Abstract
In this paper, we defend two claims. First, we argue that a notion of contextuality that has been formalized in physics and psychology is applicable to linguistic contexts. Second, we propose that this formal apparatus is philosophically significant for the epistemology of language because it imposes homogeneous rational constraints on speakers. We propose a Contextuality Principle that explains and articulates these two claims. This principle states that speakers update contextual information by significantly reducing the space of probabilities and variables in a non-commutative way. Some contexts affect other contexts not merely in terms of the information they contain, but also on the basis of their sequential order. In particular, we argue that the Contextuality by Default (CBD) theory provides a formalism that helps explain the role of contextuality in rational linguistic exchanges.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Here we are viewing context as an umbrella term meaning whatever we need to add to the utterance in order to allow for a coordinated connection to a reference.
We do not mean that explicit rule-following, i.e. coherentism, or explicit conscious inference might be important here. All we assume is that speakers have the capacities to identify meaning in a rational way, however those capacities are construed.
References
Abramsky, S., & Sadrzadeh, M.(2014). Semantic unification. In: Casadio, C., Coecke, B., Moortgat, M., Scott, P. (eds.) Categories and Types in Logic, Language, and Physics: Essays Dedicated to Jim Lambek on the Occasion Of His 90th Birthday. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1–13. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54789-8_1
Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., Gabora, L., & Veloz, T.(2012). The guppy effect as interference. In: Busemeyer, J.R., Dubois, F., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Melucci, M. (eds.) Quantum Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 36–47. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-35659-9_4 Accessed 2015-03-11
Aerts, D., & Sozzo, S. (2012). Entanglement of conceptual entities in quantum model theory (QMod). In: Busemeyer, J.R., Dubois, F., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A., Melucci, M. (eds.) Quantum Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 114–125. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-35659-9_11 Accessed 2015-09-16
Aerts, D., & Sozzo, S. (2013). Quantum Entanglement in Concept Combinations. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 53(10), 3587–3603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-013-1946-z. Accessed 2015-09-16
Atmanspacher, H., Basieva, I., Busemeyer, J. R., Khrennikov, A. Y., Pothos, E. M., Shiffrin, R. M., & Wang, Z. (2020). What are the appropriate axioms of rationality for reasoning under uncertainty with resource-constrained systems? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19001535
Atmanspacher, H., & Römer, H. (2012). Order effects in sequential measurements of non-commuting psychological observables. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(4), 274–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2012.06.003.
de Barros, J. A., & Oas, G. (2015). Quantum Cognition, Neural Oscillators, and Negative Probabilities. In E. Haven & A. Khrennikov (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Quantum Models in Social Science: Applications and Grand Challenges. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
de Barros, J. A., Oas, G., & Suppes, P. (2015). Negative probabilities and Counterfactual Reasoning on the double-slit Experiment. In J.-Y. Beziau, D. Krause, & J. B. Arenhart (Eds.), Conceptual Clarification: Tributes to Patrick Suppes (pp. 1992–2014). London: College Publications.
de Barros, J. A., & Suppes, P. (2009). Quantum mechanics, interference, and the brain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.03.005
de Barros, J.A. (2014). Decision making for inconsistent expert judgments using negative probabilities. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 257–269. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg
de Barros, J.A., & Oas, G .(2014). Negative probabilities and counter-factual reasoning in quantum cognition. Physica Scripta T163, 014008 Accessed 2014-04-16
de Barros, J. A., Kujala, J. V., & Oas, G. (2016). Negative probabilities and contextuality. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2016.04.014. Accessed 2016-11-27
Bruza, P., Kitto, K., Nelson, D., & McEvoy, C. (2009). Is there something quantum-like about the human mental lexicon? Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 362–377.
Bruza, P., Kitto, K., Ramm, B. J., & Sitbon, L. (2015). A probabilistic framework for analysing the compositionality of conceptual combinations. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 67, 26–38.
Busemeyer, J., & Wang, Z. (2017). Is there a problem with quantum models of psychological measurements? PLOS ONE, 12(11), 0187733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187733
Busemeyer, J.R., & Bruza, P.D.(2012). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
Cabello, A. (2014). Exclusivity principle and the quantum bound of the Bell inequality. Physical Review A, 90(6), 062125. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.062125
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Cervantes, V. H., & Dzhafarov, E. N. (2017). Advanced analysis of quantum contextuality in a psychophysical double-detection experiment. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 79, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2017.03.003
Cervantes, V. H., & Dzhafarov, E. N. (2018). Snow queen is evil and beautiful: Experimental evidence for probabilistic contextuality in human choices. Decision, 5(3), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000095
Cox, R. T. (1961). The Algebra of Probable Inference. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.
Dzhafarov, E.N., & Kujala, J.V. (2017). Contextuality-by-default 2.0: Systems with binary random variables. In: de Barros, J.A., Coecke, B., Pothos, E. (eds.) Quantum Interaction: 10th International Conference, QI 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10106. Springer, Cham, Switzerland
Dzhafarov, E.N. (2019). The contextuality-by-default view of the sheaf-theoretic approach to contextuality. arXiv:1906.02718 [quant-ph]. arXiv: 1906.02718. Accessed 2019-09-17
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Quantum Models in Social Science. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A.(2013). Quantum social science. Cambridge Univ. Press Cambridge
Holik, F., Saenz, M., & Plastino, A. (2014). A discussion on the origin of quantum probabilities. Annals of Physics, 340(1), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2013.11.005.
Howard, M., Wallman, J., Veitch, V., & Emerson, J. (2014). Contextuality supplies the ‘magic’ for quantum computation. Nature, 510(7505), 351–355. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13460
Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability Theory: the Logic of Science. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge Univ Press.
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 263–291
Khrennikov, A. Y. (2009). Contextual Approach to Quantum Formalism. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Khrennikov, A. (2010). Ubiquitous Quantum Structure. Heidelberg: Springer.
Khrennikov, A., Basieva, I., Dzhafarov, E. N., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). Quantum models for psychological measurements: An unsolved problem. PLoS one, 9(10), 110909. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110909.
Kochen, S., & Specker, E. P. (1967). The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87.
Kujala, J. V., Dzhafarov, E. N., & Larsson, J.-A. (2015). Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for an Extended Noncontextuality in a Broad Class of Quantum Mechanical Systems. Physical Review Letters, 115(15), 150401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.150401.
Lewis, K.S. (2018). Dynamic semantics. In: Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Melamed, Y.Y., & Lin, M. (2021). Principle of sufficient reason. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, summer 2021 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/sufficient-reason/
Moore, D.W.(2002). Measuring new types of question-order effects: Additive and Subtractive. The Public Opinion Quarterly 66(1), 80–91 https://doi.org/10.2307/3078697. Accessed 2013-06-16
Moreira, C., de Barros, J.A. (2021). Order effects in bayesian updates. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 43(43) Accessed 2021-08-03
Narens, L. (2014). Probabilistic lattices: With applications to psychology. World Scientific, Singapore Google-Books-ID: Bh23CgAAQBAJ
Oas, G., & de Barros, J. A. (2015). A Survey of Physical Principles Attempting to Define Quantum Mechanics. In E. Dzhafarov, R. Zhang, & S. M. Jordan (Eds.), Contextuality From Quantum Physics to Psychology. Singapore: World Scientific.
Ozawa, M., & Khrennikov, A. (2020). Application of theory of quantum instruments to psychology: Combination of question order effect with response replicability effect. Entropy, 22(11), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22010037
Ozawa, M., & Khrennikov, A. (2021). Modeling combination of question order effect, response replicability effect, and qq-equality with quantum instruments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 100, 102491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2020.102491
Perry, J. (2017). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Indexicals. In B. Hale, C. Wright, & A. Miller (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(03), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001525
Savage, L. J. (1972). The Foundations of Statistics (2nd ed.). Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Shafir, E., & Tversky, A. (1992). Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 449–474.
Stalnaker, R.(1999). Context and content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech And Thought. Clarendon Press, Oxford ; New York
Suppes, P., & Zanotti, M. (1981). When are probabilistic explanations possible? Synthese, 48(2), 191–199.
Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). The Disjunction Effect in Choice Under Uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3(5), 305–309.
Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an a priori and precise prediction. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(4), 689–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12040.
Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. (2015). Reintroducing the Concept of Complementarity into Psychology. Cognition, 6, 1822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01822.
Wang, Z., Solloway, T., Shiffrin, R. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(26), 9431–9436. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407756111.
Yearsley, J. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2016). Quantum cognition and decision theories: A tutorial. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 74, 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.11.005.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the two anonymous referees for their important questions and suggestions. We feel our manuscript improved substantially because of their reviews. JAB thanks John Perry and Paul Skokowski for their hospitality at the Center for the Explanation of Consiousness at Stanford. JAB also thanks Otavio Bueno and Adonai Sant’Anna for discussions. LPGA acknowledge support from the Patrick Suppes Gift Fund, and the Byrne Gift Funds at Stanford University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interests
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
de Barros, J.A., Montemayor, C., De Assis, L.P.G. et al. Constraining Meanings With Contextuality. Found Sci (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-022-09859-9
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-022-09859-9