Right and Wrong Reasons for Compositionality

In this paper I would like to cast a critical look on the potential reasons for compositionality. I will, in particular, evaluate if and to which extent the most often cited reasons in favor of compositionality, viz. productivity, systematicity and inferentiality – each taken as properties of either language or cognition – may be justly regarded as justifications for compositionality. The results of this investigation will be largely negative: Given reasonable side-constraints, the reason of productivity faces counterexamples of productive languages that cannot be evaluated compositionally. Systematicity has less to do with compositionality than with the existence of semantic categories. The belief that inferentiality is only warranted in compositional languages is a pious hope rather than a certainty. Alternative reasons will be explored at the end of the paper. Before I turn to its reasons, I will explicate the notion of compositionality and say something about its alleged vacuity.

[1]  Markus Werning,et al.  Compositionality, Context, Categories and the Indeterminacy of Translation , 2004 .

[2]  Johan van Benthem The Logic of Semantics , 1986 .

[3]  J. Fodor,et al.  Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong , 1998 .

[4]  S. Pinker How the Mind Works , 1999, Philosophy after Darwin.

[5]  M. Werning Synchrony and Composition: Toward a Cognitive Architecture between Classicism and Connectionism , 2003 .

[6]  M. Werning MARKUS WERNING THE TEMPORAL DIMENSION OF THOUGHT Cortical Foundations of Predicative Representation , 2005 .

[7]  James E. Tomberlin,et al.  On the Plurality of Worlds. , 1989 .

[8]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  A Puzzle about Belief , 1979 .

[9]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis , 1988, Cognition.

[10]  Herman Hendriks Compositionality and Model-Theoretic Interpretation , 2001, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[11]  Nick Braisby,et al.  Compositionality and the Modelling of Complex Concepts , 1998, Minds and Machines.

[12]  T. M. V. Janssen,et al.  Foundations and applications of Montague grammar , 1986 .

[13]  P. Smolensky Connectionism, Constituency, and the Language of Thought ; CU-CS-416-88 , 1988 .

[14]  László Dezsö,et al.  Universal Grammar , 1981, Certainty in Action.

[15]  B. Partee,et al.  Mathematical Methods in Linguistics , 1990 .

[16]  Dag Westerst̊ahl On the Compositionality of Idioms An Abstract Approach , 2004 .

[17]  Wilfrid Hodges,et al.  Formal Features of Compositionality , 2001, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[18]  Edmund Husserl Logical Investigations Volume 2 , 1970 .

[19]  Brian P. McLaughlin,et al.  The connectionism/classicism battle to win souls , 1993 .

[20]  J. Fodor Connectionism and the problem of systematicity (continued): why Smolensky's solution still doesn't work , 1997, Cognition.

[21]  Kent Johnson,et al.  ON THE SYSTEMATICITY OF LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT , 2004 .