Skip to main content
Log in

Advantages and limitations of formal expression

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, D.: 1998, The Hidden Measurement Formalism: What Can be Explained and Where Paradoxes Remain? International Journal of Theoretical Physics 37: 291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akman, V. and M. Surav: 1996, Steps toward Formalizing Context. AI Magazine 17(3): 55-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, Y.: 1954, Indexical Expressions. Mind 63: 359-379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, B. and J. Law: 1976, Whatever Should Be Done with Indexical Expressions. Theory and Society 3: 223-237.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewaele, J.-M.: 1992, La composition lexicale de styles oraux et écrits. Language and Style (Winter) 25: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewaele, J.-M.: 1998. The Effect of Gender on the Choice of Speech Style, ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 119–120: 1-17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezhkova, I.V.: 1989, Knowledge Formation Through Context Formalization. Computers and Artificial Intelligence (Bratislava) 4: 305-322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezhkova, I.V.: 1992, Contextual Technology for Supporting Decision Making. In R. Trappl (ed.), Cybernetics and Systems '92. Singapore: World Science, 503-509.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F.: 1990, Representation and Change. A Metarepresentational Framework for the Foundations of Physical and Cognitive Science. Gent: Communication and Cognition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F.: 1991, Design of a Hypermedia Interface Translating between Associative and Formal Representations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35: 491-515.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F.: 1997, Objective, Subjective and Intersubjective Selectors of Knowledge. Evolution and Cognition 3(1): 63-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, F.: 1998, What Makes a Meme Successful? In Proc. 16th Int. Congress on Cybernetics, Association Internat. de Cybernétique, Namur, 413-418.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juilland, A. and V. Traversa: 1973, Frequency Dictionary of Italian Words. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klir, G. and T. Folger: 1987, Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W.J.M.: 1989, Speaking. From intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, J.R.: 1961, Minds, Machines and Gödel. Philosophy XXXVI: 112-127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, E.: 1990, Memetic Science: I — General Introduction. Journal of Ideas 1: 1-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uit Den Boogaert, P.C.: 1975, Woordfrekwenties. In geschreven en gesproken Nederlands. Utrecht: Oosthoek, Scheltema and Holkema.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009686703349

Keywords

Navigation