Logic translation
The use of informal logic is an alternative to formalization since it analyzes the cogency of ordinary language arguments in their original form.
Further suggested conditions are that a translation does not include additional or unnecessary symbols and that its grammatical structure is similar to the original sentence.
Preparatory steps include understanding the meaning of the original text and paraphrasing it to remove ambiguities and make its logical structure more explicit.
Logic translations are often criticized on the grounds that they are unable to accurately represent all the aspects and nuances of the original text.
Regular translations, on the other hand, take various additional factors into account pertaining to the content, meaning, and style of the original expression.
[15] If a logical system is applied to cases beyond its limited scope, it is unable to assess the validity of natural language arguments.
The advantage of this limitation is that the vagueness and ambiguity of natural language arguments are avoided by making some of the inferential patterns very clear.
This process is less nuanced and discussions concerning the relation between natural language and logic usually focus on the problem of formalization.
Such ambiguities are not found in the precise formulations of artificial logical languages and have to be solved before translation is possible.
[43] This position is rejected by Jaroslav Peregrin and Vladimír Svoboda, who argue that informal reasoning is not always accurate and may be corrected through the application of formal logic.
[44] An alternative to formalization is to use informal logic, which analyzes the cogency of natural language arguments in their original form.
The vagueness and ambiguity of ordinary language, in contrast to the precise nature of logic, is often responsible for these problems.
It can express existence (as in "there is a Santa Claus"), identity (as in "Superman is Clark Kent"), and predication (as in "Venus is a planet").
[55] A closely related problem is found in some valid natural language arguments whose most obvious translations are invalid in formal logic.
[56] Further problematic expressions are definite descriptions, conditional sentence, and attributive adjectives, as well as mass nouns and anaphora.
[65] A closely related issue concerns the question of how to translate a formal language like Controlled English into a logical system.
According to this view, the symbols they use are meaningless by themselves and only have the purpose of expressing the logical form of a sentence without implying any concrete content.
[77] A closely related criterion is the principle of transparency, which states that translations should aim to be similar to the original expression.
[78] The principle of parsimony states that simple translations (i.e. logical formulas that use as few symbols as possible) are to be preferred.
According to this view, it is based on a practical skill learned from experience with many examples and guided by some rough rules of thumb.
Critics of this idea argue that without clear criteria of adequate translations it is very difficult to decide between competing formalizations of the same sentence.
[83] At this stage, a common recommendation is to paraphrase the sentences to make the claims more explicit, remove ambiguities, and highlight their logical structure.
The natural language vocabulary is usually not precisely defined and therefore lacks the exactness demanded by formal logic.
The formulas become a purely formal expression of the logical structure of the original text and any specific content is removed.
[89] Once the translation is complete, the formal tools of the logical system, such as its rules of inference, can be employed to assess whether the argument is valid.
[90] Criticism of logic translations is primarily focused on the limitations and the range of valid applications, as well as the way they are discussed in academic literature.
[91] In some cases, individual logic translations are criticized based on the claim that they are unable to accurately represent all the aspects and nuances of the original text.
[92] On the level of informal inferences, there are various expressions that cannot easily be represented using the precise but limited languages of formal logic.
This implies that insights gained from the formal logical analysis do not carry any weight for the original argument.
In this regard, theorists like Georg Brun, Peregrin, and Svoboda argue that such works do not provide a proper discussion of the role and limitations of logic translations.
