Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

By a fragment of a natural language we mean a subset of thatlanguage equipped with semantics which translate its sentences intosome formal system such as first-order logic. The familiar conceptsof satisfiability and entailment can be defined for anysuch fragment in a natural way. The question therefore arises, for anygiven fragment of a natural language, as to the computational complexityof determining satisfiability and entailment within that fragment. Wepresent a series of fragments of English for which the satisfiabilityproblem is polynomial, NP-complete, EXPTIME-complete,NEXPTIME-complete and undecidable. Thus, this paper represents a casestudy in how to approach the problem of determining the logicalcomplexity of various natural language constructions. In addition, wedraw some general conclusions about the relationship between naturallanguage and formal logic.

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

  • Andréka, H., van Benthem, J., and Németi, I., 1998, “Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 27, 217-274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börger, E., Grädel, E., and Gurevich, Y., 1997, The Classical Decision Problem, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowper, E.A., 1992, A Concise Introduction to Syntactic Theory, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englebretsen, G., 1981, Three Logicians, Assen: Van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, F.B., 1973, “Natural deduction rules for English,” Philosophical Studies 24, 89-104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grädel, E., 1999, “On the restraining power of guards,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 64, 1719-1742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grädel, E. and Otto, M., 1999, “On logics with two variables,” Theoretical Computer Science 224, 73-113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel, D., Kozen, D., and Tiuryn, J., 2000, Dynamic Logic, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. and Kratzer, A., 1998, Semantics in Generative Grammar, Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J., 1974, “Quantifiers vs quantification theory,” Inquiry 5, 153-77.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllester, D.A. and Givan, R., 1992, “Natural language syntax and first-order inference,” Artificial Intelligence 56, 1-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, M., 1975, “On languages with two variables,” Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 21, 135-140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt-Hartmann, I., 2000, “On the semantic complexity of some fragments of English,” Technical Report UMCS-00-5-1, University of Manchester Department of Computer Science, Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt-Hartmann, I., 2003, “A two-variable fragment of English,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12, 13-45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, W.C., 1991, “A logic for natural language,” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 32, 409-425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, F., 1982, The Logic of Natural Language, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, P., 1979, “Logical inference in English: A preliminary analysis,” Studia Logica 38, 375-391.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pratt-Hartmann, I. Fragments of Language. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13, 207–223 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JLLI.0000024735.97006.5a

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JLLI.0000024735.97006.5a

Navigation