Compositional Signaling in a Complex World
Natural languages are compositional in that the meaning of complex expressions depends on those of the parts and how they are put together. Here, I ask the following question: why are languages compositional? I answer this question by extending Lewis–Skyrms signaling games with a rudimentary form of compositional signaling and exploring simple reinforcement learning therein. As it turns out: in complex worlds, having compositional signaling helps simple agents learn to communicate. I am also able to show that learning the meaning of a function word, once meanings of atomic words are known, presents no difficulty.
KeywordsSignaling games Compositionality Reinforcement learning Evolution Negation
I would like to thank the organizers and participants at IDAS’14 and especially Stefano Demichelis and Roland Muehlenbernd for stimulating discussion. An earlier version was presented at a workshop on Knowledge, Argumentation, and Games in Amsterdam. For discussion there, I thank especially Michael Franke and Alexandru Baltag. Jeffrey Barrett, Johan van Benthem, Thomas Icard, Chris Potts, Carlos Santana, Brian Skyrms, and Michael Weisberg have provided helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper as did three anonymous referees for this journal.
- Barrett, J. A. (2006). Numerical simulations of the Lewis signaling game: Learning strategies, pooling equilibria, and the evolution of grammar. Technical report, Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences, 2006. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5xr0b0vp
- Barrett, J. A. (2007). Dynamic partitioning and the conventionality of kinds. Philosophy of Science, 74(4), 527–546.Google Scholar
- Bergstrom, C. T., & Dugatkin, L. A. (2012). Evolution. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
- Davidson, D. (1964). Theories of meaning and learnable languages. In Inquiries into truth and interpretation (pp. 3–16). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/0199246297.001.0001
- Fodor, J. (1987). Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Fodor, J. (1998). In critical condition: Polemical essays on cognitive science and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Franke, M. (2014). Creative compositionality from reinforcement. In E. A. Cartmill, S. Roberts, H. Lyn, & H. Cornish (Eds.), The evolution of langauge (Proceedings ofEvoLang 10) (pp. 82–89). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
- Haldane, J. B. S. (1932). The causes of evolution. London: Longmans, Green, and co.Google Scholar
- Hassani, M. (2003). Derangements and applications. Journal of Integer Sequences, 6. http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/JIS/vol6.html.
- Hu, Y., Skyrms, B., & Tarrès, P. (2011). Reinforcement learning in signaling game. http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5818
- Janssen, T. M. V. (1997). Compositionality. In: J. van Benthem, A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, chapter 7, pp. 417–473. Elsevier Science. doi: 10.1016/B978-044481714-3/50011-4.
- Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Schlenker, P., Chemla, E., Arnold, K., Lemasson, A., Ouattara, K., Keenan, S., et al. (2014). Monkey semantics: two ‘dialects’ of Campbell’s monkey alarm calls. Linguistics and Philosophy, 37(6), 439–501. doi: 10.1007/s10988-014-9155-7.
- Skyrms, B. (2004). The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Bradford: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Szabó, Z. G. (2013). Compositionality. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/compositionality/
- von Humboldt, W. (1836). On language: On the diversityof human language construction and its influence on the mentaldevelopment of the human species. Cambridge Texts in the Historyof Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar