Abstract
Testing the validity of knowledge requires formal expression of that knowledge. Formality of an expression is defined as the invariance, under changes of context, of the expression's meaning, i.e. the distinction which the expression represents. This encompasses both mathematical formalism and operational determination. The main advantages of formal expression are storability, universal communicability, and testability. They provide a selective edge in the Darwinian competition between ideas. However, formality can never be complete, as the context cannot be eliminated. Primitive terms, observation set-ups, and background conditions are inescapable parts of formal or operational definitions, that all refer to a context beyond the formal system. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Gödel's Theorem provide special cases of this more universal limitation principle. Context-dependent expressions, on the other hand, have the benefit of being more flexible, intuitive and direct, and putting less strain on memory. It is concluded that formality is not an absolute property, but a context-dependent one: different people will apply different amounts of formality in different situations or for different purposes. Some recent computational and empirical studies of formality and contexts illustrate the emerging scientific investigation of this dependence.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
AAAI-97: Fall Symposium on Context in Knowledge Representation and Natural Language, November 8–10, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California.
Aerts, D. and S. Aerts: 1994, Applications of Quantum Statistics in Psychological Studies of Decision Processes. Foundations of Science 1: 85-97.
Aerts, D.: 1998, The Hidden Measurement Formalism: What Can be Explained and Where Paradoxes Remain? International Journal of Theoretical Physics 37: 291.
Akman, V. and M. Surav: 1996, Steps toward Formalizing Context. AI Magazine 17(3): 55-72.
Bar-Hillel, Y.: 1954, Indexical Expressions. Mind 63: 359-379.
Barnes, B. and J. Law: 1976, Whatever Should Be Done with Indexical Expressions. Theory and Society 3: 223-237.
Blackmore, S.: 1999, The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press.
Bortolini, U., C. Tagliavini and A. Zampolli: 1971, Lessico di frequenza della lingua italiana contemporanea. IBM Italia.
De Jong, E.D.: 1979, Spreektaal. Woordfrequenties in gesproken Nederlands. Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema and Holkema.
Dewaele, J.-M.: 1992, La composition lexicale de styles oraux et écrits. Language and Style (Winter) 25: 1.
Dewaele, J.-M.: 1994, Extraversion et interlangue. In Profils d'apprenants, Actes du IXe Colloque international 'Acquisition d'une langue étrangère: perspectives et recherches', Publications de l'Université de Saint-Etienne, Saint Etienne, 173-187.
Dewaele, J.-M.: 1996, How to Measure Formality of Speech? A Model of Synchronic Variation. In K. Sajavaara and C. Fairweather (eds.), Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä Cross-Language Studies, Vol. 17, 119-133.
Dewaele, J.-M.: 1998. The Effect of Gender on the Choice of Speech Style, ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 119–120: 1-17.
Ezhkova, I.V.: 1989, Knowledge Formation Through Context Formalization. Computers and Artificial Intelligence (Bratislava) 4: 305-322.
Ezhkova, I.V.: 1992, Contextual Technology for Supporting Decision Making. In R. Trappl (ed.), Cybernetics and Systems '92. Singapore: World Science, 503-509.
Ezhkova, I.V.: 1993, A Contextual Approach for AI Systems Development. In E.P. Klement and W. Slany (ed.), Fuzzy Logic in Artificial Intelligence: Proc. of the 8th Austrian Artificial Intelligence Conference FLAI'93. Berlin: Springer, 2.
Furnham, A.: 1990, Language and Personality. In H. Giles and W.P. Robinson (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 73-95.
Gendlin, E.T.: 1962, Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning. A Philosophical and Psychological Approach to the Subjective. The Free Press of Glencoe.
Grice, H.P.: 1975, Logic and Conversation. In I.P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 9. Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Heylighen, F.: 1990, Representation and Change. A Metarepresentational Framework for the Foundations of Physical and Cognitive Science. Gent: Communication and Cognition.
Heylighen, F.: 1991, Design of a Hypermedia Interface Translating between Associative and Formal Representations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35: 491-515.
Heylighen, F.: 1992, From Complementarity to Bootstrapping of Distinctions: A Reply to Löfgren's Comments on my Proposed 'structural Language'. International Journal of General Systems 20(4): 99.
Heylighen, F.: 1994, Fitness as Default: The Evolutionary Basis for Cognitive Complexity Reduction. In R. Trappl (ed.), Cybernetics and Systems '94, Singapore: World Science, 1595-1602.
Heylighen, F.: 1997, Objective, Subjective and Intersubjective Selectors of Knowledge. Evolution and Cognition 3(1): 63-67.
Heylighen, F.: 1998, What Makes a Meme Successful? In Proc. 16th Int. Congress on Cybernetics, Association Internat. de Cybernétique, Namur, 413-418.
Heylighen, F.: 1999a, Bootstrapping Knowledge Representations: From Entailment Meshes via Semantic Nets to Learning webs. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (in press).
Heylighen, F.: 1999b, The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution. In F. Heylighen, J. Bollen and A. Riegler (ed.) The Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer (in press).
Heylighen, F. and J.-M. Dewaele: 1999, Formality of Language: Definition, Measurement and Behavioral Determinants. Internal Report, Center Leo Apostel, Free University of Brussels.
Hudson, R.: 1994, About 37% of Word-Tokens Are Nouns. Language 70: 331-339.
Juilland, A. and V. Traversa: 1973, Frequency Dictionary of Italian Words. The Hague: Mouton.
Klir, G. and T. Folger: 1987, Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Levelt, W.J.M.: 1989, Speaking. From intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Löfgren, Lars: 1988, Towards System: From Computation to the Phenomenon of Language. In M. Carvallo (ed.), Nature, Cognition and System I. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 129-152.
Löfgren, Lars: 1991, Complementarity in Language: Toward a General Understanding. In: M. Carvallo (ed.), Nature, Cognition and System II: Complementarity and Beyond. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 73-104.
Lucas, J.R.: 1961, Minds, Machines and Gödel. Philosophy XXXVI: 112-127.
Moritz, E.: 1990, Memetic Science: I — General Introduction. Journal of Ideas 1: 1-23.
Penrose, R.: 1989, The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press.
Tannen, Deborah: 1992, You Just Don't Understand! Women and Men in Conversation. London: Virago.
Uit Den Boogaert, P.C.: 1975, Woordfrekwenties. In geschreven en gesproken Nederlands. Utrecht: Oosthoek, Scheltema and Holkema.
van Brakel, J.: 1992, The Complete Description of the Frame Problem. Psycoloquy 3(60): frame-problem 2.
Zwick, M.: 1978, Quantum Measurement and Gödel's Proof. Speculations in Science and Technology 1: 135-145.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heylighen, F. Advantages and limitations of formal expression. Foundations of Science 4, 25–56 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009686703349
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009686703349