Scribd
Upload
89 views3 pages

Draft

The document discusses the principle of compositionality and its implications for semantic theory. It begins by defining the principle of compositionality as the idea that the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its constituents and how they are combined. It then examines different interpretations of this principle and how various linguists and philosophers understand and apply it. Specifically, it analyzes arguments around whether compositionality allows for hidden structures or transformations between syntactic forms and semantic meanings. The document also considers debates around whether compositionality requires a strict one-to-one mapping of forms to meanings or allows for more flexibility. Overall, the principle of compositionality is shown to be complex with numerous open questions around its precise definition and

Uploaded by

Harman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
89 views3 pages

Draft

The document discusses the principle of compositionality and its implications for semantic theory. It begins by defining the principle of compositionality as the idea that the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its constituents and how they are combined. It then examines different interpretations of this principle and how various linguists and philosophers understand and apply it. Specifically, it analyzes arguments around whether compositionality allows for hidden structures or transformations between syntactic forms and semantic meanings. The document also considers debates around whether compositionality requires a strict one-to-one mapping of forms to meanings or allows for more flexibility. Overall, the principle of compositionality is shown to be complex with numerous open questions around its precise definition and

Uploaded by

Harman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

What is the principle of compositionality, how is it related to linguistic

creativity (in the sense of generativity), and what implications does it


have for semantic theory?

The principle of compositionality (henceforth C0) states that “the meaning of a complex
expression is a function of the meanings of its constituents and the way they are
combined.”[1] Seemingly trivial or self-evident at first glance, the principle lies at the
heart of semantics-syntax interface. More than just a working hypothesis or background
assumption, C0 acts almost as methodological principle in fields like the cognitive
sciences or the philosophy of language.

Given the vast territory C0 controls, this essay would begin by demarcating a small
portion that would be of relevance to us (in accordance with Szabó’s proposals1). After a
brief discussion of definitional challenges and common misinterpretations, we would test
the arguments made in its favour (mainly generativity) and also review the obstacles it
currently faces. Finally, a summary is presented linking the implications of its adoption on
semantic theory and Universal Grammar at large.

As Barbara Partee points out2, the principle of compositionality in itself would be an


empty and rather trivial result. Computational principles allow for units to give rise to
meaning, but it is the relative complexity of various hypotheses, and more importantly,
the limits set by syntax and semantics that are the determining factor. For example, “they
are combined” in [1] can be interpreted as referring to the constituents or meanings of
constituents. This gives rise to differing interpretations with the strict former sense
demanding a one-to-one correspondance between syntactic units (of the surface level) and
their meanings; while the latter interpretation permits a degree of laxity in formulating
hidden semantic structures that undergo complex transformations to produce the surface
form. [2]

Another distinction that Szabó draws is that between an individual or collective


compositionality. He puts forward two sentences:
i) Cicero is Cicero
ii) Cicero is Tully
and suggests that both have a distinct meaning and violate individual compositionality.
After all, (i) is an analytic claim while (ii) isn’t. Szabó argues that use of indexicals to
disambiguate their meaning involves collective compositionality. And hence he advocates
the stronger, individual version. [3]

1 Zoltán Gendler Szabó, The Case for Compositionality: in The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality
(2012) See also, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/compositionality (Szabó, 2017)

2“if the syntax is sufficiently unconstrained and the meanings sufficiently rich, there seems no doubt that
natural languages can be described compositionally. Challenges to the principle generally involve either
explicit or implicit arguments to the effect that it conflicts with other well-motivated constraints on syntax
and/or on the mapping from syntax to meaning” (ibid p.65)
Another issue the author raises is about determination of meaning. That is if C0 suggests
that there exists only a unique way of mapping meaning to utterances. Szabó provides the
examples of two identical languages that differ only in the meaning of a single sentence S
(that in fact has the same surface structure). His hint seems to be at the possible plurality
of intensional systems even with extensional equivalence3. A strong determinist reading
of C0 would be incompatible with such an occurrence. [4]

Through [2], [3], [4] Szabó seems to support a strong, individualistic, rule-by-rule reading
of the principle of compositionality (henceforth Cs):

“The meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings its constituents


have individually and of the way those constituents are combined.” (ibid p.71)

The importance of these definitions is explained by an example of quantifier scope


ambiguity:

iii) An ambassador went to every country

Multiple readings can be made (singular vs several ambassadors) despite the presence of
identical components and ordering. Yet, one sees how varying narrow interpretations of
[1] including C0 would survive such challenges by positing hidden logical forms,
transformations, or different lexical entries.

Therefore, the principle still remains extremely vague. One can tackle events like deixis
or indexicals by claiming that context-dependent variables are encoded within the
lexicon. Conversational implicatures can also be dealt with as they retain the same
locutionary force and only perlocutionary effects change i.e. the meaning remains intact
but speaker’s intelligence lets him deduce our intentions (sarcasm, request etc.) Even
idioms can be accommodated as long as an independent characterising criteria can be
figured out.

We can now move on to discussing the contribution CS makes to generativity.

3 Two functions f(x) and f’(x) might have similar extensions {2,4,6,8,10} except for one input (say 0). A
strong reading of C0 necessitates direct correspondance between syntax and semantics and hence rules
out such a possibility: it predicts a unique universal function for sentences with similarly ordered
constituents.
Extra pointers to discuss:

John Lyons: Semantics

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Why compositionality?
Jeroen Groenendijk & Martin Stokhof∗

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
https://adele.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/
277/2015/01/13Compositionality-Handbook.pdf
FOR ROUTLEDGE SEMANTICS HANDBOOK, NICK RIEMER (ED.) Compositionality Adele
E. Goldberg

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

You might also like