The Role of Synonymy and Antonymy in ’Natural’ Fuzzy Prolog

  • Alejandro Sobrino
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 273)


The aim of this paper is to attempt a first approach to a kind of ‘natural Fuzzy Prolog’ based on the linguistic relations of synonymy and antonymy. Traditionally, Prolog was associated to the clausal logic, a disposition of the classical logic in which the goals are conjectural theorems and the answers, provided by the interpreter, are achieved using resolution and unification. Both resolution and unification are the core of a Prolog interpreter. Classical Prolog has had and still currently has interesting applications in domains as natural language processing where the problems are verbalized using crisp language and algorithmic style. But as Zadeh pointed out, natural language is essentially ill-defined or vague. Fuzzy Prolog provides tools for dealing with tasks that involve vague or imprecise statements and approximate reasoning. Traditionally, fuzzy Prolog was related with the specification of facts or rules as a matter of degree. Degrees adopted several forms: single degrees, intervals of degrees and linguistic truth-values, represented by triangular or trapezoidal numbers. Fuzzy solutions using degrees are valuable, but far from the way employed by human beings to solve daily problems. Using a naive style, this paper introduces a ‘natural fuzzy Prolog’ that deals with a kind of natural resolution applying antonymy as a linguistic negation and synonymy as a way to match predicates with similar meanings.


Fuzzy Logic Resolution Process Empty Clause Resolution Rule Linguistic Relation 
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.
    Atanassov, K., Georgiev, C.: Intuitionistic Fuzzy Prolog. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 53, 121–129 (1993)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouchon-Meunier, B., Rifqi, M., Bothorel, S.: General measures of comparison of objects. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 84(2), 143–153 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cross, V., Sudkamp, T.A.: Similarity and Compatibility in Fuzzy Set Theory. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cruse, D.A.: Lexical Semantics. CUP, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Soto, A.R., Trillas, E.: On Antonym and Negate if Fuzzy Logic. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 14, 295–303 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Similarity-based approximate reasoning. In: Zurada, J.M., Marks, R.J., Robinson, C.J. (eds.) Computational Intelligence Imitating Life, pp. 69–80. IEEE Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guadarrama, S., Muñoz, S., Vaucheret, C.: Fuzzy Prolog: a new approach using soft constraints propagation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 144, 127–150 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harabagiu, S., Hickl, A., Lacatusu, F.: Negation, Contrast and Contradiction in Text Processing. In: Proceedings of then 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2006, Boston, Mass. (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris, Z.S.: Distributional structure. Word 10(23), 146–162 (1954)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Julián-Iranzo, P., Rubio-Manzano, C., Gallardo-Casero, J.: Bousi Prolog: a Prolog Extension Language for Flexible Query Answering. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 248, 131–147 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim, C.S., Kim, D.S., Park, J.S.: A new fuzzy resolution principle based on the antonym. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 113, 299–307 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, R.C.T.: Fuzzy Logic and the Resolution Principle. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 19(1), 109–119 (1972)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, D., Liu, D.: A Fuzzy Prolog Database System. Research Studies Press and John Wiley and Sons (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin, D., Zhao, S., Qin, L., Zhou, M.: Identifyng Synonyms among Distributionally Similar Words. In: Proceedings of then IJCAI, pp. 1492–1493 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, H., Singh, P.: ConceptNet: A practical commonsense reasoning toolkit. BT Technology 22(4), 211–226 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lyons, J.: Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. CUP, Cambridge (1981)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, G.A., et al.: WordNet: An online lexical database. Int. J. of Lexicograph 3(4), 235–244 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mohammad, S., Dorr, B., Hirst, G.: Computing Word-Pair Antonymy. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 982–991 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Palmer, F.R.: Semantics: A New Outline. CUP, Cambridge (1977)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Popper, K.R.: Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge Classics (1963)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rescher, N.: Many-valued Logics. McGraw-Hill (1969)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rescher, N.: Reductio ad absurdum, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006),
  23. 23.
    Sobrino, A., Fernández-Lanza, S., Graña, J.: Access to a Large Dictionary of Spanish Synonyms: A tool for fuzzy information retrieval. In: Herrera, E., Pasi, G., Crestani, F. (eds.) Soft-Computing in Web Information Retrieval: Models and Applications, pp. 229–316. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tamburrini, G., Termini, S.: Towards a resolution in a fuzzy logic with Lukasiewicz implication. In: Valverde, L., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R.R. (eds.) IPMU 1992. LNCS, vol. 682, pp. 271–277. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trillas, E., Valverde, L.: An Inquiry into Indistinguishability Operators. In: Skala, H.J., Termini, S., Trillas, E. (eds.) Aspects of Vagueness, pp. 231–256. Reidel (1984)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weigert, T.J., Tsai, J.-P., Liu, X.: Fuzzy Operator Logic and Fuzzy Resolution. Journal of Automated Reasoning 10, 59–78 (1993)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shönning, U.: Logic for Computer Scientist. Birkhäuser, Basel (1989)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zadeh, L.A.: From search engines to question-answering systems – The role of fuzzy logic. Progress in Informatics (1), 1–3 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejandro Sobrino
    • 1
  1. 1.Dpt. of Logic and Moral PhilosophyUniversity of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain

Personalised recommendations