The relations between syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels will be described in the form of processes of semantic and pragmatic interpretation. We regard semantic interpretation as a process of deriving objects and relationships between them from the known syntactic structure and pragmatic interpretation as setting matches in the real situation being processed for those semantic objects of the known semantic structure that require such an interpretation. This form of a description does not require that in actual text processing the formation of a complete semantic structure be preceded by the formation of a complete syntactic structure and that the former precede the transfer to the real situation. During text processing all the tasks may be performed simultaneously.
The peculiarity of the semantic interpretation process is the transition from a hierarchical structure of syntactic links to a more complex graph representing relationships between referents; this process is supported by the variety of linguistic means.
Initially referents (both direct and indirect) are brought into the net along with words by means of a dictionary. An entry extracted from a dictionary along with the word contains predefined referents and as the processing goes on and it becomes clear that different words denote the participants of one and the same situation some of their referents are merged (though initially they were introduced for different words independently). For example, for the words "поезд идет" ("a train runs") an indirect referent of the word "идет" ("runs") denoting a moving object is merged with the direct referent of the word "поезд" ("train"); and thus the semantic link between a movement and a moving object present in the dictionary becomes a link between referents of two different words.
There are several ways for a semantic link to be determined by syntax.
(a) Direct inclusion of a semantic link in the syntactic model of the governing word. In this case this is the link for the direct referent of the subordinate word and both semantic and syntactic links are set simultaneously (the semantic link in the previous example follows from the subject-predicate syntactic link). This kind of interpretation of a syntactic link may be specified in the dictionary not only for subordinate words but for governing words as well (i.e., a "model of subordination" may be added to a "model of governing"). This method is relevant for the words that normally are not included into the model of governing of its master (e.g., adjectives).
b) Setting a semantic link by way of syntactic transformation usually employing some special rules for link -words. An example of this is a special way for semantic links jumping over a strongly governed preposition or making links using passive-active transformation. In fact the syntactic structure does not undergo transformations but the semantic links are set in accordance with this would-be transformation. Here is a more complex example: "Поезд идет со скоростью V" ---> "Поезд идет, имея скорость V" ---> "По- езд идет" и "Поезд имеет скорость V" ---> "V есть скорость поезда" ("The train runs at the velocity of V" ---> "The train runs having the velocity of V" ---> "The train runs" and "The train has the velocity of V" ---> "V is the velocity of the train"); then according to the governing model of the word "скорость" ("velocity") its direct referent now becomes the "velocity" attribute of the train motion.
c) "Reversed syntactic links" - placing the main word of a semantic structure fragment in some inner position of the corresponding part of the syntactic structure rather than in the top vertex; such are quantifying pronouns, the word "который" ("which"), comparative degress of adjectives and proverbs. The only difficulty in setting semantic links is finding the "top" position where the main word should be placed (the position is usually well marked by syntactic features).
d) Simple anaphoric links. To set such a link means to merge direct referents of the antecedent and the substitute- word (in fact setting an anaphoric link is impossible without this kind of interpretation).
e) Adverbial modifiers and other "weak" links. These links do not define the exact place in the semantic structure for the referents of the words being linked. Instead, these referents are placed in a certain "context" which serves then as a priority domain for the search of missing semantic links in the portion of the sentence containing the master word of the link. An example: "в треу- гольнике медианы пересекаются в одной точке" ("In a triangle the medians intersect in one point"). Here the word "медиа- на"("median") alludes to a certain geometric figure of which it is the median and the missing referent is extracted from the adverbial modifier "в треугольнике" ("in a triangle"); the merging is based on a coincidence of the semantic classes of both items. The links of the kind do not indicate the exact place of the word in the semantic structure, they rather define its approximate place pointing to the portion of the syntactic structure where it is needed for the interpretation.
f) Semantic merging not resting on syntax. The merging takes place when semantic classes of words coincide and the succeeding interpretation does not lead to a contradiction and is based on the fact that an object once mentioned tends to be repeated in the following text. An addressee usually merges the objects automatically "not multiplying entities without a need". However sometimes this type of merging is guided by the need to obtain some extra semantic information concerning the object not available otherwise. There are words with particularly active semantic behavior of indirect referents searching for their merging partners because without such a partner the respective semantic relationship has a loose end and becomes semantically superfluous. E.g., if it is said that an event occured "через час" ("an hour later") then it is necessary to relate the initial moment of the hour to a preceding event. This behavior is characteristic of indirect referents because for direct referents the links can be determined from syntactic links.
By the pragmatic interpretation we understand domain-specific derivation operations or transformations including performing actions in the external world. A semantic object may be merged with the corresponding object belonging to the real situation when it is necessary to make sense. If a semantic object is not supposed to have a real world counterpart at this particular moment then the pragmatic interpretation remains incomplete and is kept in this form until the situation becomes real.
One of essential mechanisms of the transfer from referents to concrete real objects is a special kind of "compression" of composite designations. They specify a single object though on all levels except the pragmatic one all their components act as independent units (e.g., "left sound channel low frequency amplifier output transformer", "power off button", "my left hand", etc.). There are some analogues of compression on the level of abstract concepts when the concept itself is regarded as the object rather than its instances (e.g., "regular triangle" - is a mathematical concept, while a single word "regular" means nothing).
The non-traditional statement of problem has lead to a novel treatment of several other linguistic phenomena on account of pragmatic interpretation.