Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 329–342 | Cite as

From compositional to systematic semantics

  • Wlodek Zadrozny


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.


Artificial Intelligence Standard Definition Computational Linguistic Formal Comparison Systematic Semantic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aczel, P.: 1987,Lectures on Non-Well-Founded Sets, CSLI Lecture, Standford, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, Jon and J. Etchemendy: 1987,The Liar, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  3. Barwise, Jon: 1975,Admissible Sets and Structures. Springer, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  4. Bloomfield, L.: 1933,Language, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  5. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O'Connor: 1988, ‘Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions’,Language 64(3), 501–538.Google Scholar
  6. Gunter, C. A.: 1993,Semantics of Programming Languages, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  7. Hirst, Graeme: 1987,Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity, Cambridge University Press, Cambaridge, Great Britain.Google Scholar
  8. Jursfsky, D.: 1992,An On-line Computational Model of Sentence Interpretation, Ph.D. thesis. University of California, Berkeley, Report No. UCB/CSD 92/676.Google Scholar
  9. Keenan, Edward L. and Leonard M. Faltz: 1985,Boolean Semantics for Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Manaster-Ramer, Alexis and Wlodek Zadrozny: 1994,Systematic Semantics, in preparation.Google Scholar
  11. Partee, Barbara H., Alice ter Meulen, and Robert E. Wall: 1990,Mathematical Methods in Linguistics, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  12. Partee, Barbara H.: 1982, ‘The Logic of Semantics’, in Fred Landman and Frank Veltman (eds.),Varieties of Formal Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 281–312.Google Scholar
  13. Savitch, Walter J.: 1993, ‘Why It Might Pay to Assume that Languages are Infinite’,Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence,8(1,2), 17–26.Google Scholar
  14. Sells, P.: 1985,Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories, CSLI Lecture Notes (3), Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  15. van Benthem, Johan: 1982, ‘The Logic of Semantics’, in Fred Landman and Frank Veltman (eds.),Varieties of Formal Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 55–80.Google Scholar
  16. Zadrozny, Wlodek and Alexis Manaster-Ramer: 1994, ‘The Significance of Constructions’, submitted toComputational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  17. Zlodrozny, Wlodek: 1992, ‘On Compositional Semantics’,Proc. Coling'92, pp. 260–266.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wlodek Zadrozny
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM ResearchT. J. Watson Research CenterYorktown Heights

Personalised recommendations