A Fuzzy Logic Approach to Non-Scalar Hedges

Part of the Trends in Logic book series (TREN, volume 28)

Abstract

In (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2: 458–508, 1973), George Lakoff proposes a fuzzy semantics for the non-scalar hedges technically, strictly speaking, and loosely speaking. These hedges are able to modify the meaning of a predicate. However, Lakoff’s proposal is problematic. For example, his semantics only contains interpretations for hedged predicates using semantic information provided by selection functions. What kind of information these functions should provide for non-hedged predicates remains unspecified. This paper presents a solution for this deficit and other problems by means of a generic first-order fuzzy logic FL h . A wide range of fuzzy logics can be used as a basis for FL h . Next to a fully specified semantics, this solution also incorporates a proof theory for reasoning with these hedges. FL h makes use of a special set of selection functions. These functions collect the kind of information a reasoner can retrieve from concepts in his or her memory when interpreting a (non-)hedged predicate. Despite this non-standard element, FL h remains a conservative modification of its underlying fuzzy logic.

Keywords

fuzzy logic non-scalar hedges fuzzy concepts cognitive science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Barsalou, L., ‘Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts’, Memory & Cognition, 10: 82–93, 1982. Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Costello, F., ‘An exemplar model of classification in simple and combined categories’, in Gleitman, L.R., Joshi, A.K. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Erlbaum, 2000, pp. 95–100. Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Hájek, P., Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Lakoff, G., ‘Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2: 458–508, 1973. MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Laurence, S., Margolis, E., ‘Concepts and cognitive science’, in Margolis, E., Laurence, S. (eds.), Concepts: Core Readings, The MIT Press, 1999, pp. 3–81. Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Rosch, E., ‘On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories’, Unpublished paper, Psychology Dept., University of California, Berkeley, 1971. Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Rosch, E., Mervis, C., ‘Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories’, Cognitive Psychology, 7: 573–605, 1975. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Rosch, E., ‘Principles of categorization’, in Margolis, E., Laurence, S. (eds.), Concepts: Core Readings, The MIT Press, 1999, pp. 189–206. Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Wittgenstein, L., Philosophical Investigations, Prentice Hall, 1999. Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Zadeh, L.A., ‘Quantitative fuzzy semantics’, Information Sciences, 3: 159–167, 1971. MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle 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