Advertisement

An Approach to Measuring Complexity Within the Boundaries of a Natural Language Fuzzy Grammar

  • Adrià Torrens UrrutiaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 801)

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to evaluate complexity by means of a Natural Language Fuzzy Grammar. Frequently, Linguistics has described a natural language grammar by means of discrete terms. However, a grammar can be explained in terms of degrees by following the concepts of linguistic gradience & fuzziness. Understanding a grammar as a fuzzy or gradient object allows us to establish degrees of grammaticality for every linguistic input. This shall be meaningful for linguistic complexity considering that the less grammatical an input is the more complex its processing will be. From this regard, an input’s degree of complexity is always going to depend on its grammar. The bases of the natural language fuzzy grammar are shown here. Some of these are described by Fuzzy Type Theory. The linguistic inputs are characterized by constraints through a Property Grammar.

Keywords

Degrees of grammaticality Degrees of complexity Fuzzy grammar Local complexity Syntax 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research has been supported by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional under the project number FFI2015-69978-P (MINECO/FEDER, UE) of the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia, Subprograma Estatal de Generación de Conocimiento.

References

  1. 1.
    Aarts, B.: Conceptions of gradience in the history of linguistics. Lang. Sci. 26(4), 343–389 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolinger, D.L.M.: Generality: Gradience and the All-or-None, 14th edn. Mouton & Company, Amsterdam (1961)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keller, F.: Gradience in grammar: experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Ph.D. thesis. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control. 8(3), 338–353 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zadeh, L.A.: A fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of linguistic hedges. J. Cybern. 2(3), 4–34 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mc Worther, J.: The world’s simpliest grammars are creole grammars. Linguist. Typology 5(2), 125–166 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahl, Ö.: The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity, vol. 71. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blache, P.: A computational model for linguistic complexity. Biol. Comput. Linguist. 288, 155–167 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindstrom, E.: Language complexity and interlinguistic difficulty. Lang. Complex. Typology Contact Chang. 94, 217 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chomsky, N.: Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge (1965)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Novák, V.: Fuzzy natural logic: towards mathematical logic of human reasoning. In: Towards the Future of Fuzzy Logic, pp. 137–165, Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blache, P.: Property grammars and the problem of constraint satisfaction. In: Proceedings of ESSLLI 2000 workshop on Linguistic Theory and Grammar Implementation, pp. 47–56 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blache, P.: Property grammars: a fully constraint-based theory. In: Constraint Solving and Language Processing, vol. 3438, pp. 1–16 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blache, P.: Representing syntax by means of properties: a formal framework for descriptive approaches. J. Lang. Model. 4(2), 183–224 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat Rovira i VirgiliTarragonaSpain

Personalised recommendations