The Limits of the Principle of Compositionality in Semantics
Semantics, the study of meaning in
language, often relies on the principle of compositionality—the idea that the
meaning of a sentence is determined by the meanings of its parts and how they
are combined. While this principle helps explain the productivity of language,
it also faces several important challenges. In this article, we’ll explore the
main problems that arise when relying solely on compositionality to explain
meaning.
1. Sentence Meaning vs. Speaker Meaning
Let’s start with a simple scenario:
- Speaker A: “I love you.”
- Speaker B: “What a wonderful day.”
Now, imagine a similar exchange:
- Speaker A: “I hate you.”
- Speaker B: “What a wonderful day.”
Although Speaker B’s sentence is identical in both cases, the meaning is not.
The words “what,” “a,” “wonderful,” and “day” are the same, but the intended
meaning changes depending on the context and the previous statement. This
highlights a crucial distinction: Sentence meaning (the literal meaning derived
from the words and their combination) is not always the same as speaker meaning
(what the speaker intends to convey).
A robust theory of semantics must account for this difference.
2. The Problem of Contextualized Effects
Consider the sentence: “I am hungry.”
- If a middle-class person says this, it might simply mean, “Let’s have lunch.”
- If a beggar says it, it could mean, “I need some money.”
The literal meaning is the same, but the context changes the interpretation.
The principle of compositionality cannot fully explain these contextualized
effects. This is known as the problem of contextualized meaning.
3. The Knowledge Problem: Linguistic vs. World Knowledge
Take the sentence: “Please open the
window.”
- The literal meaning is straightforward: someone wants the window opened.
- But in context, it might actually mean, “I feel hot.”
To understand the intended meaning, you need more than just linguistic
knowledge—you need world knowledge (or encyclopedic knowledge) about how people
behave and why someone might want a window opened. A robot or an alien, lacking
this world knowledge, would miss the intended meaning.
Thus, compositionality leads us only to the literal meaning, not the full,
intended meaning.
4. The Problem of Individual Differences
Let’s look at the sentence: “I like
coffee.”
- For one person, “coffee” might mean a hot, black, bitter drink.
- For another, it could be creamy, cold, and sweet.
Similarly, “gold” might mean a shiny, yellow metal to most people, but to an
expert, it could mean something much more specific, like its chemical
properties.
Despite these individual differences, we still manage to understand each other.
But if we can’t even agree on what “coffee” or “gold” means, how can
compositionality alone explain how we communicate meaning?
Summary: The Challenges for Compositionality
To recap, the principle of compositionality
is a powerful tool for explaining how we generate and understand new sentences.
However, it faces several significant challenges:
1. Sentence meaning vs. speaker meaning
2. Contextualized effects
3. The need for world knowledge
4. Individual differences in word meaning
These problems show that while compositionality is essential, it is not
sufficient on its own to explain all aspects of meaning in language. Future
theories of semantics must address these challenges to provide a more complete
understanding of how we communicate.
Reference:
SEMANTICS-4: Problems Facing the Principle of Compositionality. (n.d.). [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB1zJRJfeyI