- Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics
- List of Abbreviations
- The Contributors
- Compositionality: Its Historic Context
- Composition A Lity In Montague Grammar
- The case for compositionality
- Compositionality Problems and how to Solve Them
- Direct Compositionality
- Semantic Monadicity with Conceptual Polyadicity
- Holism And Compositionality.
- Composition Ality, Flexibility, And Context Dependence
- Compositionality in Kaplan Style Semantics
- Formalizing the relationship between meaning and syntax
- Compositionality and The Context Principle
- Compositionality In Discourse From A Logical Perspective
- Lexical Decomposition In Grammar
- Lexical Decomposition in Modern Syntactic Theory
- Syntax in the Atom
- Co-composition Ality in Grammar
- Typicality and Composition a Lity: the Logic of Combining Vague Concepts
- Emergency!!!! Challenges to a Compositional Understanding of Noun–noun Combinations
- Can Prototype Representations Support Composition And Decomposition?
- Regaining Composure: A Defence Of Prototype Compositionality.
- Simple Heuristics For Concept Combination
- Compositionality and Beyond: Embodied Meaning in Language and Protolanguage
- Compositionality and Linguistic Evolution
- Communication And The complexity of semantics
- Prototypes and their Composition from an Evolutionary Point of View
- Connectionism, Dynamical Cognition, and Non-Classical Compositional Representation
- The Dual-Mechanism Debate
- Compositionality and Biologically Plausible Models
- Neuronal Assembly Models of Compositionality
- Non-Symbolic Compositional Representation and Its Neuronal Foundation: To wards An Emulative Semantics
- The Processing Consequences of Compositionality
Abstract and Keywords
This article discusses the hypothesis of direct compositionality (DC), which is the hypothesis that the syntax and the semantics work “in tandem”. The syntax builds expressions and the semantics works to assign meanings to the representations as they are built in the syntax. DC entails that there are no syntactic expressions of any sort, which do not have a meaning. The first argument for DC is that any theory needs a compositional syntax—that is, a recursive rule system which proves the well-formedness of expressions, often proving the well-formedness of larger output expressions based on the well-formedness of smaller ones. Second, if meanings are computed on representations, which are the output of the syntactic computation, then there is a certain amount of duplication of information. Those representations need to be referred to twice. A third argument in favour of DC architecture concerns the locality of the rules for the compositional semantics.
Pauline Jacobson is Professor of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences at Brown University. She has also held visiting appointments at Ohio State University and Harvard University. Her books include The Syntax of Crossing Coreference Sentences (Garland, 1980), The Nature of Syntactic Representation, co-edited with G. K. Pullum (Reidel, 1982), and Direct Compositionality co-edited with Chris Barker (OUP, 2007).
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.