A probabilistic framework for analysing the compositionality of conceptual combinations

Bruza, PD; Kitto, K; Ramm, BJ; Sitbon, L

A probabilistic framework for analysing the compositionality of conceptual combinations

Bruza, PD Kitto, K

Ramm, BJ Sitbon, L

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2015, 67 pp. 26 - 38
Issue Date:: 2015-07-04

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	1-s2.0-S002224961500036X-main.pdf	Published Version	614.17 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bruza, PD	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Kitto, K https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7642-7121	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Ramm, BJ	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sitbon, L	en_US
dc.date.issued	2015-07-04	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 2015, 67 pp. 26 - 38	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0022-2496	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/113523
dc.description.abstract	© 2015. Conceptual combination performs a fundamental role in creating the broad range of compound phrases utilised in everyday language. While the systematicity and productivity of language provide a strong argument in favour of assuming compositionality, this very assumption is still regularly questioned in both cognitive science and philosophy. This article provides a novel probabilistic framework for assessing whether the semantics of conceptual combinations are compositional, and so can be considered as a function of the semantics of the constituent concepts, or not. Rather than adjudicating between different grades of compositionality, the framework presented here contributes formal methods for determining a clear dividing line between compositional and non-compositional semantics. Compositionality is equated with a joint probability distribution modelling how the constituent concepts in the combination are interpreted. Marginal selectivity is emphasised as a pivotal probabilistic constraint for the application of the Bell/CH and CHSH systems of inequalities (referred to collectively as Bell-type). Non-compositionality is then equated with either a failure of marginal selectivity, or, in the presence of marginal selectivity, with a violation of Bell-type inequalities. In both non-compositional scenarios, the conceptual combination cannot be modelled using a joint probability distribution with variables corresponding to the interpretation of the individual concepts. The framework is demonstrated by applying it to an empirical scenario of twenty-four non-lexicalised conceptual combinations.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Mathematical Psychology	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.jmp.2015.06.002	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Experimental Psychology	en_US
dc.title	A probabilistic framework for analysing the compositionality of conceptual combinations	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	67	en_US
utslib.for	0102 Applied Mathematics	en_US
utslib.for	1701 Psychology	en_US
utslib.for	1702 Cognitive Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Teaching and Learning)
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Teaching and Learning)/Connected Intelligence Centre
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	67	en_US

Abstract:

© 2015. Conceptual combination performs a fundamental role in creating the broad range of compound phrases utilised in everyday language. While the systematicity and productivity of language provide a strong argument in favour of assuming compositionality, this very assumption is still regularly questioned in both cognitive science and philosophy. This article provides a novel probabilistic framework for assessing whether the semantics of conceptual combinations are compositional, and so can be considered as a function of the semantics of the constituent concepts, or not. Rather than adjudicating between different grades of compositionality, the framework presented here contributes formal methods for determining a clear dividing line between compositional and non-compositional semantics. Compositionality is equated with a joint probability distribution modelling how the constituent concepts in the combination are interpreted. Marginal selectivity is emphasised as a pivotal probabilistic constraint for the application of the Bell/CH and CHSH systems of inequalities (referred to collectively as Bell-type). Non-compositionality is then equated with either a failure of marginal selectivity, or, in the presence of marginal selectivity, with a violation of Bell-type inequalities. In both non-compositional scenarios, the conceptual combination cannot be modelled using a joint probability distribution with variables corresponding to the interpretation of the individual concepts. The framework is demonstrated by applying it to an empirical scenario of twenty-four non-lexicalised conceptual combinations.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/113523