Don't Blame Distributional Semantics if it can't do Entailment

Distributional semantics has had enormous empirical success in Computational Linguistics and Cognitive Science in modeling various semantic phenomena, such as semantic similarity, and distributional models are widely used in state-of-the-art Natural Language Processing systems. However, the theoretical status of distributional semantics within a broader theory of language and cognition is still unclear: What does distributional semantics model? Can it be, on its own, a fully adequate model of the meanings of linguistic expressions? The standard answer is that distributional semantics is not fully adequate in this regard, because it falls short on some of the central aspects of formal semantic approaches: truth conditions, entailment, reference, and certain aspects of compositionality. We argue that this standard answer rests on a misconception: These aspects do not belong in a theory of expression meaning, they are instead aspects of speaker meaning, i.e., communicative intentions in a particular context. In a slogan: words do not refer, speakers do. Clearing this up enables us to argue that distributional semantics on its own is an adequate model of expression meaning. Our proposal sheds light on the role of distributional semantics in a broader theory of language and cognition, its relationship to formal semantics, and its place in computational models.Comment: To appear in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2019), Gothenburg, Swede

Semantics and Ontology:\ud On the Modal Structure of an Epistemic Theory of Meaning

In this paper I shall confront three basic questions.\ud First, the relevance of epistemic structures, as formalized\ud and dealt with by current epistemic logics, for a\ud general Theory of meaning. Here I acknowledge M. Dummett"s\ud idea that a systematic account of what is meaning of\ud an arbitrary language subsystem must especially take into\ud account the inferential components of meaning itself. That\ud is, an analysis of meaning comprehension processes,\ud given in terms of epistemic logics and semantics for epistemic\ud notions.\ud The second and third questions relate to the ontological\ud and epistemological framework for this approach.\ud Concerning the epistemological aspects of an epistemic\ud theory of meaning, the question is: how epistemic logics\ud can eventually account for the informative character of\ud meaning comprehension processes. "Information� seems\ud to be built in the very formal structure of epistemic processes,\ud and should be exhibited in modal and possibleworld\ud semantics for propositional knowledge and belief.\ud However, it is not yet clear what is e.g. a possible world.\ud That is: how it can be defined semantically, other than by\ud accessibility rules which merely define it by considering its\ud set-theoretic relations with other sets-possible worlds.\ud Therefore, it is not clear which is the epistemological status\ud of propositional information contained in the structural\ud aspects of possible world semantics. The problem here\ud seems to be what kind of meaning one attributes to the\ud modal notion of possibility, thus allowing semantical and\ud synctactical selectors for possibilities. This is a typically\ud Dummett-style problem.\ud The third question is linked with this epistemological\ud problem, since it is its ontological counterpart. It concerns\ud the limits of the logical space and of logical semantics for a\ud of meaning. That is, it is concerned with the kind of\ud structure described by inferential processes, thought, in a\ud fregean perspective, as pre-conditions of estentional\ud treatment of meaning itself. The second and third questions\ud relate to some observations in Wittgenstein"s Tractatus.\ud I shall also try to show how their behaviour limits the\ud explicative power of some semantics for epistemic logics\ud (Konolige"s and Levesque"s for knowledge and belief)

A robust semantics hides fewer errors

In this paper we explore how formal models are interpreted and to what degree meaning is captured in the formal semantics and to what degree it remains in the informal interpretation of the semantics. By applying a robust approach to the definition of refinement and semantics, favoured by the event-based community, to state-based theory we are able to move some aspects from the informal interpretation into the formal semantics

Picturing words: The semantics of speech balloons

Semantics traditionally focuses on linguistic meaning. In recent years, the Super Linguistics movement has tried to broaden the scope of inquiry in various directions, including an extension of semantics to talk about the meaning of pictures. There are close similarities between the interpretation of language and of pictures. Most fundamentally, pictures, like utterances, can be either true or false of a given state of affairs, and hence both express propositions (Zimmermann, 2016; Greenberg, 2013; Abusch, 2015). Moreover, sequences of pictures, like sequences of utterances, can be used to tell stories. Wordless picture books, comics, and film are cases in point. In this paper I pick up the project of providing a dynamic semantic account of pictorial story-telling, started by Abusch (2012) and continued by Abusch & Rooth (2017); Maier & Bimpikou (2019); Fernando (2020). More specifically, I propose here a semantics of speech and thought bubbles by adding event reference to PicDRT. To get there I first review the projection-based semantics for pictures (section 1), noting the fundamental distinction between symbolic and iconic meaning that makes speech bubbles especially interesting (section 2). I then review the dynamic PicDRT framework for pictorial narratives (section 3), add events (section 4), and propose an account of speech bubbles as quotational event modification (section 5). I end with a brief look at other conventional, symbolic enrichments in comics (section 6)

From compositional to systematic semantics

We prove a theorem stating that any semantics can be encoded as a compositional semantics, 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 non-compositional semantics. As a result, we believe that the paper clarifies the concept of compositionality and opens a possibility of making systematic formal comparisons of different systems of grammars.Comment: 11 pp. Latex.

Semantics, Modelling, and the Problem of Representation of Meaning -- a Brief Survey of Recent Literature

Over the past 50 years many have debated what representation should be used to capture the meaning of natural language utterances. Recently new needs of such representations have been raised in research. Here I survey some of the interesting representations suggested to answer for these new needs.Comment: 15 pages, no figure