Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 333–356 | Cite as

Adaptive Fuzzy Logics for Contextual Hedge Interpretation



The article presents several adaptive fuzzy hedge logics. These logics are designed to perform a specific kind of hedge detection. Given a premise set Γ that represents a series of communicated statements, the logics can check whether some predicate occurring in Γ may be interpreted as being (implicitly) hedged by technically, strictly speaking or loosely speaking, or simply non-hedged. The logics take into account both the logical constraints of the premise set as well as conceptual information concerning the meaning of potentially hedged predicates (stored in the memory of the interpreter in question). The proof theory of the logics is non-monotonic in order to enable the logics to deal with possible non-monotonic interpretation dynamics (this is illustrated by means of several concrete proofs). All the adaptive fuzzy hedge logics are also sound and strongly complete with respect to their [0,1]-semantics.


Hedges Fuzzy logic Adaptive logic Concepts Cognitive science 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., & Patel-Schneider, P. (Eds.). (2003). The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation and applications. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barsalou, L. W. & Hale, C. R. (1993). Components of Conceptual Representation: From feature Lists to Recursive Frames. In I. Van Mechelen, J. Hampton, R. Michalski, & Theuns, P. (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 97–144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and Context-dependent Information in Concepts. Memory and Cognition 10, 82–93.Google Scholar
  4. Batens, D. (2007). A universal logic approach to adaptive logics. Logica Universalis, 1, 221–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batens, D. (2004). The need for adaptive logics in epistemology. In D. Gabbay, S. Rahman, J. Symons, & J. P. Van Bendegem, (Eds.), Logic, epistemology and the unity of science (pp. 459–485). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costello, F. J. & Keane, M. T. (2000). Efficient creativity: constraint guided conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 24, 299–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conrad, C. (1972). Cognitive economy in semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92, 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Esteva, F., Godo, L., Hájek, P., & Navara, M. (2000). Residuated fuzzy logics with an involutive negation. Archieve for Mathematical Logic, 39, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hájek, P. (2000). Metamathematics of fuzzy logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Hájek, P. & Harmankova, D. (2000). A hedge for Gödel fuzzy logic. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 8(4), 495–498.Google Scholar
  12. Hájek, P. (2001). On very true. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 124, 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hájek, P. (2002). Some hedges for continuous t-norm logics. Neural Network World, 2(2), 159–164.Google Scholar
  14. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laurence, S. & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In: E., Margolis, & S., Laurence, (Eds.), Concepts: Core Readings (pp. 3–81). Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Vanackere, G. (1997). Ambiguity-adaptive logic. Logique et Analyse, 159, 261–280Google Scholar
  17. Vychodil, V. (2006). Truth-depressing hedges and BL-logic. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157(15), 2074–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York: The MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
  19. Zadeh, L. A. (1971). Quantitative fuzzy semantics. Information Sciences, 3, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations