Semantics is a science that studies processes of meaning. The goal is usually the elaboration of signs and rules by which concepts can be described. From a historical perspective, semantics is an attempt to achieve the synthesis of languages. Leech (1981) argues that semantics is the center of the study of the human mind, thought processes, cognition, conceptualization. Langer (2009) points out that not every semantics belongs to language, and that meaning processes include much more, such as music: “If music has any significance, it is semantic.” Linguistics is the study of languages, semantics is the study of that which lies behind languages, namely the imagination. 

Semantics explores language structures within human biology and neurology, assuming that human understanding is not only a matter of learning and culture, but also that an inborn language ability is needed. In this view signs not only refer to the outside, to the concrete, but at the same time have an inner, abstract meaning.

Abstraction is the basis of thinking. The ability to work with signs, to process sensory information, is innate and proceeds through a language that is specific to the brain and nervous system (Langer, 2009). Leech cautiously refers to a conceptual basic framework in which abstract ideas are formed. He speaks of a grid, a collection of cells or designative categories. In his impressive study The Act of Creation, a study of the conscious and unconscious in science and art, Koestler (1976) links behavior such as laughter, scientific, technical and artistic creativity to what he calls matrices of thought. He uses the word matrix to designate every ability, habit or skill, every pattern of ordered behavior that is managed by a ‘code’ of fixed rules.

The study of information processing by computers and brains also makes it increasingly clear that behind the multitude of observations and expressions, a regularity can be found that can be traced back to a processing method. An example of this type of research is modern linguistics. The famous linguist Noam Chomsky rejects the view that languages are purely conventional. He shows that to a certain extent we are programmed to develop a language. Although his generative grammar theory has been subject to criticism, since his first publication (1957) a stream of data has emerged that has convinced the vast majority of linguists of a universal system that hides behind the diversity of languages. ‘Living systems’ such as language have not been designed and programmed by the observer, but are part of the evolving nature. The observer is a product of evolution, he was produced by the observed and thus in a sense forms a unity with it.

Steven Pinker’s cognitive-psychological starting-point tries to reconcile the new vision of hereditary knowledge with the behaviorist tradition. Pinker (1995) gives arguments from child psychologists, biologists, neurophysiologists, computer specialists, linguists etc… proving that the existence of a thinking-language is not only possible but also necessary. In this view, each one of us carries an inbuilt dictionary as part of our mental equipment. According to Pinker it is organized like a thesaurus, so that when one key-concept is found, other similar in meaning are made readily available. Knowledge is not just a list of facts but is organized into a complex network. Expressive language must be structured so that the listener/observer can place each part into the inbuilt framework.

More recently, evolutionary psychology has emerged as a new major force within psychology, more systematically exploring the scope and limits of psychological universals (Norenzayan & Heine, 2005). In this premise, the psychological aspects of the human mind and human behavior, are explained from the point of view of evolutionary theory. The human brain is an information-processing organ shaped by natural selection, directing behavior in response to external and internal stimuli. The dominant reasoning in evolutionary psychology assumes a species-specific psychological nature. Evidence is found in the extent to which findings generalize across cultural groups.

Finally, evolutionary biology may deliver the empirical evidence for such an inner language framework. The next chapter looks at some neuroethological studies in more detail.