tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137988136860941398.post5337968426108349752..comments2024-03-10T05:02:00.377-07:00Comments on Sprachlogik: The Principle of Compositionality and Semantic GranularityTristan Hazehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18008340011384137776noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137988136860941398.post-87662223575821323922023-06-04T02:59:49.853-07:002023-06-04T02:59:49.853-07:00off white hoodie
outlet
paul george shoes
jordan o...<a href="http://www.off-whiteclothing.us.org" rel="nofollow"><strong>off white hoodie</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.jordansforcheap.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.paulgeorge.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>paul george shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.jordan13.us.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>jordan outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.goldengoosesonline.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>golden goose outlet</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.yeezy-shoes.us.org" rel="nofollow"><strong>yeezy shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.palmangels-hoodie.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>palm angels</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.jordansshoes.us.org" rel="nofollow"><strong>air jordan shoes</strong></a><br /><a href="http://www.goyardshandbags.us.org" rel="nofollow"><strong>goyard handbags & purses</strong></a><br /><a href="https://www.offwhitesoutlet.com" rel="nofollow"><strong>off white outlet</strong></a><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137988136860941398.post-9911235179597854052022-05-07T15:08:52.784-07:002022-05-07T15:08:52.784-07:00this contact formRead Full Report his comment is...<a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/monogram-c-157_158_241/designer-fake-louis-vuitton-m45266-monogram-canvas-danube-shoulder-bags-store-p-4482.html"" rel="nofollow">this contact form</a>Read Full Report <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/fr/empreinte-de-monogramme-c-157_158_162/ce-que-louis-vuitton-r%C3%A9pliques-m80349-easy-pouch-on-strap-monogram-empreinte-bag-p-4608.html"" rel="nofollow">his comment is here</a>useful source <a href="https://www.dolabuy.ru/new-bags-c-157_158_167/louis-vuitton-designer-fake-g10397-bags-sale-p-3839.html"" rel="nofollow">have a peek at these guys</a>great site gashethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15048010474496466941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137988136860941398.post-1147075143864515482015-08-20T22:01:26.207-07:002015-08-20T22:01:26.207-07:00UsesBigWords 2 points 1 day ago
Thanks for the re...UsesBigWords 2 points 1 day ago <br />Thanks for the reply!<br /><br />'I am not opposed to the general idea of delineating a factor of meaning which is very uniform and simple, and then trying to understand meaning in a broader more ordinary sense as a combination of this factor and others (the 'pragmatic' ones). But I'm uneasy about the idea that this core semantic factor should be thought of as being all there is to semantics, or that we should be much more interested in it than in the stuff you have to add to get ordinary meaning back. This may in part be just a difference of interest, and a terminological difference over "semantic".'<br /><br />I feel this problem arises because we have a much sharper delineation between "semantics" and "meaning" today, for better or worse. I do think the original intent of the principle of compositionality was for it to play a crucial role in what contemporary authors would call "semantic" atomism, a la Tractatus. In this sense, I'm not sure the original intent was ever to compose ordinary meaning, although subsequent authors might have appropriated the principle for this purpose.<br /><br />In general, I think we could have a very complex principle at finer granularities, with a lot of rules, and do away with a good chunk of the pragmatic machinery, or we could have a very simple principle at finer granularities, with very few rules (such as the one I illustrated), and import a lot of pragmatic machinery to explain "ordinary" meaning.<br /><br />I'm personally in favor of the latter simply because I think semantic analysis plays an important role in a lot of formal systems, where simplicity is valued over power. However, I'm by no means unsympathetic to the former.Tristan Hazehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18008340011384137776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8137988136860941398.post-12219585172389658162015-08-20T22:01:03.207-07:002015-08-20T22:01:03.207-07:00From reddit:
UsesBigWords 0 points 3 days ago
In...From reddit:<br /><br />UsesBigWords 0 points 3 days ago <br />Interesting read, but it's not clear which principle of compositionality you're responding to. You give a number of examples, but they certainly aren't all equivalent.<br /><br />For example, here is a (rather weak) principle of compositionality that's Wittgensteinian in spirit:<br /><br />The semantic content of the proposition is composed of the semantic content of its constituents in the way specified by the syntax of the proposition.<br /><br />This principle of compositionality is not susceptible to your granularity concerns.<br /><br />Whatever 'friendship' is semantically and whatever 'realm' is semantically will combine in a rule-based manner to give us the semantic content of 'friendship realm'. However, that doesn't mean that the meaning of 'friendship' and meaning of 'realm' combine in a rule-based manner to give us the meaning 'friendship realm'. Perhaps we'll have a sophisticated theory in the future to explain how ordinary meaning can be composed, but we needn't have such a theory to distinguish between semantic content and ordinary meaning.<br /><br />The neo-Gricean will simply account for the meaning of such utterances by reference to pragmatic considerations (implicature, pretense, metaphor, etc.), while maintaining the semantic content of such utterances is fixed by the semantic content of its constituents.<br /><br />For example, at a very coarse propositional level granularity, when the waiter says "you can have a soup or you can have a salad," we can move that the semantic content is inclusive (that is, if you take a soup and salad, the waiter still asserts something true). However, by implicature, we understand the meaning of this complex proposition to be exclusive.<br /><br />tristanhaze 1 point 1 day ago <br />Thanks for the comment, and I'm glad it was an interesting read!<br /><br />'This principle of compositionality is not susceptible to your granularity concerns.'<br /><br />That's fine by me, I think. To ward off a simple misreading of my post (without attributing this to you): I'm not concerned to argue that there's some single thing called the principle of compositionality which is thrown into doubt by granularity considerations. Rather, if I have an overall positive proposal in the post, it is that granularity considerations can help us differentiate different interpretations of the principle (or different principles if you prefer - this itself being a matter of what granularity we're operating at, incidentally) and perhaps diffuse some of the debate and (apparent) disagreement surrounding the topic.<br /><br />About the neo-Gricean stuff: I am not opposed to the general idea of delineating a factor of meaning which is very uniform and simple, and then trying to understand meaning in a broader more ordinary sense as a combination of this factor and others (the 'pragmatic' ones). But I'm uneasy about the idea that this core semantic factor should be thought of as being all there is to semantics, or that we should be much more interested in it than in the stuff you have to add to get ordinary meaning back. This may in part be just a difference of interest, and a terminological difference over 'semantic'. I'd like to try to get clearer some day about what is at stake. In any case, I do think that Gricean moves can sometimes overreach and lead to definite error, such as the idea that 'If I die tonight I will be alive tomorrow' is true but unassertable. I think that's just wrong. I also think there's a similar possible error in relation to the salad-or-soup case.Tristan Hazehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18008340011384137776noreply@blogger.com