UC Berkeley
UC Berkeley Previously Published Works
Title
Hedges: A Study In Meaning Criteria And The Logic Of Fuzzy Concepts
Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0x0010nv
Author
Lakoff, George
Publication Date
1973
Peer reviewed
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library
University of California
GEORGE LAKOFF
HEDGES: A STUDY 1N MEANING CRITERIA AND THE
LOGIC OF FUZZY CONCEPTS*
1. DEGREES OF TRUTH
Logicians have, by and large, engaged in the convenient fiction that sen-
tences of natural languages (at least declarative sentences) are either true
or false or, at worst, lack a truth value, or have a third value often inter-
preted as 'nonsense'. And most contemporary linguists who have thought
seriously about semantics, especially formal semantics, have largely
shared this fiction, primarily for lack of a sensible alternative. Yet students
of language, especially psychologists and linguistic philosophers, have
long been attuned to the fact that natural language concepts have vague
boundaries and fuzzy edges and that, consequently, natural language sen-
tences will very often be neither true, nor false, nor nonsensical, but rather
true to a certain extent and false to a certain extent, true in certain re-
spects and false in other respects.
It is common for logicians to give truth conditions for predicates in
terms of classical set theory. 'John is tall' (or 'TALL(j)') is defined to be
true just in case the individual denoted by 'John' (or 'j') is in the set of tall
men. Putting aside the problem that tallness is really a relative concept
(tallness for a pygmy and tallness for a basketball player are obviously
different) 1, suppose we fix a population relative to which we want to define
tallness. In contemporary America, how tall do you have to be to be tall?
5'8"? 5'9"? 5'10"? 5'11"? 6'? 6'2"? Obviously there is no single fixed an-
swer. How old do you have to be to be middle-aged? 35? 37? 39? 40? 42?
45? 50? Again the concept is fuzzy. Clearly any attempt to limit truth
conditions for natural language sentences to true, false and "nonsense'
will distort the natural language concepts by portraying them as having
sharply defined rather than fuzzily defined boundaries.
Work dealing with such questions has been done in psychology. To
take a recent example, Eleanor Rosch Heider (1971) took up the question
of whether people perceive category membership as a clearcut issue or a
matter of degree. For example, do people think of members of a given
Journal of Philosophical Logic
2 (1973) 458-508.
All Rights Reserved
Copyright 9
1973
by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland
HEDGES" A STUDY IN MEANING CRITERIA
459
species as being simply birds or nonbirds, or do people consider them
birds to a certain degree? Heider's results consistently showed the latter.
She asked subjects to rank birds as to the degree of their birdiness, that is,
the degree to which they matched the ideal of a bird. If category mem-
bership were simply a yes-or-no matter, one would have expected the
subjects either to balk at the task or to produce random results. Instead,
a fairly well-defined hierarchy of 'birdiness' emerged.
(1) Birdiness hierarchy
robins
eagles
chickens, ducks, geese
penguins, pelicans
bats
Robins are typical of birds. Eagles, being predators, are less typical.
Chickens, ducks, and geese somewhat less so. Penguins and pelicans less
still. Bats hardly at all. And cows not at all.
A study of vegetableness yielded a similar hierarchical result:
(2) Vegetableness hierarchy
carrots, asparagus
celery
onion
parsley
pickle
Further experiments by Heider showed a distinction between central
members of a category and peripheral members. She surmised that if sub-
jects had to respond 'true' or 'false' to sentences of the form 'A (member)
is a (category)' - for example, 'A chicken is bird' - the response time would
be faster if the member was a central member (a good example of the
category) than if it was a peripheral member (a not very good example of
the category). On the assumption that central members are learned earlier
than peripheral members, she surmised that children would make more
errors on the peripheral members than would adults. (3) lists some of the
examples of central and peripheral category members that emerged from
460
the study:
GEORGE LAKOFF
(3) Category Central Members Peripheral Members
Toy ball, doll swing, skates
bird robin, sparrow chicken, duck
fruit peru, banana strawberry, prune
sickness cancer, measles rheumatism, tickets
metal copper, aluminum magnesium, platinum
crime rape, robbery treason, fraud
sport baseball, basketball fishing, diving
vehicle car, bus tank, carriage
body part arm, leg lips, skin
I think Heider's work shows dearly that category membership is not
simply a yes-or-no matter, but rather a matter of degree. Different people
may have different category rankings depending on their experience or
their knowledge or their beliefs, but the fact of hierarchical ranking seems
to me to be indisputable. Robins simply are more typical of birds than
chickens and chickens are more typical of birds than penguins, though
all are birds to some extent. Suppose now that instead of asking about
category membership we ask instead about the truth of sentences that
assert category membership. If an X is a member of a category Y only to
a certain degree, then the sentence 'An X is a Y' should be true only to
that degree, rather than being clearly true or false. My feeling is that this
is correct, as (4) indicates.
(4) Degree of truth (corresponding to degree of category membership)
a. A robin is a bird.
b. A chicken is a bird.
c. A penguin is a bird.
d. A bat is a bird.
e. A cow is a bird.
(true)
(less true than a)
(less true than b)
(false, or at least very far from true)
(absolutely false)
Most speakers I have checked with bear out this judgement, though some
seem to collapse the cases in (4a-c), and don't distinguish among them.
My guess is that they in general judge the truth of sentences like those in
(4) according to the truth of corresponding sentences like those in (5).
(5) a. A robin is more of a bird than anything else. (True)
b. A chicken is more of a bird than anything else. (True)
HEDGES: A STUDY IN MEANING CRITERIA
461
c. A penguin is more of a bird than anything else. (True)
d. A bat is more of a bird than anything else. (False)
e. A cow is more of a bird than anything else. (False)
That is, some speakers seem to turn relative judgments of category mem-
bership into absolute judgments by assigning the member in question to
the category in which it has the highest degree of membership. As we
shall see below, speakers who judge the sentences in (4) to have a pattern
like those in (5) do make the distinctions shown in (4), but then collapse
them to the pattern in (5).
2. Fuzzy LOGIC
Although the phenomena discussed above are beyond the bounds of clas-
sical set theory and the logics based on it, there is a well-developed set
theory capable of dealing with degrees of set membership, namely, fuzzy
set theory as developed by Zadeh (1965). The central idea is basically
simple: Instead of just being in the set or not, an individual is in the set
to a certain degree, say some real number between zero and one.
(1) Zadeh's Fuzzy Sets
In a universe of discourse X = {x}, a fuzzy set A is a set of
ordered pairs {(x, #a(x))}, where pa(x) is understood as the degree of
membership of x in A. PA(X) is usually taken to have values in the real
interval [0, 1 ], though the values can also be taken to be members of any
distributive complemented lattice.
Union: /~auB = max(~ua, PB).
Complement:
~tA, = 1 -- IrA
Intersection: /~A,B = rnin (/z a,/~B)
Subset: A ~ B iff /~n(x) ~<
Ira(X),
for all x in X.
A fuzzy relation R" is a fuzzy subset of XL
In most of the cases of fuzzy sets that we will be interested in, the
membership function is not primitive. That is, in most cases membership
functions will assign values between zero and one to individuals on the
basis of some property or properties of those individuals. Take tallness
for example. How
tall
one is considered to be depends upon what one's
height
is (plus various contextual factors) - and height is given in terms of