subject. And from this side, all the signs are exactly the same as signs. In response to this, they may say that there is still a difference between the signs: one sign refers to one object, the other to another object, etc. Yes, that's right! But what specific object the sign refers to is determined not by the objective, but by the semantic meaning. To have objective meaning is nothing else than to refer to an object. In characterizing the objective meaning, we abstract from what particular object the sign refers to. We are only interested in its ability to point to an object. Such an abstraction is very useful, as we have already said, in defining the concept of a sign. It is only necessary not to forget that the area of ​​subject meaning is limited to a simple reference to the subject. To which object the sign refers depends already on the semantic meaning. From this point of view, not only the sentences “Bring a glass of water!”, “Today it’s cold outside,” etc. have the same objective meaning - the objective meaning of the call is the same for the dog as the objective meaning of the words “Bring a glass of water !” for a person, as well as the substantive meaning of a whistle for a turtle. In all cases it is equal to one.

Thus, to the question of what is the objective meaning, for example, of some set of sounds, only two answers can be given:

positive: it is equal to one (this means that this set of sounds has an objective meaning, refers to an object, i.e., is a sign)

2) negative: it is equal to zero (this means that this set of sounds has no objective meaning, that is, it does not function as a sign). To the question of what is the semantic meaning of a certain set of signs, not only a positive and negative answer is possible; if the answer is positive, in other words, if a semantic meaning is inherent in a certain set of sounds, then the question is again legitimate: “What is it?” And there will be as many answers to it as there are sounds endowed with different meanings. Let us conventionally denote these answers by the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4.., n, and the negative answer by zero. Then we must answer the question about the semantic meaning of any expression as follows: either 0, or 1, or 2, or Z ... or n, while the objective value can be either 0 or 1.

Meaning is also called imaginary or real purpose any things, words, concepts or actions, laid down by a specific personality or commonality. The opposite of meaning is meaninglessness, that is, the absence of a specific purpose. Meaning can mean, for example, goal setting, as well as the result of any action.

In other Slavic languages, "meaning" can mean feeling(cf. Czech Smysl).

General concept

Meaning is an implied concept and it directly depends on knowledge about the subject. An unfamiliar thing may seem meaningless if it is not known how to use it, that is, how you can benefit from it. And, conversely, out of ignorance, a thing can be endowed with false useful qualities and, from this point of view, have a significant meaning.

A striking example of things that are meaningless for some and meaningful for others are superstitions, especially omens: some believe that omens help predict the future and therefore see great meaning in them; others do not believe in them and do not see any sense. The same can be said about an unfamiliar language: individual phrases in it seem meaningless, while natural native speakers automatically distinguish between meaningful or meaningless nature of spoken words and sentences.

The study of meaning is also ontology , theory of knowledge and science methodology. In particular, the ontology thematizes the semantic coordinates of being, the possibilities of delimiting the sphere of reality (for example, within the framework of society, in systems of orders). In the theory of knowledge, the problem of meaning is part of the problems of the nature and sources of knowledge, namely the boundaries of its meaningfulness and meaninglessness. Within the framework of the methodology, the applied characteristics of a particular scientific method are revealed, in particular, the focus of the method on providing innovative solutions to certain old problems, as well as the disclosure of entire classes of new problem situations. Otherwise, it is believed that the introduction of a new method is meaningless.

In the methodology, a key role is given to semantic analysis and designing the semantic load of the used language constructs - futuristic design.

Meaning and Meaning

Meaning and value

In addition to semantic definitions of meaning, there are also pragmatic ones that evaluate this phenomenon from the position of a person as a subject of activity. In this case, the meaning becomes value, significance or a characteristic of the usefulness of the item for the user. Meaning is acquired in the context of the life situation, needs, self-preservation and projective activity. Meaning contains a component of both knowledge about the subject and attitude to it. In the expression "what's the point?" meaning is identified with utility.

see also

Notes

Literature

• Bondarko A.V. Grammatical meaning and meaning. L., 1978. - 175 p.
• Vasiliev S. A. Synthesis of meaning in the creation and understanding of the text: Philosophical problems. - Kyiv: Nauk. Dumka, 1988. - 240 p.
• Deleuze AND. The logic of meaning. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 1995. - 300 p. - ISBN 5-7695-0004-2
• Klokotsky S. S.

The definition of a sign given in the previous paragraph immediately reveals one of the most characteristic features of a sign. A sign, as has already been said, refers an organism or a cybernetic machine to some object. Considering this fact, we will say that any sign has an objective meaning for a certain organism or a certain machine. So, the call has a substantive meaning for the dog, which has developed a corresponding reflex to it. The same call may not have an objective meaning if the dog has not yet developed a conditioned reflex or has lost it as a result of non-reinforcement. This does not mean that such a dog does not notice the call at all. Under certain conditions (for example, a loud sound), the ringing may attract her attention. However, even when noticed by a dog, isolated from a complex of other stimuli, it does not refer to anything, does not point to anything; in this sense, it is devoid of objective meaning for the dog, that is, it does not function as a sign of something.

When a person hears words addressed to him, which refer him to some object, they have objective meaning for him. If the words are pronounced in an unfamiliar language, they have no objective meaning for the listener and are perceived by him solely from the side of their sound. The listener can only assume that the speaker does not just utter a series of meaningless sound combinations, but wants to send the interlocutor to something.

There is a two-way relationship between the sign and the objective meaning. On the one hand, there is no sign without objective meaning. On the other hand, there is no objective meaning without a sign - the bearer of objective meaning. Therefore, objective meaning is a necessary and sufficient sign of a sign.

The objective meaning does not exhaust that aspect of the sign which is called its meaning. As the well-known German logician G. Frege (1848–1925) showed in 1892, in addition to objective meaning, there is also semantic meaning. The discovery of two kinds of meaning was one of Frege's great achievements. One may agree or disagree with his interpretation of the objective and semantic meaning, but without these concepts, semiotics as a science is unthinkable.

To clarify the need for the concept of semantic meaning, let us return again to the sign situations described in § 1 of this chapter.

For a dog with a developed conditioned reflex, the call does not simply refer to some object, that is, it has an objective meaning for it. He signals to her about the presence of food in a strictly defined place. What makes this particular signaling possible? Why does the bell indicate to this dog that the food is in this box? Why can he send another dog to another place or even have no signal value for her at all?

Obviously, it's all about the past experience of the dog. If, after the call, the dog each time found food in a certain place, then the latter circumstance is fixed by its memory. The fact of finding food in a certain place leaves a certain trace in the memory of the dog, and the trace associated with the call. If the same Dog or some other found food in another box, the trail would be different and it would perform different actions.

When the dog hears the bell after it has been repeatedly reinforced with food, the trace left in its memory wakes up, becomes active, and the dog goes to a certain box for food. It is absolutely clear that the nature of her action (the direction in which she will go, the distance she will retire, etc.) is determined by the nature of the track. If there is no trace at all, there is no reference, the call has no objective, symbolic meaning for the dog. It is this trace that embodies the semantic meaning of the call. The call therefore refers the dog to the object, i.e., has an objective meaning for it, because it has a definite semantic meaning for it.

If we confine ourselves to a general description of the picture, then in principle this is the same state of affairs in the second sign situation. The words "Bring a glass of water!" send the listener to a particular subject. Why do they have this ability? Why is the latter not characteristic of words spoken in an unfamiliar language? Yes, all for the same reason. Familiar words awaken images of objects associated with these words in the process of their assimilation. Unfamiliar words do not find a response in the human mind. Words refer the listener to a certain subject due to the fact that the listener understands their semantic meaning. Without semantic meaning, the sign function could not be realized, and words would not have objective meaning for a person.

Let's consider the third situation. If the turtle hits an obstacle several times with a whistle, then one whistle is enough for it to turn back. Obviously, under the influence of the simultaneous action of an obstacle and a bell, certain changes, physical processes (capacitor charging, contact closure, etc.) occur in it. Of course, the physical processes that take place in a turtle are not identical to the physiological and psychological processes in animals and humans, but from a semiotic point of view, i.e., from the point of view of the structure and deployment of the sign process, it is not these differences that are of interest, but the general fact that present in all three situations. The whistle sends the turtle to the obstacle, causes it to act to avoid collision with the obstacle. This reference is impossible without the mediation of those changes that have remained in it from past experience. These changes perform the same function as traces in the memory of an animal or a person in similar circumstances. Thus, the whistle has a certain “meaning” for the turtle. If it were devoid of semantic meaning, she would not react to it, just as she does not react to the mass of objects surrounding her that left no trace in her.

Taking into account the existence of three main types of sign situations, one can define semantic meaning as a trace of an object to which a sign refers, a trace left in the memory of an animal or a person or in a cybernetic device by past experience.

When we began to elucidate the nature of the sign, at first we spoke only about the objective meaning, without mentioning a single word about the semantic meaning. Such a separation of the two types of sign meaning is possible only in theoretical analysis: when describing a complex phenomenon, one always begins with one particular feature, while temporarily digressing from others.

In reality, the situation is different. There are no two phenomena that exist independently of each other: objective meaning and semantic meaning. It does not happen that a sign refers to an object by itself, outside of semantic meaning. A sign refers to an object, i.e., has an objective meaning, only through the medium of semantic meaning. The characterization of an object as referring to another object, which avoids any mention of semantic meaning, is a product of abstract analysis. Singling out precisely this side of the sign process is quite enough to give a definition of the sign. However, this does not exhaust all the features of the sign. If we wished to go beyond the definition, which, as is well known, indicates only signs that make it possible to distinguish one phenomenon from another, and give a more complete characterization of a sign, we could say this: a sign is an object that refers to an organized system (an organism or a cybernetic device) to another object with the help of a trace of this other object, a trace left by past experience. Or, in short: a sign is an object that has an objective and semantic meaning for some organized system.

There is no sign without meaning, both objective and semantic. And from this follows an important conclusion: the formulation of the problem of the sign is, at the same time, the formulation of the problem of the meaning of the sign, in essence, these are two sides of the same problem. There cannot be a science of signs that is not at the same time a science of the meanings of signs. From this point of view, attempts to define semiotics as a science of signs and to oppose semantics to it as a science of meaning are erroneous, as, for example, Meredith does in his work “Semantics in its relation to psychology”. Precisely because semiotics is the science of signs, it is at the same time the science of the meanings of signs.

As the preceding presentation has shown, there is no objective meaning without semantic meaning. But is it possible to say that, conversely, there is no semantic meaning without objective meaning? It turns out that this cannot be said.

Let's say that a student memorizes 11 verbs related to the second conjugation and repeats to himself: “Drive, hold, breathe, hear ...”, etc. He knows the meaning of the spoken words. But does he want to communicate something to someone by means of them, to send someone to a certain subject? Of course no. He has nothing of the sort in his mind. This means that the words enumerated by the student do not function as signs, are devoid of objective meaning, but they have semantic meaning.

Consequently, not every word that has a semantic meaning is a sign. Semantic meaning is a necessary condition for a sign situation: if, say, a certain set of sounds is meaningless (for example, avet, dir), it cannot perform the function of a sign, refer to some object. However, one semantic meaning is still not enough for a sign situation to arise. The latter appears only when a certain set of sounds, which has a semantic meaning, begins to send the listener to a specific subject.

Further comparison of semantic and objective meanings reveals another important feature of them.

What can be from the side of semantic meaning, say, a certain set of sounds? It is clear, first of all, that this totality either has a semantic meaning or does not. If different sets of sounds do not have a semantic meaning, then in this respect there is no difference between them. For example, FSU, VUT, OL are equally devoid of semantic meaning in the system of the Russian language, they are equally meaningless sound combinations. If the totality of sounds has a semantic meaning (for example, a table, a street, a figure, a plan, a mermaid, etc.), then the latter can be, as is obvious from a simple enumeration of examples, of the most diverse nature. And this is understandable: in order for a semantic meaning to refer to any object, it must have an unlimited range of significance.

The nature of objective meaning is different. As in the case of semantic meaning, a certain set of sounds either has an objective meaning or does not have it. If different sets of sounds have no objective meaning, then in this respect they are exactly the same. Here, for the time being, the same picture is repeated, which is familiar to us in connection with the analysis of semantic meaning. But then an essential difference begins: sets of sounds that have objective meaning also do not differ in any way from each other in relation to objective meaning.

To make our thought clear, let's take concrete examples. The words “Bring a glass of water!”, Addressed to some person, refer him to a certain object, indicating the need to perform a certain action, that is, they have an objective meaning for him. The words "Get the book off the table!" or even "It's very cold outside today," uttered in similar circumstances, also has a substantive meaning: they refer someone to something. Does the objective meaning of some words differ from the objective meaning of others? If the question were put in this way regarding the meaning, then the answer would be an unconditional “yes”, because the meaning of the words “Bring a glass of water!” is not the same as the meaning of the words “Put the book off the table!” or “It’s very cold outside today.” But as regards the objective meaning of these sentences, the answer will be different, namely: the objective meaning of all of them is the same. It is equal to one (if the presence of an objective value is conventionally denoted by one, and its absence by the number zero).

This is due to the nature of the subject matter. Objective meaning is not the object denoted by the sign, but a feature of the sign itself. The sign, insofar as it is a sign, refers to the subject. And from this side, all the signs are exactly the same as signs. In response to this, they may say that there is still a difference between the signs: one sign refers to one object, the other to another object, etc. Yes, that's right! But what specific object the sign refers to is determined not by the objective, but by the semantic meaning. To have objective meaning is nothing else than to refer to an object. In characterizing the objective meaning, we abstract from what particular object the sign refers to. We are only interested in its ability to point to an object. Such an abstraction is very useful, as we have already said, in defining the concept of a sign. It is only necessary not to forget that the area of ​​subject meaning is limited to a simple reference to the subject. To which object the sign refers depends already on the semantic meaning. From this point of view, not only the sentences “Bring a glass of water!”, “Today it’s cold outside,” etc. have the same objective meaning - the objective meaning of the call is the same for the dog as the objective meaning of the words “Bring a glass of water !” for a person, as well as the substantive meaning of a whistle for a turtle. In all cases it is equal to one.

Thus, to the question of what is the objective meaning, for example, of some set of sounds, only two answers can be given:

positive: it is equal to one (this means that this set of sounds has an objective meaning, refers to an object, i.e., is a sign)

2) negative: it is equal to zero (this means that this set of sounds has no objective meaning, that is, it does not function as a sign). To the question of what is the semantic meaning of a certain set of signs, not only a positive and negative answer is possible; if the answer is positive, in other words, if a semantic meaning is inherent in a certain set of sounds, then the question is again legitimate: “What is it?” And there will be as many answers to it as there are sounds endowed with different meanings. Let us conditionally denote these answers by the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4.., n, and the negative answer by zero. Then we must answer the question about the semantic meaning of any expression as follows: either 0, or 1, or 2, or З ... or n, while the objective value can be either 0 or 1.