Contemporary Foreign major study on fuzzy linguistics Comment on_4974

By Louis Diaz,2014-10-30 16:18
7 views 0
Contemporary Foreign major study on fuzzy linguistics Comment on_4974

    Contemporary Foreign major study on fuzzy linguistics Comment on

     Summary Fuzzy Linguistics is the sixties and the seventies began to rise in a major interdisciplinary, its research methods based primarily on the United States of cybernetics expert Zadeh's fuzzy set theory. This paper on the late twentieth century outside the main research on fuzzy linguistics to make a Brief Review with a view to the reader of contemporary foreign vague language research methods and a general understanding of the status quo.

     Abstract Linguistics title

     Key words fuzzy sets / membership / fuzzy degree / Rank true value


     Fuzzy linguistics research began in the 20th century, 60 years, the research object is the language of fuzzy phenomena. Fuzzy linguistics to linguistic research and natural

    sciences together, is between natural and social sciences between the cross-discipline, its

    research not only to adapt to the research and development of natural language, but also to solve the many problems in the form of language provides a theoretical and


     The theoretical basis of fuzzy linguistic control theory, the U.S. experts Zadeh (1965) fuzzy set theory. The proposed fuzzy set theory changed the way people in the past the whole way of thinking, its essence is not in favor of things to a broad-brush approach,

    recognizing there are numerous between the two values in the range of values, there are numerous membership. Thus, the birth of fuzzy theory has far-reaching theoretical and

    practical significance. It will not only promote the development of fuzzy science itself, but also to mathematics, logic, psychology, linguistics and a series of disciplines unprecedented change. From then on, people are not only the center of attention in scientific research or accurate to imagine the phenomenon, but also began to pay

    attention the phenomenon of marginal phenomenon or fuzzy. Fuzzy Linguistics is in this academic environment, developed in a Frontier Science. Looking abroad, linguists use of fuzzy theory of language study in different ways, we can roughly from the

    following aspects of the late 20th century, relevant foreign fuzzy linguistics to make a brief review of major research.

     1. Fuzzy Theory and Language Studies

     WU Tie-ping (1999) in its "fuzzy linguistics," a book about early Zadeh raised by

    many people until there is "fuzzy" concept, why only after the study of Zadeh fuzzy developed into a number of relatively independent of the subjects, including the emerging "fuzzy linguistics"? Wu Tieping think there are two reasons: First, there is a

    gradual understanding of the human evolutionary process, and second, only Zadeh adjust to the requirements of modern science, the fuzzy theory, formal, mathematics-

    based, so that it can be widely used in control theory , systems theory, information

    theory and so on. Zadeh (1965) The central idea of fuzzy set theory is a set of boundaries are not fixed, elements belonging to set the value of membership in addition 0,1 2, you can also take between the two values of the value of any real number. Thus,

    fuzzy set theory is more suitable definition of vague language, its vague semantic natural language processing more in line with the actual situation. Early in the 20th century, 70's, the U.S. linguist G. Lakoff will be fuzzy theory is introduced to language

    research. He pointed out that the semantic boundaries of a certain ambiguity to "bird" as an example, robins typical of birds, bats are not large in this category. He relevant members of their birds as "birds" and lined up in varying degrees, arranged in

    standard to each member of the "birds" a typical scale for measuring the similarity of members, such as:

     (1) robin


     Chickens, ducks, geese

     Penguins, gannets


     This arrangement more genuine picture of the "bird" significance. Lakoff will be

    arranged in a hierarchy concept cited by the degree of membership to the true value formulation. With the cases of an array that corresponds to the level of true value can be the following statement:

     (2) a. robins are birds (absolute truth)

     b. Eagle of bird (not a true)

     c. Chickens are birds (not b true)

     d. penguins are birds (no c true)

     e. bats are birds (fake, or really far away)

     f. cow belonging to birds (absolute false) (Lakoff 1973,1982)

     This example only from the perspective of natural language. From a biological point of view, a, b, c, d are all true, e, f is a full-time leave, penguins are not the typical birds of

    this fact does not make "Penguins are birds," the true value of true extent of reduction.

     Lakoff (1973) also proposed to develop at least a degree of membership based on four criteria: the definition, the main standards, secondary standards and temporary features. The first three criteria of membership of the different levels of development

    play a role, the last one does not contain this feature, but can to a certain extent, play its role. Lakoff's conclusion: the concept of fuzzy logic can be systematically built up, vague concept has its own internal structure in natural language, the true value is a

    degree of truth value, rather than absolute truth. He also pointed out that the algebraic function in limiting the meaning of a word plays a role in the study, limiting the term studies have shown that the form of the logic of natural language semantics is the

    correct approach, justice theory is imperfect, because the method of the fuzzy concept axiom is powerless.

     Lakoff's research is mainly cognitive linguistics, he told the fuzzy set theory applied to linguistics, very hopeful, but he thinks fuzzy set theory for cognitive linguistics has its limitations, because the fuzzy set theory is mainly used to deal with the semantic features that can be measured, but very difficult to overcome the language cognitive processes, the impact of context on language issues. Lakoff this view is biased, fuzzy set theory can be applied to the context effects and cognitive linguistics research, such as semantic feature in the measure based on the semantics of the use of some essential

    parameters, and deal with a number of cognitive processes and context the impact of problems (Zhang Qiao 1998).

     Another American linguist McCawley (1981) on the ambiguity of the language and the use of fuzzy set theory, made a more detailed study, in his "linguists always want to

    know but are too ashamed to go to the next question the logic of" one The book, a comprehensive survey of a fuzzy concept in linguistics applications. In discussing the concept of ambiguity, his example:

     (3) a. Obese women are pleasing.

     b. Some of the tall disgusting.

     As explained by the concept of fuzzy sets, the formula may be as follows:

     (4) a. minx | (fat x, likable x) |

     b. maxx | ? (high-x, annoying x) |

     McCawley (1981) that the formula is not consistent with the intuition. For example: |

    Kissinger fat | = 0.3, | Kissinger pleasant | = 0.2, then, | (Kissinger fat, Kissinger pleasant) | = 0.2, that is, cases of 4a of the true value can not exceed 0.2, which seems it

    is not intuitive. Kissinger most cases is nothing but a counter-example 3a, but its

    existence Queshi cases the true value of 3a is much lower. Here the question is: to quantify the true value should be the expression and definition of the various elements

    of the domain. McCawley that the solution to the problem one way is the introduction of "ambiguity" concept. For example 3a of the counter-examples, "there is a little fat is

    not pleasant." The phrase "all fat is pleasing," who, Kissinger as an anti-cases of the

    extent of 0.3 × 0.1 = 0.03, that is, Kissinger on the cases of 3a true value of 0.97, this result is closer to a person's feelings (McCawley 1981). With the decimal point that very arbitrary nature of ambiguity, with a certain subjective shortcomings, but there is still of great practical value (Wu Tieping 1999).

     In addition, McCawley also discussed the issue of true value hierarchy. He pointed out that, with between 0 and 1 real numbers to represent the true value can correctly

    handle the vague concept, the use of these intermediate values to avoid artificially unrealistic to draw boundaries. For example: "high", said a highly relative concept, how to formalize that "x is high", Zadeh put forward, | x high | = | x high-| [2].

    McCawley confirm that Zadeh's formula | x high | ? | x high | is correct, but it also confirmed that a person can be either "high" can also be "high"; a person may "not high", but also may "not high", because a [2] = 1,0 [2] = 0. Therefore, McCawley with |

    x high | = | x 'high |, a high degree of (x') = height (x) -3 "to express this formula. Since

    the introduction of a high degree of this concept, if you want high, must be more than" high "but also height of at least three." This arbitrary choice of the number 3 "can be

    changed according to changes in context (McCawley 1981; Zadeh 1972). McCawley in the ambiguity of language was more detailed research, he contributed in this regard have considerable influence in foreign countries .

     2. Natural language

     Fuzzy Linguistics in natural language research is based on experimental data in natural language, based on vague language from a linguistic perspective. Such studies based on the actual corpus, by analyzing the actual data and draw conclusions. Its

    representatives include British linguistics Channell. Channell (1994) research interest is the practical application of linguistics, she was "vague language" a book to study in English how to provide various forms of fuzzy method. She will Principles of

    Pragmatics vague language used to describe different forms of vague language, indicating that their pragmatic value. Channell's conclusion is based on the actual language material, rather than pure theoretical research. She focused on two kinds of

    fuzzy words: the number of vague, such as "about 10 individuals", and vague scope of signs, such as "similar to the movie sort of thing." During the discussion when the fuzzy quantifier, Channell said: language, there are some words, their role is to make fuzzy

    semantics, such as "about"; while the number of semantic ambiguity is by a continuous digital domain to the performance, such as "about two 10 "; different fuzzy quantization modifiers will control the development of the digital domain, such as"

    about 20 "and" over 20 "and so on. At the same time, Channell also believe that words containing the exact figures may also be said that fuzzy semantics, for example, "I went to your house today, two in the afternoon," sentence, "two", it could be a vague term,

    namely, "two or so" , not necessarily 2:00 sharp, not the 2:00 bell rang people go to.

     In the discussion "similar to the movie sort of thing," when such a vague word, Channell to "similar ... ... sort of thing," called "tags." This kind of "label" can

    promote the formation of a fuzzy area in the formulation and semantic and pragmatic about. One area where a typical element as the center and the composition, for example, "movie" is "similar to the movie sort of thing," the central component of this

    ambiguous category. She believes that language users need to analyze the pragmatic information to identify a fuzzy area. The Pragmatic areas include: the context, the purpose of the article or a conversation, people's knowledge (Channell 1994).

     Channell that the vague language in the communicative aspects of research functions of a certain theoretical significance. First, the vague language is an objective reality; second, people use vague language did not feel particularly difficult, the human

    cognitive ability to deal with vague concepts. Channell's research methods are very practical, she uses language semantics of experimental scientific methods to enhance research, make up for the lack of pure theoretical method, so that expansion of the

    semantic scope of the study.

     In addition, the U.S. linguist Prince et al (1980) in natural language research focuses on two types of restrictions on words, its investigation is through conversations and meetings among doctors, records of the collection language materials. Their initial

    assumption of medical doctors to the exchange of technical issues should be no problem, but the discussion of medical ethics issues may be difficult, because they do not have formal training in this area. This assumption ultimately the truth. The

    findings show that even in talking about technical problems, the language of doctors also demonstrated a high degree of uncertainty. Such as, His weight was approximately three point two kilograms, which is essentially what his birth weight Was. Visible, even

    when discussing the medical problem, doctors have also used fuzzy hedges. Prince, said the term limit for the manufacture of such vague words. In their view, limit the term in two different ways to make the words blur, one is semantic ambiguity itself, the other

    one is between the words and semantic ambiguity, meaning that the speaker of the true value proposition to the degree of commitment.

     Prince and others are listed in two categories restricted words: approximation of words and cover up the words. Approximation term impact of propositional content. Impact in two ways: First, through "changing the word limit," word has become atypical, such as "many" in the "very"; second is through "fuzzy limit word" precise meaning of words containing vague, such as "about three 10 "in the" about. " Term impact of the speaker to cover up the extent and type of commitment, mainly through the following two forms that do not complete the speaker's promise: First, the speaker's own subjective judgments, such as I think; second is the speaker himself had no direct knowledge, only indirectly to quote other people's judgments, such as according to his estimates and so on. In their view, similar to the semantics of the word itself is fuzzy, but the word does not cover such an effect. Therefore, the "Swallow is a bird" and "I want to swallow is a bird" semantic truth value should be no significant difference between its different just after the sentence is the speaker of the truth not very sure. This shows that the approximation of words and semantic research closely related to changes in their terms modified the semantics of membership; and cover the word belongs to pragmatics research. Prince, who also pointed out that the concept of the lack of precise criteria, so that people had to use vague language communication in the words (Prince et al. 1980).

     From natural language to discuss the language of experimental data of view, the ambiguity of natural language can not be ignored. People try different methods to

    describe and explain the ambiguity in order to make them as human language to contribute to the improvement of communication. In fact, the vague language as precise language, as in human language communication plays a very important role. Reposted elsewhere in the paper for free download http://

     3. The form of language

     People often think that linguistic ambiguity is difficult to formalize. In fact, the fuzzy linguistics can be formalized, but because of its uncertainty, formalization of work need

    to adopt some special methods Bale.

     U.S. linguist Black as early as in 1937 proposed a vague term formal approach that the ambiguity should be used to indicate the ambiguity of this formulation that the language of the substantive issues. This method Zadeh (1972) for basically the same,

    both that the semantics of vague terms with a gradient threshold for the application, different degree of membership to use the Zadeh fuzzy given the form of quantitative description, rather than Black (1963) used for ambiguity. Black reference well in

    advance of Zadeh (1972) fuzzy set theory, fuzzy study for the later laid the foundation.

     Wachtel on the approximation approach is to set a number about a proper central region. Elements in the region are to a certain extent, is a typical element, namely, the

    specified divisor. If the side of the typical elements in the typical elements n and m the other side of the same distance away from the typical elements, and their membership the same. For example, in containing the "about" the approximate calculation formula,

    the approximate length range is one from the C (the set of context) to F (about the number of the set of functions) to determine the function of the (Wachtel 1980). Such as "Xiao Wang about 30 students," the true value relative to the context c may be true, and only if 30 is in the c number of Amy's right about the number of students, which means that the number of Amy's classmates is " 'some' (30, c)" one of the elements (Zhang Qiao 1998). Wachtel at the time of carrying out the context as a way of

    handling one of the factors taken into account, the context of their research results indicate that indeed the understanding of the semantic ambiguity has a greater impact. Dutch scholar Hrmann (1982) once said, as people would think that "several

    mountain" (a few mountains) is 4-5 mountains, but "a little bread crumbs" (a few

    crumbs) but refers to 8 bread crumbs. Wachtel's way of handling mainly the typical theory as the theoretical basis, but he did not provide true value of membership and

    hierarchical approach, therefore, the method in dealing with fuzzy semantics has some limitations.

     Generalized quantifier theory, fuzzy set theory, although not exactly the same, but it is vague quantifiers, one of the theoretical basis of formal treatment. Mostowski in 1957

    put forward the "generalized quantifier" this concept was little impact. United States linguist Montague research has changed the situation, his theory of its 1974 masterpiece "ordinary English to quantify properly handle" (The Proper Treatment of

    Quantification in Ordinary English) as the core, a traditional form of quantifiers (such as all, some, any) formal deal with a significant contribution to make to prove that the natural language, including one of the quantifiers can be handled well formalized.

    Barwise and Cooper (1981) On this basis, the proposed influential theory of generalized quantifiers.

     Generalized quantifier theory, major study of the relationship between nouns and quantifiers, characterized by emphasis on the performance of natural language

    quantifiers in semantic feature, which deals with the scope of the quantifiers are rather broad, not only deal with logical quantifiers, such as all, no, also dealing with vague quantifiers, such as the most , many other. Generalized quantifier theory, analysis using principal that will be viewed as a collection of quantifiers and binary relations between sets. Conservation of generalized quantifier theory, extensional nature of quantitative variation of the general characteristics of the four major semantic. Implies the conservation of natural language quantifiers are conserved for each; quantifiers

    with extensional, defined as the domain extension has no effect on the interpretation of quantifiers (if the proposition "that all students have left," is true, then although the definition of the domain in re-join or come up with nothing to do with this proposition

    elements, such as apples, the true value proposition is still true); quantitative description is that the interpretation of quantifiers only with the number of elements in the collection related to, but has nothing to do with the element itself; variation sex is illustrated in a model, when more elements into their domain, there may be not be

    affected by a collection of the existence quantifier. Generalized quantifier can be a universal feature of these four kinds of semantics to define, it is here where the most extensive conservation of the scope of application and effectiveness of the strongest. In

    addition, the fuzzy quantifier also has the general characteristics of these four semantic (Mostowski 1957; Montague 1974; Barwise and Cooper 1981; Van Benthem 1984; Keenan and Stavi 1986; Westerstahl 1989; Cann 1993).

     Generalized quantifier theory, there are certain limitations. Despite the success of generalized quantifier theory, summed up the general features of the semantics of generalized quantifiers, but it is true or false in a non-truth value premised on the

    principle, that is, a proposition must be true or false, there is no intermediate values. Therefore, the generalized quantifier theory can not quantify the performance of fuzzy propositions or false and give a certain extent, the characteristics (Zhang Qiao 1998). Any proposition with fuzzy quantifiers naturally have a certain degree of ambiguity. Generalized quantifier theory in a specific context presented by the generalized quantifier interpretation of the condition of the restrictions, but in a specific context the true value of fuzzy quantization is still vague, so ambiguous in dealing with true value, the fuzzy set theory is more effective. Such as "Many students are from Shanghai," and in the end how much is "many", "student" and "many" of the intersection between the number of elements of this proposition should be considered true? Generalized quantifier theory does not provide true value to deal with this ambiguity approach.

     4. Cognitive aspects

     Fuzzy set is the two-valued logic generalized. A typical set theory and fuzzy set theory

    in some respects similar to both the fuzzy nature of phenomena of language expression. A typical set theory in order to set the relationship between the typical and atypical forms to illustrate the ambiguity, from a cognitive perspective to study the ambiguity.

    People of a certain element of the degree of similarity to the typical arrangement of the relevant lexical items. For example, when you need to set "About 30 students," the semantic category, general first set any one or some elements which are typical

    components, and then according to the typical set of this collection can include other elements. If you set up a "30" is typical, then "29", "31" and closer to "30" figure can be arranged earlier. Can be seen that an atypical from the typical closer, its higher

    degree of membership (Rosch 1978; Chierchia and McConnel-Ginet 1990). A typical

    play in a fuzzy focus on the role of the standard model, its semantic category has great influence on the formulation. While the typical set theory and fuzzy set theory is not in

    contradiction with each other, but taken in different ways. Fuzzy set theory is mainly used to indicate the ambiguity of formal language, while the typical set theory is used to represent non-numerical forms of ambiguity, the former stressed the continuity of

    membership, while the latter emphasizes a typical representation.

     University of Edinburgh, Williamson (1996) in the "ambiguity" (Vagueness) is also a book from the perspective of cognitive ambiguity research. Williamson argued that

    ambiguity is a cognitive phenomenon, a human right of the objective world still lack a thorough understanding of the phenomenon. In his new book, he discusses an issue left over from history, namely "heap" theory, that does exist in real life a grain of sand, if it

    is removed from the pile of sand, then the sand will no longer be "sand heap "of. The

    problem is human beings do not know what a grain of sand so crucial. This view is far beyond the ambiguous nature of research. William son claims the core of the

    limitations of human knowledge, people often are not easily detectable to their limits of knowledge, meta-language is the ambiguity caused by limited knowledge of mankind. He advocated the theory of Realism, that the limits of human understanding of the

    concept of the real world is limited. He affirmed the classical semantics of fuzzy logic and classical studies are applicable.

     Williamson pointed out that a person can not accurately determine whether the "smart" because we can not unify opinion and can not conclude that he is smart or not

    smart. In addition, used to "fuzzy" definition of the language is also not accurate, of course, belongs to a higher level of ambiguity, Williamson called "meta-language" level

    of ambiguity. This meta-language ambiguity is still no convincing theory that can deal

    with it, and this meta-language are often mistaken for a precise language. Classical logic is often considered vague language does not work, but it is also always want to be used for yuan language. Thus, Williamson that the ambiguity is a question of

    understanding the classical logic or semantics can not handle the ambiguity is a misunderstanding. A proposition's truth value can not be determined because the people do not know his real value is true or false. In his view, understanding natural

    language ambiguity is the best interpretation of a vague, all non-traditional methods,

    including fuzzy logic does not handle ambiguity. Meaning of a word is well known, but its extension Quewu a certain theory. For example, "About 20," its meaning can be as

    "a figure similar to 20 range," but in the end what the composition of this figure the number of intervals, that is, its extension, but it is a difficult question to answer.

     Williamson that classical logic should be retained, the value of two principle can not be

    discarded, this argument is questionable. ZHANG Qiao (1998) in the "fuzzy semantics" and have pointed out, Williamson limited knowledge of the grounds of mankind is certainly the principle of two-valued utility is not feasible. Because people have limited

    knowledge lead to ambiguity, but ambiguity can not be two values of the principles and classical logic to explain and deal with. However, his understanding and knowledge of ambiguity caused by imperfect view is justified, but this is not the only reason. The

    differences between people, language, reasoning and thinking the relationship between the different contexts and so have a certain relationship with the ambiguity.

     5. Pragmatic aspects of

     Australian linguist Burns (1991) focused on from a pragmatic point of view to explore the concept of human language and the ambiguity. She inspected the sorites paradox confusion caused by the reasons for the philosopher, reviewed a number of attempts to solve the problem of the theory of the nature of the debate on the language put forward their own point of view. In her view, the inherent ambiguity of language are based on evidence of its research on the conceptual issues, language, sexual and psychological phenomena fuzzy relations and other issues of exploration there is a certain inspiration.

     Chain of reasoning, one form of paradox is: a bunch of wheat do not constitute, for any number n, if n grains of wheat do not form a heap, then n 1 Li also do not form a heap

    of wheat, therefore, an arbitrary number of grain of wheat is also not form a heap (Wu Tieping 1999). Burns concluded that the chain can not explain the paradox is not a fallacy, they are the classical principles of reasoning and semantic theory does not

    contradict. Chain of reasoning assumes that a series of paradoxes in accordance with their characteristics with the level of a particular arrangement of the predicate elements of this series, a clear, the other end is not clear. In between those two ends of

    the change is gradual rather than revolutionary. Burns believes that chain paradox

    does not hold this assumption because this series will have two kinds of incompatible characteristics: continuity and elements must be displayed between the need to have a

    non-transitional style is hard to determine sex. If there is no such non-transition style is

    hard to determine nature of a series can not end clear, one end is not clear. The general approach to address this fallacy is to declare that it does not set up, but this is bound to

    deny the induction step, so we must also deny the ambiguity of the predicate, that is to deny the application of the predicate the lack of precise boundaries to this view, but it has proved that there ambiguity in the predicate . Williamson believes that people can

    be explained in two ways not to set up the logical fallacy: induction procedures on a series of effective, but this series does not exist, or inductive procedures actually exist, and in relevant aspects of the series shows variability is invalid. Is not much difference

    between these two conclusions, only the first reason appears to be more clear, because it is paradoxical to find a chain of reasoning has gone wrong (Burns 1991).

     Williamson also explained that if that word has a subtle extension of the limits of the

    gradient, then the overall view, a certain element of each series has the characteristics of a predicate, but followed it with another element of this is not kinds of features argument is not established. She believes that Lewis (1981) pragmatic point of view

    persuasive. Lewis made vague language and non-ambiguous language difference is that

    the relationship between language and language users, rather than the relationship between language and the objective world. It can often be accurately carried out

    language, and sometimes to express some difficulty, people do not care. Burns (1991) believe that this pragmatic point of view is more reasonable than purely semantic point of view. Light from the semantic point of view is not fully explain the vague language,

    and pragmatic factors must be considered. In the Burns opinion, ambiguity can not be like fuzzy logic, as advocated by the method used to solve the average, but should be interpreted as the variability of pragmatics.

     Burns no doubt that these views to the ambiguity of language provides a new approach. Thus, any theory can not tell us the exact words vague how the boundaries should be drawn, if it can be done, then the words in natural languages blur the boundaries of the phenomenon will disappear.

     Wallsten and Budescu (1990) is to study how the specific context of meaning will be that the ambiguity of the possibility of properly manifested. Their research aimed at the individual pairs of fuzzy semantic understanding of the methods used and fuzzy set

    theory similar to that used between 0 and 1 real numbers to represent the degree of membership. Will use their language findings suggest that the use of a similar degree of membership to represent the toss up (winning or losing mixed), impossible (unlikely)

    and doubtful (not sure) of such words more effective. Their experiments support derived from membership in the fuzzy theory method of data and conclusions more persuasive. They draw an important conclusion by experiment: the possibility of

    pragmatic interpretation of terms relevant to the context and many other factors will affect the understanding of the meaning of a word. In addition, the possibility of the understanding and application of terms of research should be conducted on the

    individual at this level. The results of their research for the membership function is used to explain the fuzzy semantic laid the practical foundation.

     Moxey et al (1993), mainly from the perspective of pragmatics and psychology to

    explore the problem of fuzzy quantifiers. Their research goal is to how people understand and use of natural language quantifiers. Them to do an experiment to investigate the quantifiers like many of the class. Experiment with three kinds of context, tests of the 10 quantifier. Experimental results show that people's expectations of a quantifier higher the higher the value it receives. Thus, one of the words to explain the meaning of the previously expected to be very important meaning of the phrase.

    Their other experiments at various levels to observe people's understanding of the semantics of vague quantifiers. The first layer is sentence meaning, and the second layer of meaning for the speaker to express the speaker of the value of a quantifier reasoning, the third layer is the listener sense, that is, the speaker of the listener is expected to previous speculation. The results show different quantifiers in the second and third level, the value obtained is different, and the value of the same quantifiers at

    three levels are different. As quite a few, in the second, three on the value of lower than the first layer, but not many of the values in the second level high. Can be seen that the semantics of quantifiers in natural language understanding and awareness of them

    related to the previous expected.

     These are the late 20th century scholars of foreign language ambiguity in the language, especially the semantic ambiguity of an overview of some studies. In these studies, work, and everyone agrees to the view that there is ambiguity in the language, but the research methods and the basis of the theory are different. They were from language, logic, cognition, pragmatics and so on different aspects of the ambiguity of language study, so that fuzzy linguistics with this emerging discipline from the outset, showing a lively debate prosperity. Chinese language scholars fuzzy linguistics research began in the twentieth century, the early eighties, the results of their research just as impressive. By Wu Tieping "fuzzy linguistics" as the representative of the research results of China's research laid the foundation for fuzzy linguistics (Martin Wu, Chen Weizhen 2000). As the fuzzy linguistics a late start, there are still many theoretical and methodological issues to be resolved, but the fuzzy linguistics research has attracted a growing number of linguists, attention and participation, which will help improve the fuzzy linguistics academic research and adopt more effective research methods, the ambiguity of language to conduct a deeper study.


     [1] Barwise, J. and R. Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159-219.

     [2] Black, M. 1963. Reasoning with loose concepts. Dialogue 2: 1-12.

     [3] Burns, LC 1991. Vagueness: An Investigation into Natural Languages and the Sorites Paradox. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

     [4] Cann, R. 1993. Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

     [5] Channell, J. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

     [6] Chierchia, G. and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An

    Introduction to Semantics. Cam bridge, MA: The MIT Press.

     [7] Hrmann, H. 1982. Hidden determinants of understanding. In Le Ny and W. Kintsch, eds., Language and Comprehension. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Pp. 87-106.

     [8] Keenan, EL and J. Stavi. 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email