Don't Blame Distributional Semantics if it can't do Entailment
  Distributional semantics has had enormous empirical success in Computational
Linguistics and Cognitive Science in modeling various semantic phenomena, such
as semantic similarity, and distributional models are widely used in
state-of-the-art Natural Language Processing systems. However, the theoretical
status of distributional semantics within a broader theory of language and
cognition is still unclear: What does distributional semantics model? Can it
be, on its own, a fully adequate model of the meanings of linguistic
expressions? The standard answer is that distributional semantics is not fully
adequate in this regard, because it falls short on some of the central aspects
of formal semantic approaches: truth conditions, entailment, reference, and
certain aspects of compositionality. We argue that this standard answer rests
on a misconception: These aspects do not belong in a theory of expression
meaning, they are instead aspects of speaker meaning, i.e., communicative
intentions in a particular context. In a slogan: words do not refer, speakers
do. Clearing this up enables us to argue that distributional semantics on its
own is an adequate model of expression meaning. Our proposal sheds light on the
role of distributional semantics in a broader theory of language and cognition,
its relationship to formal semantics, and its place in computational models.
