A formal language L over an alphabet Σ is a subset of Σ*, that is, a set of words over that alphabet.
In computer science and mathematics, which do not usually deal with natural languages, the adjective "formal" is often omitted as redundant.
While formal language theory usually concerns itself with formal languages that are described by some syntactical rules, the actual definition of the concept "formal language" is only as above: a (possibly infinite) set of finite-length strings, no more nor less. In practice, there are many languages that can be described by rules, such as regular languages or context-free languages. The notion of a formal grammar may be closer to the intuitive concept of a "language," one described by syntactic rules. By an abuse of the definition, a particular formal language is often thought of as being equipped with a formal grammar that describes it.
Read more about Formal Language: Examples, Language-specification Formalisms, Operations On Languages
Famous quotes containing the words formal and/or language:
“Two clergymen disputing whether ordination would be valid without the imposition of both hands, the more formal one said, “Do you think the Holy Dove could fly down with only one wing?””
—Horace Walpole (1717–1797)
“There is no such thing as a language, not if a language is anything like what many philosophers and linguists have supposed. There is therefore no such thing to be learned, mastered, or born with. We must give up the idea of a clearly defined shared structure which language-users acquire and then apply to cases.”
—Donald Davidson (b. 1917)