Compositionality in Quantitative Semantics. A Theoretical Perspective on Text Mining

  • Alexander Mehler
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 209)


This chapter introduces a variant of the principle of compositionality in quantitative text semantics as an alternative to the bag-of-features approach. The variant includes effects of context-sensitive interpretation as well as processes of meaning constitution and change in the sense of usage-based semantics. Its starting point is a combination of semantic space modeling and text structure analysis. The principle is implemented by means of a hierarchical constraint satisfaction process which utilizes the notion of hierarchical text structure superimposed by graph-inducing coherence relations. The major contribution of the chapter is a conceptualization and formalization of the principle of compositionality in terms of semantic spaces which tackles some well known deficits of existing approaches. In particular this relates to the missing linguistic interpretability of statistical meaning representations.


Text Component Lexical Item Latent Semantic Analysis Semantic Space Integration Hierarchy 
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. [1]
    H. Bandemer and W. Näther. Fuzzy Data Analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Barwise and J. Perry. Situations and Attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Barwise and J. Seligman. Information Flow. The Logic of Distributed Systems. University Press, Cambridge, 1997.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Deerwester, S. T. Dumais, G. W. Furnas, T. K. Landauer, and R. Harshmann. Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6):391–407, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. Dubois, H. Fargier, and H. Prade. Propagation and Satisfaction of Flexible Constraints. In R. R. Yager and L. A. Zadeh, editors, Fuzzy Sets, Neural Networks, and Soft Computing, pages 166–186. van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Foltz, W. Kintsch, and T. Landauer. The Measurement of Textual Coherence with Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2&3):285–307, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. W. Foltz. Latent Semantic Analysis for Text-Based Research. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 28(2):197–202, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. J. Greimas. Strukturale Semantik. Methodologische Untersuchungen. Viehweg, Braunschweig, 1971.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. Longman, London, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    T. M. V. Janssen. Compositionality (with an Appendix by Barbara H. Partee). In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 417–473. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    H. Kamp and B. Partee. Prototype Theory and Compositionality. Cognition, 57(2):129–191, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    W. Kintsch. Comprehension. A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    W. Kintsch. Predication. Cognitive Science, 25:173–202, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    G. J. Klir and T. A. Folger. Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information. Prentice Hall, Englewood, 1988.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Knott and T. Sanders. The Classification of Coherence Relations and their Linguistic Markers: An Exploration of Two Languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 30:135–175, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Lahav. Against Compositionality: The Case of Adjectives. Philosophical Studies, 57(3):261–279, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    T. K. Landauer and S. T. Dumais. A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2):211–240, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text, 8:243–281, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. Marcu. The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2000.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Mehler. Textbedeutung. Zur prozeduralen Analyse und Repräsentation struktureller Ähnlichkeiten von Texten. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M., 2001.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    A. Mehler. Hierarchical Orderings of Textual Units. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING' 02, Taipei, pages 646–652, San Francisco, 2002. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    A. Mehler. Zur textlinguistischen Fundierung der Text-und Korpuskonversion. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung, 1:29–53, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    G. A. Miller and W. G. Charles. Contextual Correlates of Semantic Similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(1):1–28, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    D. N. Osherson and E. E. Smith. On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts. Cognition, 9(1):35–58, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    B. H. Partee. Compositionality. In F. Landman and F. Veltman, editors, Varieties of Formal Semantics. Proceedings of the fourth Amsterdam Colloquium, September 1982, pages 281–311, Dordrecht, 1984. Foris.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    L. Perlovsky. Neural Networks, Fuzzy Models and Dynamic Logic. In this volume.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    R. Power, D. Scott, and N. Bouayad-Agha. Document Structure. Computational Linguistics, 29(2):211–260, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    A. Renear, E. Mylonas, and D. Durand. Refining our Notion of What Text Really Is: The Problem of Overlapping Hierarchies. In N. Ide and S. Hockey, editors, Research in Humanities Computing, pages 263–280. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    B. B. Rieger. Feasible Fuzzy Semantics. In K. Heggstad, editor, COLING-78 7th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 41–43. ICCL, Bergen, 1978.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    B. B. Rieger. Fuzzy Word Meaning Analysis and Representation in Linguistic Semantics. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '80), Tokyo, pages 76–84, 1980.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    B. B. Rieger. Feasible Fuzzy Semantics. On Some Problems of How to Handle Word Meaning Empirically. In H. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser, editors, Words, Worlds, and Contexts. New Approaches in Word Semantics (Research in Text Theory 6), pages 193–209. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    B. B. Rieger. Semantic Relevance and Aspect Dependency in a Given Subject Domain. In D. E.Walker, editor, COLING '84 - Proceedings 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 298–301, Stanford, 1984. ACL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    B. B. Rieger. Unscharfe Semantik: Die empirische Analyse, quantitative Beschreibung, formale Repräsentation und prozedurale Modellierung vager Wortbedeutungen in Texten. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M., 1989.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    B. B. Rieger. Situation Semantics and Computational Linguistics: Towards Informational Ecology. In K. Kornwachs and K. Jacoby, editors, Information. New Questions to a Multidisciplinary Concept, pages 285–315. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    B. B. Rieger. Computing Granular Word Meanings. A Fuzzy Linguistic Approach in Computational Semiotics. In P. Wang, editor, Computing with Words, pages 147–208. Wiley, New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    G. Ruge. Wortbedeutung und Termassoziation. Methoden zur automatischen semantischen Klassifikation. Olms, Hildesheim, 1995.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    G. Salton. Automatic Text Processing: The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1989.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    H. Schütze. Automatic Word Sense Discrimination. Computational Linguistics, 24(1):97–123, 1998.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    A. J. C. Sharkey and N. E. Sharkey. Weak Contextual Constraints in Text and Word Priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(4):543–572, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    P. Thagard. Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2000.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    L. A. Zadeh. Toward a Theory of Fuzzy Information Granulation and its Centrality in Human Reasoning and Fuzzy Logic. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 90:111–127, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Mehler
    • 1
  1. 1.Bielefeld UniversityBielefeld

Personalised recommendations