From compositional to systematic semantics

We prove a theorem stating that any semantics can be encoded as a compositional semanties, which means that, essentially, the standard definition of compositionality is formally vacuous. We then show that when compositional semantics is required to be “systematic” (that is, the meaning function cannot be arbitrary, but must belong to some class), it is possible to distinguish between compositional and noncompositional semantics. As a result, we believe that the paper clarifies the concept of compositionality and opens the possibility of making systematic formal comparisons of different systems of grammar.

[1]  Jon Barwise,et al.  Admissible sets and structures , 1975 .

[2]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone , 1988 .

[3]  J. Bregetzer [The liar]. , 1989, Revue de l'infirmiere.

[4]  Peter Sells,et al.  Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories , 1985 .

[5]  Verzekeren Naar Sparen,et al.  Cambridge , 1969, Humphrey Burton: In My Own Time.

[6]  L. M. Faltz,et al.  Boolean semantics for natural language , 1984 .

[7]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity , 1987, Studies in natural language processing.

[8]  Robert D. Tennent,et al.  Semantics of programming languages , 1991, Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science.

[9]  TWO-WEEK Loan COpy,et al.  University of California , 1886, The American journal of dental science.

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

[11]  Wlodek Zadrozny,et al.  On compositional semantics , 1992, COLING.

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