A probabilistic framework for analysing the compositionality of conceptual combinations

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Conceptual combination performs a fundamental role in creating the broad range of compound phrases utilised in everyday language. This article provides a novel probabilistic framework for assessing whether the semantics of conceptual combinations are compositional, and so can be considered as a function of the semantics of the constituent concepts, or not. While the systematicity and productivity of language provide a strong argument in favor of assuming compositionality, this very assumption is still regularly questioned in both cognitive science and philosophy. Additionally, the principle of semantic compositionality is underspecifi ed, which means that notions of both "strong" and "weak" compositionality appear in the literature. Rather than adjudicating between different grades of compositionality, the framework presented here contributes formal methods for determining a clear dividing line between compositional and non-compositional semantics. In addition, we suggest that the distinction between these is contextually sensitive. Compositionality is equated with a joint probability distribution modeling how the constituent concepts in the combination are interpreted. Marginal selectivity is introduced as a pivotal probabilistic constraint for the application of the Bell/CH and CHSH systems of inequalities. Non-compositionality is equated with a failure of marginal selectivity, or violation of either system of inequalities in the presence of marginal selectivity. This means that the conceptual combination cannot be modeled in a joint probability distribution, the variables of which correspond to how the constituent concepts are being interpreted. The formal analysis methods are demonstrated by applying them to an empirical illustration of twenty-four non-lexicalised conceptual combinations.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
RAMAPF-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-08-24
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
The Big Book of Concepts.Murphy, Gregory L.
A Quantum Theoretical Explanation for Probability Judgment Errors.Busemeyer, Jerome R.; Pothos, Emmanuel M.; Franco, Riccardo & Trueblood, Jennifer S.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
A Quantum Probability Perspective on Borderline Vagueness.Blutner, Reinhard; Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Bruza, Peter
Quantum Entanglement in Corpuses of Documents.Beltran, Lester & Geriente, Suzette
At Home in the Quantum World.Atmanspacher, Harald

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-08-24

Total views
107 ( #25,823 of 43,016 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
52 ( #12,725 of 43,016 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.