语义透明性是指复合词或习语的意思可以从其组成部分（或语素）中推断出来的程度。

Peter Trudgill提供了不透明和透明复合词的示例：“英语单词牙医在语义上不透明，而挪威单词tannlege，字面意思是‘牙齿医生’”（社会语言学词汇表，2003年）。

语义上不透明的词被称为不透明。

实例和意见

• “直观地说，[语义透明度]可以被视为表面结构的一种属性，使听者能够以尽可能少的机器和尽可能少的语言学习要求来进行语义解释。”（Pieter a.M.Seuren和Herman Wekker，“语义透明度是克里奥尔语起源的一个因素。”《克里奥尔创世纪中的底层与普遍》，P.Muysken和N.Smith主编，John Benjamins，1986）
• “语义透明性可以被视为一个连续体。一端反映的是更表面的文字对应，另一端反映的是更深层次的、更难以捉摸的和形象化的对应。以前的研究得出结论，透明的习语通常比不透明的习语更容易解读（Nippold&Taylor，1995；Norbury，2004）。”贝琳达·弗斯特-赫尔曼，《双语和单语青少年习语理解》，博士论文，南佛罗里达州大学，2008
• “教授学生处理比喻性语言的策略将有助于他们利用某些习语的语义透明度。如果他们能够自己理解习语的含义，他们将有一个从习语到字面的链接，这将有助于他们学习习语。”（Suzanne Irujo，“方向清晰：习语产生中的回避”，《语言教学中的应用语言学国际评论》，1993年）

语义透明的类型：蓝莓与草莓

“[Gary]Libben（1998）提出了一个复合表示和处理模型，其中的关键概念是语义透明性。

"Libben's model distinguishes between semantically transparent compounds (blueberry) and semantically lexicalised biomorphemic units which, as Libben assumes, are monomorphemic in the minds of language users (strawberry). To put it another way, native speakers realise that while strawberry can be analysed into straw and berry, strawberry does not contain the meaning of straw. This difference in semantic transparency is captured at the conceptual level. Libben distinguishes two types of semantic transparency. Constituency pertains to the use of morphemes in their original/shifted meaning (in shoehorn, shoe is transparent because it is used in its original meaning, while horn is opaque). Componentiality bears on the meaning of a compound as a whole: for example, bighorn is non-componential because the meaning of this word cannot be inferred from the meanings of its constituents even if these are related to independent morphemes. This makes it possible to inhibit, for example, the lexical representation of boy of the lexical unit boycott, and to inhibit the meaning of straw to interfere with the interpretation of strawberry."

通过参考Libben（1998）中的这些考虑，[Wolfgang]Dressler（出版中）区分了化合物形态语义透明度的四个基本程度：

1. transparency of both members of the compound, e.g., door-bell; 2. transparency of the head member, opacity of the non-head member, e.g., straw-berry; 3. transparency of the non-head member, opacity of the head member, e.g., jail-bird; 4. opacity of both members of the compound: hum-bug.

不言而喻，就词义的可预测性而言，类型1是最合适的，类型4是最不合适的。”（PavolŠtekauer，词义构成的可预测性，John Benjamins，2005）

语言借用

"In theory, all content items and function words in any Y are potentially borrowable by speakers of any X irrespective of morphological typology because all languages have content items and function words. In practice, X will not borrow all the forms of Y (whether they are borrowable or not). Perceptual salience and semantic transparency, in themselves relative notions, will conspire together to promote individual form classes. Other factors, for example frequency and intensity of exposure and relevance, will further restrict the list of possible candidates. Obviously, the actual list of borrowed forms may, in fact, vary from speaker to speaker depending on such factors as degree of education (and, therefore, familiarity with and exposure to Y), occupation (restricting exposure to certain semantic domains), and so on." (Frederick W. Field, Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts. John Benjamins, 2002)