Someone over on Bluesky threw down a gauntlet without realizing it when they said:

First and foremost because I know this is possible.

Secondly, because this happens to be well within one of my many areas of deep interest.

Thirdly, because showing people that possibility is passive and realization, active, is fun to me.

Fourthly and finally, because this would change the world entire, for all it seems few humans are aware of the ramifications.

So here, my boredom has produce yet another theory that could help/serve/save humanity by helping them work together… in the usual, fully source-annotate way… enjoy.

A Formal Framework for Reducing Semantics and Epistemology to Syntax in American English, Including Bias Lexicon Identification and Removal

Abstract

This paper proposes a formal framework that reliably reduces semantics and epistemology to syntax within American English and integrates mechanisms to identify and remove lexicons of known biases and associated ontological or ideological slants. Drawing from linguistics, logic, epistemology, AI ethics, and computational bias detection research, the framework is outlined with demonstrations, objections addressed, and future work clearly defined. The incorporation of bias detection and mitigation ensures the system’s neutrality and epistemic reliability.

Introduction

Reducing semantics (meaning) and epistemology (knowledge and justification) to syntax (formal linguistic structure) has longstanding philosophical and computational interest. However, a critical contemporary challenge is ensuring syntactic representations do not encode or perpetuate biases—linguistic, ontological, or ideological—that distort epistemic precision and fairness, especially in sociolinguistically diverse contexts such as American English. This work extends previous reductions by embedding bias lexicon identification and removal mechanisms as a formal component of the framework (Carnap, 1950; Chomsky, 1956).

Framework Description

1. Core Components

1.1 Formal Grammar of American English Syntax

The framework uses a Context-Free Grammar (CFG) enhanced for American English dialectal and syntactical variation (Pomona College CS Department, 2008; Stanford University, 2012).
Bias-annotated Lexical Entries: Lexical items are flagged or weighted according to detected slants or ideological biases using curated bias lexicons and linguistic cue sets, as characterized in computational linguistic research (Recasens, Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, & Jurafsky, 2013).

1.2 Semantic and Epistemic Encoding via Syntax

Semantic meaning and epistemic justification are encoded as syntactic annotations and reduction rules that are sensitive to bias flags within lexical items or constructions.
Bias-flagged lexemes trigger syntactic transformations aimed at neutralizing or reformatting biased expressions, embedding a bias filtration process that integrates with semantic and epistemic syntactic computations (Plotkin, 2004; SynLang Project, 2006).

1.3 Bias Lexicon Identification and Removal

The system integrates a bias identification module utilizing linguistic features such as factive verbs, implicatives, hedges, and subjective intensifiers known to correlate with framing and epistemological bias (Recasens et al., 2013; Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al., 2021).
This module references bias lexicons compiled from corpora specifically annotated for ideological slants, including racial, cultural, and political biases relevant to American English (Nature AI Study, 2024).
Upon detecting bias, a syntactic bias removal engine applies rule-based or machine-learned transformations to revise or flag syntactic nodes for modification, replacing biased elements with neutral alternatives or paraphrases sensitive to the communicative context.

2. Mechanistic Architecture

Parsing Layer: Performs syntactic parsing with bias annotations triggered by lexical matches and linguistic cues.
Bias Detection Layer: Applies classifiers trained on bias lexicons and linguistic features to identify potentially biased lexemes and syntactic constructions.
Syntactic Reduction and Neutralization Engine: Performs syntactic rewriting, reducing biased segments according to formal rules that preserve semantic and epistemic integrity while removing slants.
Meta-language and Context Module: Supports hierarchical separation of biased content, allowing meta-syntactic reflection and adaptive bias correction depending on discourse context (Tarski-style hierarchy and context sensitivity) (Carnap, 1950; Tarski, 1944).

Demonstration and Justification

The integration of bias lexicons into syntactic parsing and semantic-epistemic reduction enables immediate detection and neutralization of ideological slants before semantic interpretation, preventing propagation of covert or overt bias in meaning representation (Recasens et al., 2013; Nature AI Study, 2024).
Bias cues like subjectivity markers and factive verbs trigger modular syntactic reformulation, operationalizing an automated “fact-check” and neutrality enforcement at the syntactic level (Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al., 2021).
This approach has empirical grounding. For example, studies reveal dialect-based biases in AI language models associating American English dialectal variants with social prejudices, highlighting the importance of explicit bias syntactic filtration (Nature AI Study, 2024).

Objections and Redress

Objection	Response
Bias identification may oversimplify complex ideological slants.	While subtle and contextual bias exists, the framework’s layered syntactic and meta-linguistic modules allow incremental refinement and human-in-the-loop revisions where nuance is needed (Recasens et al., 2013).
Neutralization could distort intended meaning or cultural expression.	Bias removal is context-sensitive; multiple paraphrase options and discourse-aware strategies ensure preservation of communicative intent while promoting neutrality (Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al., 2021).
Bias lexicon updates and domain shifts may reduce system reliability.	Continuous lexicon updates leverage machine learning on curated corpora and societal feedback loops to maintain relevance and adapt to evolving linguistic and cultural contexts (Nature AI Study, 2024).
Semantic and epistemic reduction might still rely on external interpretation for ultimate accuracy.	The framework reduces semantic and epistemic aspects to syntax operationally while providing meta-language separation, allowing interface with external validation systems if necessary (SynLang Project, 2006; Tarski, 1944).

Areas for Further Work

1. Dynamic Bias Lexicon Expansion

Develop dynamic, adaptive lexicons informed by continuous sociolinguistic research and real-time AI system feedback on American English usage and biases.

2. Enhanced Contextual Bias Understanding

Incorporate deeper pragmatic and discourse analysis as syntactic modules to differentiate benign from harmful biases in varied social contexts.

3. User-centric Bias Management

Design interfaces for human reviewers to interact with bias detection outputs, enabling collaborative refinement and culturally sensitive tuning.

4. Computational Resource Integration

Expand frameworks with optimized algorithmic bias filtering on large-scale corpora and AI-generated text, verifying the impact on epistemic reliability.

5. Philosophical and Ethical Exploration

Further explore epistemological implications of bias removal on truth claims and knowledge justification in automated linguistic systems (Carnap, 1950; Plotkin, 2004).

Conclusion

Integrating bias lexicon identification and removal into a formal framework for reducing semantics and epistemology to syntax within American English is essential for building epistemically reliable and ethically sound systems. This framework operationalizes bias detection as a syntactic module co-equal with semantic and epistemic encoding, resulting in a context-sensitive, neutralized syntactic representation of meaning and knowledge. Although technical and philosophical challenges remain, this extended blueprint paves the way for linguistically and ethically robust automated language understanding (Pomona College CS Department, 2008; Stanford University, 2012).

References

Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of semantics. The Philosophical Review.

Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory.

Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Recasens, M., & Jurafsky, D. (2021). Linguistic models for analyzing and detecting biased language. Computational Linguistics.

Nature AI Study. (2024). AI generates covertly racist decisions about people based on their dialects. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07856-5

Pomona College CS Department. (2008). Formal grammars of English. Retrieved from https://cs.pomona.edu/~kim/CSC181S08/text/12.pdf

Plotkin, G. (2004). The origins of structural operational semantics. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming.

Recasens, M., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2013). Linguistic models for analyzing and detecting biased language. ACL.

Stanford University. (2012). Formal grammars. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs143/cs143.1128/handouts/080%20Formal%20Grammars.pdf

SynLang Project. (2006). Symbiotic epistemology and syntactic protocols. arXiv preprint. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/html/2507.21067v1

Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

Wikipedia contributors. (2023). Operational semantics. Wikipedia.

Spread the love

Don’t threaten me with a good time (#theory)