Construct · 2 fields · 5 citations

Where does semantics collide?

One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.

● jingle · one word, two constructs Nearest construct by meaningepisodic memorycompare the meanings
How to read this

Every construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to semantics is episodic memory.

Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.

semantics2 CONSTRUCTSSemantic memoryQUILLIAN · MEMORY STOREProgram semanticsSCOTT-STRACHEY · PROGRAM

Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

1968Semantic memory1971Program semantics
2026

Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.

Psychology

a memory store of general knowledge, facts, word meanings and concepts, held apart from memory of personal events.

Ross Quillian introduced semantic memory in his 1966 dissertation and his 1968 chapter Semantic memory, describing a store of general knowledge, facts, word meanings, and concepts held apart from the memory of personal events. Endel Tulving's 1972 chapter Episodic and semantic memory sharpened the split between this general knowledge store and episodic memory for specific experiences, and Collins and Quillian's 1969 study measured how quickly facts are retrieved from it. Here the referent is a proposed memory system inside a person, tested by recall and reaction time, so it is not a field of linguistic study or a description of what a program computes.[1][2][3]

Unit
One item of general knowledge or one concept held in long-term memory
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Assessed by recall accuracy and by reaction time to verify facts and category membership

Computer science

The mathematical meaning of a program

Dana Scott and Christopher Strachey's 1971 monograph Toward a mathematical semantics for computer languages gave the meaning of a program a precise mathematical form, mapping each program to the mathematical object it denotes, an approach called denotational. Gordon Plotkin's later structural operational approach instead fixes a program's meaning by the steps it takes as it runs. Here the referent is a formal specification of what a program computes, written and reasoned about with mathematical rules, so it is not the study of meaning in human language or a store of remembered facts.[4][5]

Unit
The mathematical object, or set of execution steps, assigned to one program
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Given by denotational or operational rules and checked by proofs of program equivalence and correctness

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how semantics sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collision

Nearby collisions

memory6 fields · 18 citationsjingle · one name, six constructsreference3 fields · 3 citationsjingle · one word, three constructssign4 fields · 4 citationsjingle · one word, four constructs

References

  1. Quillian, M. R. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing (pp. 227–270). MIT Press.
  2. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381–403). Academic Press.
  3. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(2), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80069-1
  4. Scott, D. S., & Strachey, C. (1971). Toward a mathematical semantics for computer languages (Technical Monograph PRG-6). Oxford University Computing Laboratory.
  5. Plotkin, G. D. (2004). A structural approach to operational semantics. The Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 60–61, 17–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlap.2004.05.001

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct