103,025
edits
Changes
From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to searchCreated page with 'File:lighterstill.jpgright|frame ==Etymology== [http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=English#ca._1100-1500_.09THE_MIDDLE_ENGLISH_PERIOD Midd...'
[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Definition.jpg|right|frame]]
==Etymology==
[http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=English#ca._1100-1500_.09THE_MIDDLE_ENGLISH_PERIOD Middle English] diffinicioun, from Anglo-French, from [[Latin]] definition-, definitio, from definire
*Date: [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Century 14th century]
==Definitions==
*1 : an [[act]] of determining; specifically : the [[formal]] [[proclamation]] of a Roman Catholic [[dogma]]
*2 a : a [[statement]] [[expressing]] the [[essential]] [[nature]] of something
:b : a statement of the [[meaning]] of a [[word]] or word group or a sign or [[symbol]] <dictionary definitions>
:c : a product of defining
*3 : the [[action]] or [[process]] of defining
*4 a : the action or the [[power]] of describing, [[explaining]], or making definite and [[clear]] <the definition of a telescope> <her comic [[genius]] is beyond definition>
:b (1) : [[clarity]] of [[visual]] presentation : distinctness of [[outline]] or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of [[musical]] [[sound]] in reproduction
:c : sharp demarcation of [[outlines]] or [[limits]] <a jacket with distinct waist definition>
==Description==
A '''definition''' is a passage that [[explains]] the [[meaning]] of a term (a [[word]], phrase or other set of [[symbols]]), or a type of [[thing]]. The term to be defined is the definiendum (plural definienda). A term may have many different senses or meanings. For each such specific sense, a definiens (plural definientia) is a cluster of [[words]] that defines it.
A chief [[difficulty]] in managing definition is the need to use other terms that are already [[understood]] or whose definitions are easily obtainable. The use of the term in a simple example may suffice. By [[contrast]], a dictionary definition has additional details, typically including an etymology showing snapshots of the earlier meanings and the [[parent]] [[language]].
Like other [[words]], the term definition has subtly [[different]] [[meanings]] in different [[contexts]]. A definition may be descriptive of the general use meaning, or stipulative of the speaker's [[immediate]] [[intentional]] meaning. For example, in [[formal]] [[languages]] like [[mathematics]], a 'stipulative' definition guides a specific [[discussion]]. A descriptive definition can be shown to be "right" or "wrong" by [[comparison]] to general usage, but a stipulative definition can only be disproved by showing a [[logical]] [[contradiction]].
A precising definition extends the descriptive dictionary definition (lexical definition) of a term for a specific [[purpose]] by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition.
C.L. Stevenson has identified [[persuasive]] definition as a form of stipulative definition which purports to describe the "true" or "commonly accepted" meaning of a term, while in [[reality]] stipulating an altered use, perhaps as an [[argument]] for some specific view.
Stevenson has also noted that some definitions are "[[legal]]" or "[[coercive]]", whose object is to create or alter [[rights]], [[duties]] or [[crimes]].
==Limitations of definition==
Given that a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language natural language] such as [[English]] contains, at any given time, a [[finite]] number of [[words]], any comprehensive list of definitions must either be circular or leave some terms undefined. If every term of every definiens must itself be defined, "where at last should we stop?" A dictionary, for instance, insofar as it is a comprehensive list of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_definition lexical definitions], must resort to [[circularity]].
Many [[philosophers]] have chosen instead to leave some terms undefined. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism scholastic philosophers] claimed that the highest genera (the so-called ten generalissima) cannot be defined, since we cannot assign any higher genus under which they may fall. Thus we cannot define [[being]], [[unity]] and similar [[concepts]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke Locke] supposes in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_Concerning_Human_Understanding An Essay Concerning Human Understanding] that the [[names]] of simple [[concepts]] do not admit of any definition. More recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell Bertrand Russell] sought to [[develop]] a formal language based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_atomism logical atoms]. Other philosophers, notably [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein Wittgenstein], rejected the need for any undefined simples. Wittgenstein pointed out in his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations Philosophical Investigations] that what counts as a "simple" in one circumstance might not do so in another. He rejected the very [[idea]] that every [[explanation]] of the [[meaning]] of a term needed itself to be explained: "As though an explanation hung in the air unless [[supported]] by another one", claiming instead that explanation of a term is only needed when we need to avoid misunderstanding.
Locke and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill Mill] also [[argued]] that we cannot define [[individuals]]. We learn [[names]] by connecting an [[idea]] with a [[sound]], so that speaker and hearer have the same idea when the same [[word]] is used. This is not possible when no one else is acquainted with the particular [[thing]] that has "fallen under our notice". Russell offered his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_descriptions theory of descriptions] in part as a way of defining a proper name, the definition being given by a definite description that "picks out" exactly one [[individual]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke Saul Kripke] pointed to [[difficulties]] with this approach, especially in [[relation]] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic modality], in his book ''Naming and Necessity''.
There is a presumption in the [[classic]] example of a definition that the definiens can be stated. Wittgenstein argued that for some terms this is not the case. The examples he used include [[game]], [[number]] and [[family]]. In such cases, he [[argued]], there is no fixed boundary that can be used to provide a definition. Rather, the items are grouped together because of a [[family]] resemblance. For terms such as these it is not possible and indeed not [[necessary]] to state a definition; rather, one simply comes to [[understand]] the use of the term.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition]
[[Category: Languages and Literature]]
==Etymology==
[http://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=English#ca._1100-1500_.09THE_MIDDLE_ENGLISH_PERIOD Middle English] diffinicioun, from Anglo-French, from [[Latin]] definition-, definitio, from definire
*Date: [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Century 14th century]
==Definitions==
*1 : an [[act]] of determining; specifically : the [[formal]] [[proclamation]] of a Roman Catholic [[dogma]]
*2 a : a [[statement]] [[expressing]] the [[essential]] [[nature]] of something
:b : a statement of the [[meaning]] of a [[word]] or word group or a sign or [[symbol]] <dictionary definitions>
:c : a product of defining
*3 : the [[action]] or [[process]] of defining
*4 a : the action or the [[power]] of describing, [[explaining]], or making definite and [[clear]] <the definition of a telescope> <her comic [[genius]] is beyond definition>
:b (1) : [[clarity]] of [[visual]] presentation : distinctness of [[outline]] or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of [[musical]] [[sound]] in reproduction
:c : sharp demarcation of [[outlines]] or [[limits]] <a jacket with distinct waist definition>
==Description==
A '''definition''' is a passage that [[explains]] the [[meaning]] of a term (a [[word]], phrase or other set of [[symbols]]), or a type of [[thing]]. The term to be defined is the definiendum (plural definienda). A term may have many different senses or meanings. For each such specific sense, a definiens (plural definientia) is a cluster of [[words]] that defines it.
A chief [[difficulty]] in managing definition is the need to use other terms that are already [[understood]] or whose definitions are easily obtainable. The use of the term in a simple example may suffice. By [[contrast]], a dictionary definition has additional details, typically including an etymology showing snapshots of the earlier meanings and the [[parent]] [[language]].
Like other [[words]], the term definition has subtly [[different]] [[meanings]] in different [[contexts]]. A definition may be descriptive of the general use meaning, or stipulative of the speaker's [[immediate]] [[intentional]] meaning. For example, in [[formal]] [[languages]] like [[mathematics]], a 'stipulative' definition guides a specific [[discussion]]. A descriptive definition can be shown to be "right" or "wrong" by [[comparison]] to general usage, but a stipulative definition can only be disproved by showing a [[logical]] [[contradiction]].
A precising definition extends the descriptive dictionary definition (lexical definition) of a term for a specific [[purpose]] by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition.
C.L. Stevenson has identified [[persuasive]] definition as a form of stipulative definition which purports to describe the "true" or "commonly accepted" meaning of a term, while in [[reality]] stipulating an altered use, perhaps as an [[argument]] for some specific view.
Stevenson has also noted that some definitions are "[[legal]]" or "[[coercive]]", whose object is to create or alter [[rights]], [[duties]] or [[crimes]].
==Limitations of definition==
Given that a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language natural language] such as [[English]] contains, at any given time, a [[finite]] number of [[words]], any comprehensive list of definitions must either be circular or leave some terms undefined. If every term of every definiens must itself be defined, "where at last should we stop?" A dictionary, for instance, insofar as it is a comprehensive list of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_definition lexical definitions], must resort to [[circularity]].
Many [[philosophers]] have chosen instead to leave some terms undefined. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism scholastic philosophers] claimed that the highest genera (the so-called ten generalissima) cannot be defined, since we cannot assign any higher genus under which they may fall. Thus we cannot define [[being]], [[unity]] and similar [[concepts]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke Locke] supposes in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_Concerning_Human_Understanding An Essay Concerning Human Understanding] that the [[names]] of simple [[concepts]] do not admit of any definition. More recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell Bertrand Russell] sought to [[develop]] a formal language based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_atomism logical atoms]. Other philosophers, notably [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein Wittgenstein], rejected the need for any undefined simples. Wittgenstein pointed out in his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations Philosophical Investigations] that what counts as a "simple" in one circumstance might not do so in another. He rejected the very [[idea]] that every [[explanation]] of the [[meaning]] of a term needed itself to be explained: "As though an explanation hung in the air unless [[supported]] by another one", claiming instead that explanation of a term is only needed when we need to avoid misunderstanding.
Locke and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill Mill] also [[argued]] that we cannot define [[individuals]]. We learn [[names]] by connecting an [[idea]] with a [[sound]], so that speaker and hearer have the same idea when the same [[word]] is used. This is not possible when no one else is acquainted with the particular [[thing]] that has "fallen under our notice". Russell offered his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_descriptions theory of descriptions] in part as a way of defining a proper name, the definition being given by a definite description that "picks out" exactly one [[individual]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke Saul Kripke] pointed to [[difficulties]] with this approach, especially in [[relation]] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic modality], in his book ''Naming and Necessity''.
There is a presumption in the [[classic]] example of a definition that the definiens can be stated. Wittgenstein argued that for some terms this is not the case. The examples he used include [[game]], [[number]] and [[family]]. In such cases, he [[argued]], there is no fixed boundary that can be used to provide a definition. Rather, the items are grouped together because of a [[family]] resemblance. For terms such as these it is not possible and indeed not [[necessary]] to state a definition; rather, one simply comes to [[understand]] the use of the term.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition]
[[Category: Languages and Literature]]
