Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw, 10-11 May 2011

Rethinking Compositionality

Kasia M. Jaszczolt&Chi-H Elder

Department of Theoretical and Applied LinguisticsUniversity of Cambridge

1

Frege, compositionality, and propositional attitude reports

Gottlob Frege, 1892, ber Sinn und Bedeutung2

John believes that Mark Twain is the author of Huckleberry Finn.

Mark Twain=Samuel Clemens

*Therefore, John believes that Samuel Clemens is the author of Huckleberry Finn.

3Two expressions are identical with each other if they are substitutable preserving the truth of the sentence. (Leibniz's Law, adapted) In order to preserve compositional semantics, one has to establish under what mode of presentation (sense, guise, way of givenness) the object referred to is known to the holder of the belief.

4

Believing is a three-place relation among the believer, the proposition, and the mode of presentation under which the person believes this proposition. (Schiffer 1992)

John believes that Samuel Clemens is the author of Huckleberry Finn.

*m = a type of the mode of presentation< > = intensions

(m) *m & Bel (John, , m))

5Everybody read Frege.Every member of the research group read Frege.

John cut the grass/cake.

66

Contextualism (currently dominant view)

... what is said turns out to be, in a large measure, pragmatically determined. Recanati (1989: 98)

we dont know in advance which expressions are context-sensitive and which arent.Recanati (2012a: 137)

77semantic flexibility vs. semantic compositionality

88

Pragmatic enrichment of what is said is often automatic,subconscious (Default/Interactive Semantics: default).

99Compositionality is a methodological principle:it is always possible to satisfy compositionality by simply adjusting the syntactic and/or semantic tools one uses, unless that is, the latter are constrained on independent grounds.Groenendijk and Stokhof (1991: 93)1010

Compositionality should be an empirical assumption about the nature of possible human languages.Szab (2000)1111

Fodor (2008): Compositionality is to be sought on the level of referential properties (for Mentalese)1212Lexicon/grammar/pragmatics trade-offsWhat is expressed in the lexicon in one language may be expressed by grammar in another.

1313Lexicon/grammar/pragmatics trade-offsWhat is expressed in the lexicon in one language may be expressed by grammar in another.

What is expressed overtly in one language may be left to pragmatic inference or default interpretation in another.

1414ConditionalsGuugu Yimithirr (Australian, QNL): no overt conditionals

The dog might bark. The postman might run away.

Evans & Levinson (2009: 443), after Haviland 197915Pragmatic, interactive compositionality

1616

Default Semantics (Jaszczolt 2005, 2010)Interactive Semantics (Jaszczolt, in progress)

Unit of analysisSources of information contributing to the unitPragmatic compositionalityMerger representations: towards a formalization

1717The logical form of the sentence can not only be extended but also replaced by a new semantic representation when the primary, intended meaning requires it.

Such primary meanings give rise to merger representations in Default Semantics.

There is no syntactic constraint on merger representations.1818Primary meaningIf you are thirsty, there is beer in the fridge.

PM:Help yourself to some beer.19

2020Merger representations are compositional.

2121Conditionals in pragmaticsif p then q

p would, in the circumstances, be a good reason for q

Grice (1967/1989: 58)22Conditional perfection: if >> only if

Fig. 2. for If you mow the lawn, I will give you five dollars. 23

Delimiting conditionalsNo bi-unique correspondence between conditional constructions and conditional thoughts

How should conditionals be classified?What is the relation between form and content?How conditional are conditionals? Direct versus indirect conditionalsWhat is the primary intended meaning of conditional constructions?2425A corpus-based approachCorpus-based project on classifying conditionalsGreat British component of the International Corpus of English (ICE-GB)300 spoken conversations2000 words per conversation

252646 per cent of conditional utterances use if (ICE-GB, Elder 2012)

2627Two main types of conditionals:1. Direct conditionals: consequent is conditional on antecedent

If you rang her now shed say yes. (ICE-GB)

2. Indirect conditionals: consequent is not conditional on antecedent

Very short skirt on if you dont mind me saying. (ICE-GB)

27Direct conditionals with conditional primary meaning:If its a really nice day we could walk. (ICE-GB)

If he doesnt turn up Ill just get some sandwiches or something. (ICE-GB)2829Direct conditionals with non-conditional primary meaning:If youd listened to me youd only be seventy behind. (ICE-GB)>> You should have listened to me.

Shed be terribly offended if we didnt come and pick her up. (ICE-GB)>> Wed better go and pick her up.

29Direct conditionals can convey different speech acts:If you rang her now shed say yes. (ICE-GB) (advice)

Be great if you would do that. (ICE-GB) (request)

30 31Indirect conditionals with non-conditional primary meaning:

Very short skirt on if you dont mind me saying. (ICE-GB)>> Your skirt is too short.

I would like it done on Wednesday if possible. (ICE-GB)>> Please do it by Wednesday.32What if there is no uttered consequent?Now if youd like to put on your helmet (ICE-GB)thatd be great?youll be safe?the police wont catch you?

>> Please put on your helmet (primary meaning)

There need not be one single consequent recoverable from the context/intended by the speaker33Primary meaning: do p

Now if youd like to put on your helmet. (ICE-GB)>> Put on your helmet

So if you could work on that one. (ICE-GB)>> Work on that one

If you can hold on just half a minute while I put these potatoes out. (ICE-GB)>> Hold on half a minute

34Conditional relationship some enrichment requiredIf anyone asks, youre four years old. (ICE-GB)>> If anyone asks, say youre four years old.

35Conventionalised formsDo hang your coat up if youd like to. (ICE-GB)Let me develop the point if I may. (ICE-GB)Id really love to tape it from you if you didnt mind. (ICE-GB)It is still peanuts if youll pardon the expression. (ICE-GB)

Beyond the corpus searchYou call the cops, I break her legs.

Snowing? Lets go skiing.

36Conditionals and interactive compositionalityIf its a really nice day we could walk. DC, PMC Be great if you would do that. DC, PMNC Very short skirt on if you dont mind me saying. IC, PMNCYou call the cops, I break her legs. NC, PMCNow if youd like to put on your helmet. incomplete, PMNC

37Representing conditional thought (two dimensions)1.p ?, PM If you leave the tea on a wobbly table

2. p ? , SMIf youd like to put on your helmet. PM: Please put your helmet on.383. p q WS, PMIf it rains, we will stay at home.

4. p q WS, SMIf you are thirsty, there is beer in the fridge. PM: Help yourself to some beer.

395. p q , PMTouch his iPad and he will scream. PM: If you touch his iPad, he will scream.

?6. p q , SMPlease put your helmet on. SM: If you put the helmet on, you will be safer.

40

Fig. 3. for 1. p ?PM If you leave the tea on a wobbly table

41

Fig. 4. for 2. p ?SM If youd like to put on your helmet.PM: Please put your helmet on.

42

Fig. 5. for 5. p q , PM Touch his iPad and he will scream.

43

Endless flexibility of meaning?Meaning eventually stabilizes, making compositionality possible, because the (linguistic as well as extralinguistic) context, however big, is always finite.Recanati (2012: 190-1)44Conclusion The diversity of (i) uses to which a conditional sentence can be put and (ii) ways of expressing conditional meaning can be represented in one theory of meaning when compositionality is understood as interactive, pragmatic compositionality.

45Further directionsphilosophy of language and corpus linguistics

level of analysis at which ICE-GB, conditionalscompositionality is to be sought

46Further directionsphilosophy of language and corpus linguistics

level of analysis at which ICE-GB, conditionalscompositionality is to be soughtphilosophy of language and computational linguistics

interactive compositionality algorithms for the composition of speakers intended meaning

47Select referencesBonnefon, J.-F. & G. Politzer. 2011. Pragmatics, mental models and one paradox of the material conditional. Mind & Language 26. 141-155.Declerck, R. & S. Reed. 2001. Conditionals: a Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Elder, C. 2012. The underlying conditionality of conditionals which do not use if. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6.Evans, N. and S.C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429-492.von Fintel, K. and L. Matthewson. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25. 139-201.Fodor, J. A. 2008. LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Grice, H. P. 1967. Indicative conditionals. Reprinted in 1989, Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 58-85.Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 39-100.Jaszczolt, K. M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jaszczolt, K. M. 2010. Default Semantics. In: B. Heine and H. Narrog (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 215-246.Jaszczolt, K.M. in progress. Interactive Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Klinedinst, N. & D. Rothschild. 2012. Connectives without truth tables. Natural Language Semantics 20. 137-175.

48Mauri, C. and J. van der Auwera. 2012. Connectives. In: K. M. Jaszczolt and K. Allan (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 377-401.Recanati, F. 1989. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language 4. Reprinted in: S. Davis (ed.). 1991. Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 97-120.Recanati, F. 2012a. Contextualism: Some varieties. In: K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 135-149.Recanati, F. 2012b. Compositionality, flexibility, and context dependence. In: M. Werning, W. Hinzen & E. Machery (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 175-191.Schiffer, S. 1992. Belief ascription. Journal of Philosophy 89. 499-521. Stalnaker, R. C. 1975, Indicative conditionals. Reprinted in 1999, Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 63-77.Szab, Z. G. 2000. Compositionality as supervenience. Linguistics and Philosophy 23. 475-505.Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.von Fintel, K. and L. Matthewson. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25. 139- 201.

49 Primary meaning:

combination of word meaning

and sentence structure (WS)

conscious pragmatic inferencepm (from situation of discourse, social and

social, cultural and cognitive defaults (CD) cultural assumptions, and world

world-knowledge defaultspm (SCWDpm)

knowledge) (CPIpm)

Secondary meanings: Social, cultural and world-knowledge defaultssm (SCWDsm)

conscious pragmatic inferencesm (CPIsm)

Fig. 1: Utterance interpretation according to the processing model of the revised version of Default Semantics

merger representation

x y z e1 e2the speaker (x)the addressee (y)the lawn (z)[e1 e2]WS[ACCtf e1]WS[ACCrf e2]WS, CDe1:[y mow z]WSe2:[x give $5 to y]WS[e1 e2]SCWDpm

x y z e1 e2the addressee (x)tea (y)wobbly table (z) [e1 e2]CD, CPIpm[ACCtf e1]WS[ACCrf e2]CD, CPIpme1:[x leave y on z ]WSe2:[x spill y] CD, CPIpm

x y e1 e2the addressee (x)helmet (y)e1: [the speaker requests e2]CD, CPIpme2:[x put on y]WS

x y z e1 e2the addressee (x)ipad (y)contextually salient male (z)[e1 e2]CD, CPIpm[ACCtf e1] CD, CPIpm[ACCrf e2]WSe1:[x touch zs y]WS, CD, CPIpme2:[z scream]WS