NON-COMPOSITIONALITY AND INTENDED SENSE

Publication Type:

Language:

Transliteration of original Title: 
Nekompozitsional'nost' i intendirovannyy smysl
Author(s): 
Ivan Mikirtumov
Saint Petersburg University
Issue number: 
No. 2 (Vol. 48)
Pages: 
87-103
Abstract: 

The article presents a concept apparatus of identifying and eliminating non-compositionality on the basis of intended sense reconstruction. First, two types of non-compositionality are delineated: pragmatically adoptable and logical. The non-compositionality of the first type has its source in underspecification of the meaning of an expression components, which is connected with non-expressible context-pragmatic conditions of the situation of an expression. The variants of such non-compositionality are various, nevertheless all of them can be adopted with logical and semantic means. Non-compositionality of the second type is linked to the cyclic references which occur during the realization of the procedure of  defining the meaning. Such a procedure is regarded as a semantic program which is capable of calculating the meaning of an expression with semantic and context-pragmatic parameters being given. The main question: how the agents communication recognize the fact that the language expressions they generated are not adequate in regards of those mental representations which constitute intended sense, particularly in the cases of non-compositionality. To answer this question the way of reconstructing intended sense is described. It includes differentiation of minimal and full senses of expression, and presupposes juxtaposing of context-pragmatic conditions of a speaker situation with the same conditions an addressee situation. If differences are uncovered which would make it impossible to achieve adequate understanding, then the parameters of a speaker’s situation are verbalized and stop being non-expressible turning into obvious conditions of the stated.  In the case of pragmatically adopted non-compositionality, full verbalization of context-pragmatic conditions leads to obtaining full compositional meaning, which does not depend on a situation anymore. If it turns out, that logical compositionality depends on context-pragmatic conditions, then, depending on the aim of communication, it maybe localized and eliminated.

Keywords: 
compositionality, non-compositionality, semantics, pragmatics, cyclicity, intended sense
References: 

Barker C., Jacobson P. Introduction: Direct compositionality. In: Barker C., Jacobson P. (eds.) Direct compositionality. New York, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 1–19.

Barwise J., Etchemendy J. The Liar: An essay in truth and circularity. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. 185 p.

Borg E. Semantics without pragmatics? In: Allan K., Jaszczolt K. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge, New York : Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 513–528.

Duží M., Jespersen B., Materna P. Procedural Semantics for Hyperintensional Logic. Foundations and Applications of Transparent Intensional Logic. Dordrecht : Springer, 2010. 416p.

Fodor J., Pylyshyn Z. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 1988, vol. 28, pp. 3–71. 

Goldberg A. Compositionality. In:  Riemer N. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London, New York : Routledge, 2016, pp. 419–433.

Goschke T., Koppelberg D. Connectionist representation, semantic compositionality, and the instability of concept structure. Psychological Research, 1990, vol. 52, pp. 243–270.

Hamm F., Moschovakis Y. Sense and denotation as algorithm and value. Advanced course. ESSLLI, 2010, CPH.  Available at: : http://www.math.ucla.edu/~ynm/lectures/es10.pdf (accessed 23.02.2016).

Janssen T. M. V. Compositionality: Its Historic Context. In: Hinzen W., Machery E., Werning M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford, New York : Oxford University Press. 2012, pp. 19–46.

Kracht M. Compositionality: The Very Idea. Research of Language and Computation, 2007, vol. 5, pp. 287–308.

Kracht M. Gnosis. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2011, vol. 40, pp. 397–420.

Lahav R. Against compositionality: the case of adjectives. Philosophical Studies, 1989, vol. 57, pp. 261–279.

Liang P., Potts C. Bringing Machine Learning and Compositional Semantics Together. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2015, no. 1, pp. 355–376.

Moschovakis Y. Sense and denotation as algorithm and value. In:  Oikkonen J., Väänänen J. (eds.) Logic Colloquium ’90: ASL Summer Meeting in Helsinki (Lecture Notes in Logic). Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1993, vol. 2, pp. 210–249.

Moschovakis, Y. A logical calculus of meaning and synonymy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2006, vol. 29, pp. 27–89.

Pagin P., Westerdahl D. Pure quotation and general compositionality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2010, vol. 33, pp. 381–415.

Partee B. H. Compositionality. In:  Landman F., Veltman F. (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics. Dordrecht : Foris, 1984, pp. 281–311.

Pelletier F. J. The principle of semantic compositionality. Topoi, 1994, vol. 13(1), pp. 11–24.

Pelletier F. J. Holism and compositionality. In:  Hinzen W., Machery E., Werning M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford, New York : Oxford University Press. 2012, pp. 149–174.

Peregrin J. Is Compositionality an Empirical Matter? In:  Werning M., Machery E., Schurz G. (eds.) The Compositionality of Meaning and of Content. Vol. 1. Frankfurt-am-Main : Ontos Verlag, 2005, pp. 231–246.

Shutova E. Design and Evaluation of Metaphor Processing Systems. Computational Linguistics, 2015, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 579–623.

Szabó Z. G. Compositionality as supervenience. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2000, vol. 23, pp. 475–505.

Werning M. Right and Wrong Reasons for Compositionality. In: Werning M., Machery E., Schurz G. (eds.) The Compositionality of Meaning and of Content. Vol. 1. Frankfurt-am-Main: Ontos Verlag, 2005, pp. 285–309.

Gorodetskiy B. Yu. Computer Linguistics: model of the language comminication [Komp'yuternaya lingvistika: modelirovanie yazykovogo obshcheniya]. Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike  - New in foreign linguistics, vol. XXI,  Komp'yuternaya lingvistika – Computer linguistics. Moscow: Progress, 1989, pp. 5–29.

Mikirtumov I. B. Meaning theory and intensional logic [Teoriya smysla i intensional'naya logika]. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo S.-Peterburgskogo universiteta, 2006. 351p.

Mikirtumov I. B. Compositionality and its pragmatics [Kompozitsional'nost' i ee pragmatika]. Epistemology and philosophy of science, 2013,  vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 42–58.

Mikirtumov I. B. Semantical ambiguity and ‘technical’ pragmatics [Semanticheskaya neodnoznachnost' i ‘tekhnicheskaya’ pragmatika]. Filosofiya yazyka i formal'naya semantika (Philosophy of language and formal semantics). P. S. Kusliy (ed). Moscow:  Alfa-M, 2013, pp. 71–88.

Shanin N. A. Some features of a mathematical approach to the problems of logic [Nekotorye cherty matematicheskogo podkhoda k problemam logiki]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Gosudarstvennogo Uiniversiteta - Herald of Saint Petersburg State University,  Ser. 6. 1992. No. 4, pp. 10–20.

Full Text: