I understood this as a question about parsing/interpretation.
A parser would see a command like this:
UPDATE Table1 SET Field = Field + 'something'
and break it up into several tokens:
['UPDATE', <update>]
['Table1', <identifier>]
['SET', <update::set>]
['Field', <identifier>]
['=', <EQ>]
['Field', <identifier>]
['+', <PLUS>]
['something', <literal>]
A
grammar for SQL would define the UPDATE statement as follows:
<update statement: searched> ::=
UPDATE <table name> SET <set clause list> [ WHERE <search condition> ]
Having recognized the UPDATE token, the parser can "expect" the structure of the statement. It knows that what follows UPDATE should be a table name. Of course, the parser will also have a rule called <table-name> that defines what table name looks like. It will also know that what follows a SET should be a clause list, and there will be a rule called <clause> that defines what a clause looks like:
<set clause list> ::= <set clause> [ { <comma> <set clause> } ... ]
<set clause> ::= <object column> <equals operator> <update source>
The parser also knows that the WHERE symbol is optional, but if it sees it, it will expect a <search-condition>.
Now, if you follow that <update-source> tag, you'll see that it explains that "Field + 'something'" is perfectly reasonable.
TL;DR Parsing is fun!