Although
the borderline between various linguistic units is not always sharp
and clear, we shall try to define every new term on its first
appearance at once simply and unambiguously, if not always very
rigorously. The approximate definition of the term word
has already been given in the opening page of the book.
The
important point to remember about
definitions
is that they should indicate the most essential characteristic
features of the notion expressed by the term under discussion, the
features by which this notion is distinguished from other similar
notions. For instance, in defining the word one must distinguish it
from other linguistic units, such as the phoneme, the morpheme, or
the word-group. In contrast with a definition, a description
aims at enumerating all the essential features of a notion.
To
make things easier we shall begin by a preliminary description,
illustrating it with some examples.
The
word
may be described as the basic unit of language. Uniting meaning and
form, it is composed of one or more morphemes, each consisting of one
or more spoken sounds or their written representation. Morphemes as
we have already said are also meaningful units but they cannot be
used independently, they are always parts of words whereas words can
be used as a complete utterance (e. g. Listen!).
The
combinations of morphemes within words are subject to certain linking
conditions. When a derivational affix is added a new word is formed,
thus, listen
and
listener
are
different words. In fulfilling different grammatical functions words
may take functional affixes: listen
and
listened
are
different forms of the same word. Different forms of the same word
can be also built analytically with the help of auxiliaries. E.g.:
The
world should listen then as I am listening now (Shelley).
When
used in sentences together with other words they are syntactically
organised. Their freedom of entering into syntactic constructions is
limited by many factors, rules and constraints (e. g.: They
told me this story but
not *They
spoke me this story).
The
definition of every basic notion is a very hard task: the definition
of a word is one of the most difficult in linguistics because the
27
simplest
word has many different aspects. It has a sound form because it is a
certain arrangement of phonemes; it has its morphological structure,
being also a certain arrangement of morphemes; when used in actual
speech, it may occur in different word forms, different syntactic
functions and signal various meanings. Being the central element of
any language system, the word is a sort of focus for the problems of
phonology, lexicology, syntax, morphology and also for some other
sciences that have to deal with language and speech, such as
philosophy and psychology, and probably quite a few other branches of
knowledge. All attempts to characterise the word are necessarily
specific for each domain of science and are therefore considered
one-sided by the representatives of all the other domains and
criticised for incompleteness. The variants of definitions were so
numerous that some authors (A. Rossetti, D.N. Shmelev) collecting
them produced works of impressive scope and bulk.
A
few examples will suffice to show that any definition is conditioned
by the aims and interests of its author.
Thomas
Hobbes (1588-1679),
one
of the great English philosophers, revealed a materialistic approach
to the problem of nomination when he wrote that words are not mere
sounds but names of matter. Three centuries later the great Russian
physiologist I.P. Pavlov (1849-1936)
examined
the word in connection with his studies of the second signal system,
and defined it as a universal signal that can substitute any other
signal from the environment in evoking a response in a human
organism. One of the latest developments of science and engineering
is machine translation. It also deals with words and requires a
rigorous definition for them. It runs as follows: a word is a
sequence of graphemes which can occur between spaces, or the
representation of such a sequence on morphemic level.
Within
the scope of linguistics the word has been defined syntactically,
semantically, phonologically and by combining various approaches.
It
has been syntactically defined for instance as “the minimum
sentence” by H. Sweet and much later by L. Bloomfield as “a
minimum free form”. This last definition, although structural in
orientation, may be said to be, to a certain degree, equivalent to
Sweet’s, as practically it amounts to the same thing: free forms
are later defined as “forms which occur as sentences”.
E.
Sapir takes into consideration the syntactic and semantic aspects
when he calls the word “one of the smallest completely satisfying
bits of isolated ‘meaning’, into which the sentence resolves
itself”. Sapir also points out one more, very important
characteristic of the word, its indivisibility:
“It cannot be cut into without a disturbance of meaning, one or two
other or both of the several parts remaining as a helpless waif on
our hands”. The essence of indivisibility will be clear from a
comparison of the article a
and
the prefix a-
in
a
lion and
alive.
A lion is
a word-group because we can separate its elements and insert other
words between them: a
living lion, a dead lion. Alive is
a word: it is indivisible, i.e. structurally impermeable: nothing can
be inserted between its elements. The morpheme a-
is
not free, is not a word. The
28
situation
becomes more complicated if we cannot be guided by solid spelling.’
“The Oxford English Dictionary», for instance, does not
include the
reciprocal pronouns each
other and
one
another under
separate headings, although
they should certainly be analysed as word-units, not as word-groups
since they have become indivisible: we now say with
each other and
with
one another instead
of the older forms one
with another or
each
with the other.1
Altogether
is
one word according to its spelling, but how is one to treat all
right, which
is rather a similar combination?
When
discussing the internal cohesion of the word the English linguist
John Lyons points out that it should be discussed in terms of two
criteria “positional
mobility”
and
“uninterruptability”.
To illustrate the first he segments into morphemes the following
sentence:
the
—
boy
—
s
—
walk
—
ed
—
slow
—
ly
—
up
—
the
—
hill
The
sentence may be regarded as a sequence of ten morphemes, which occur
in a particular order relative to one another. There are several
possible changes in this order which yield an acceptable English
sentence:
slow
—
ly
—
the
—
boy
—
s
—
walk
—
ed
—
up
—
the
—
hill
up —
the
—
hill
—
slow
—
ly
—
walk
—
ed
—
the
—
boy
—
s
Yet
under all the permutations certain groups of morphemes behave as
‘blocks’ —
they
occur always together, and in the same order relative to one another.
There is no possibility of the sequence s
—
the
—
boy,
ly —
slow,
ed —
walk.
“One
of the characteristics of the word is that it tends to be internally
stable (in terms of the order of the component morphemes), but
positionally mobile (permutable with other words in the same
sentence)”.2
A
purely semantic treatment will be found in Stephen Ullmann’s
explanation: with him connected discourse, if analysed from the
semantic point of view, “will fall into a certain number of
meaningful segments which are ultimately composed of meaningful
units. These meaningful units are called words.»3
The
semantic-phonological approach may be illustrated by A.H.Gardiner’s
definition: “A word is an articulate sound-symbol in its aspect of
denoting something which is spoken about.»4
The
eminent French linguist A. Meillet (1866-1936)
combines
the semantic, phonological and grammatical criteria and advances a
formula which underlies many subsequent definitions, both abroad and
in our country, including the one given in the beginning of this
book: “A word is defined by the association of a particular meaning
with a
1
Sapir
E. Language.
An Introduction to the Study of Speech. London, 1921,
P.
35.
2 Lyons,
John. Introduction
to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1969.
P. 203.
3 Ullmann
St. The
Principles of Semantics. Glasgow, 1957.
P.
30.
4 Gardiner
A.H. The
Definition of the Word and the Sentence //
The
British Journal of Psychology. 1922.
XII.
P. 355
(quoted
from: Ullmann
St.,
Op.
cit., P. 51).
29
particular
group of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment.»1
This
definition does not permit us to distinguish words from phrases
because not only child,
but
a
pretty child as
well are combinations of a particular group of sounds with a
particular meaning capable of a particular grammatical employment.
We
can, nevertheless, accept this formula with some modifications,
adding that a word is the smallest significant unit of a given
language capable of functioning alone and characterised by positional
mobility
within
a sentence, morphological
uninterruptability
and semantic
integrity.2
All these criteria are necessary because they permit us to create a
basis for the oppositions between the word and the phrase, the word
and the phoneme, and the word and the morpheme: their common feature
is that they are all units of the language, their difference lies in
the fact that the phoneme is not significant, and a morpheme cannot
be used as a complete utterance.
Another
reason for this supplement is the widespread scepticism concerning
the subject. It has even become a debatable point whether a word is a
linguistic unit and not an arbitrary segment of speech. This opinion
is put forth by S. Potter, who writes that “unlike a phoneme or a
syllable, a word is not a linguistic unit at all.»3
He calls it a conventional and arbitrary segment of utterance, and
finally adopts the already mentioned
definition of L. Bloomfield. This position is, however, as
we have already mentioned, untenable, and in fact S. Potter himself
makes ample use of the word as a unit in his linguistic analysis.
The
weak point of all the above definitions is that they do not establish
the relationship between language and thought, which is formulated if
we treat the word as a dialectical unity of form and content, in
which the form is the spoken or written expression which calls up a
specific meaning, whereas the content is the meaning rendering the
emotion or the concept in the mind of the speaker which he intends to
convey to his listener.
Summing
up our review of different definitions, we come to the conclusion
that they are bound to be strongly dependent upon the line of
approach, the aim the scholar has in view. For a comprehensive word
theory, therefore, a description seems more appropriate than a
definition.
The
problem of creating a word theory based upon the materialistic
understanding of the relationship between word and thought on the one
hand, and language and society, on the other, has been one of the
most discussed for many years. The efforts of many eminent scholars
such as V.V. Vinogradov, A. I. Smirnitsky, O.S. Akhmanova, M.D.
Stepanova, A.A. Ufimtseva —
to
name but a few, resulted in throwing light
1
Meillet
A. Linguistique
historique et linguistique generate. Paris,
1926.
Vol.
I. P. 30.
2 It
might be objected that such words as articles, conjunctions and a few
other words
never occur as sentences, but they are not numerous and could be
collected into a
list of exceptions.
3 See:
Potter
S. Modern
Linguistics. London, 1957.
P.
78.
30
on this problem and achieved a
clear presentation of the word as a basic unit of the language. The
main points may now be summarised.
The
word
is the
fundamental
unit
of language.
It is a dialectical
unity
of form
and
content.
Its content or meaning is not identical to notion, but it may reflect
human notions, and in this sense may be considered as the form of
their existence. Concepts fixed in the meaning of words are formed as
generalised and approximately correct reflections of reality,
therefore in signifying them words reflect reality in their content.
The
acoustic aspect of the word serves to name objects of reality, not to
reflect them. In this sense the word may be regarded as a sign. This
sign, however, is not arbitrary but motivated by the whole process of
its development. That is to say, when a word first comes into
existence it is built out of the elements already available in the
language and according to the existing patterns.
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
- #
Home » Education » The Definitions Book: How to Write Definitions
The Definitions Book is Divided into Four Parts:
- The Basics of Definitions
- How to Write Simple Definitions
- How to Write Advanced Definitions
- How to Write Definitions for Specific Circumstances
Contents
The Basics of Definitions
Using Words You and Your Audience Know
What Happens When We Communicate
The Importance of Defining Terms (part one)
The Importance of Defining Terms (part two)
What is a Definition?
The Various Types of Definitions
Types of Definitions Cheat Sheet
How to Test Existing Definitions
How to Write Simple Definitions
Step 0 — Limit your definitions to a single concept
Step 1 — Research the Term
Step 2 — Determine the Term’s Concept
Step 3 — Choosing the Definition Type
How to Write Advanced Definitions
Step 4 — How to Formalize the Term Entry
Step 5 — Add Semantic Relationships to the Definition
Step 6 – Reviewing Your Definitions
How to Write Definitions for Specific Circumstances
What are Conversational Entries?
What are Snippet Entries?
Glossary Entries
How to Automate Glossary Creation
What are Dictionary Entries?
Bibliography
The Basics of Definitions
Before we get into how to write a definition, you need to know a bit about definitions themselves, and how to spot good and bad definitions.
Once you know that, we’ll walk you through the five steps to creating a good definition.
Then we’ll teach you how to apply and extend those steps to craft different types of definitions.
So let’s start at the very beginning, shall we?
Using Words You and Your Audience Know
Ya know, this seems pretty obvious – almost so obvious it shouldn’t be the first thing you read in a book about how to write definitions. But it has to be said. It has to be said because all too often we read something in our business lives (not so much for entertainment, thank the universe) that just doesn’t make sense. In some instances, the author wants to «sound smart» by using «big words». As an example, here’s a student’s paper that I read the other day:
«The dialectical interface between neo-obstructionists and anti-disestablishment GOPers is stuck in a morass of quibbling over pettifog.»
The paper was about discussions between students and lawmakers over stricter gun laws for assault weapons. The sentence, in plain English, reads as this:
«The logical discussions between student protesters and Republican lawmakers resisting change are bogged down because of arguing over petty things.»
In some instances, the author just uses the wrong words. One famous example, used in many word choice articles, is as follows:
«Cree Indians were a monotonous culture until French and British settlers arrived.»
What the author meant was that Cree Indians were a homogenous culture.
So, before we get started on a conversation about definitions, when picking your words, if you run across words you don’t use often, ask yourself these basic questions:
1. Can I spell the word correctly? Here’s a hint: Open your favorite word processor and make sure active spell-checking is turned on. Then type the word. If it comes up with an underline, your dictionary doesn’t recognize it. Most word processors will allow you to Control-Click or Right-Click the term and look up a spelling suggestion.
2. What does this word mean? Second hint: Research the term online and find a consistent meaning. If you can’t readily find a definition for the term don’t use it. Try looking up the definition of «dialectical interface» above. If you find a definition, email the team at info@unifiedcompliance.com. We’d love to see it and know where you found it.
3. Will the people I’m communicating with know what this word means? Will they have the same understanding of the meaning that I do? Third hint: Ask a few people who might read your writing if they know what your term means. You’ll be surprised at the varied answers. We did this once with government writers working on a cybersecurity manual. We asked for the definition of Cybersecurity. Twelve people, thirteen answers — all different. One guy wrote two answers because he wasn’t confident of either one of them.
If you don’t know what you are talking about, no one else will either.
What Happens When We Communicate
To understand what’s happening when we communicate, we need to understand what a concept is, what a term is, and what an instance means. Let’s start this discussion with a quick illustrative point.
You and I are sitting at a table. In front of us is the plate in the diagram that follows. One of us is from Chicago, the other from London. I say to you, «may I have a biscuit?» Your answer is «of course». I then pick up which item(s)?
A biscuit and cookies, or a scone and biscuits?
If I were from Chicago, that plate would contain one biscuit and two cookies. If I were from London, that plate would contain one scone and two biscuits. What’s going on here is:
- we see two sets of instances of some type of food in front of us;
- those two instances are formed as concepts in our mind;
- and when we communicate about those concepts, we communicate them as terms.
Seeing an instance, thinking the concept, speaking the term
The concept of the big, soft, flaky, doughy thing has generally been given the term scone in England and biscuit in the US. The concept of the drier, smaller, crunchier things has generally been given the term biscuit in England and cookie in the US. When I asked for the biscuit, I’ve identified the term and the conceptto me. It’s when I reach for the biscuit that I tie the instance and the name together for both of us.
And that’s where the fun starts. You look at me and say, «hey, I thought you wanted the biscuit/scone» (depending on where you are from). I would explain, «yes, and I took one». We would both be baffled at the lack of the other’s comprehension of what we know to be true.
If we were friends, we’d probably continue with «I thought that was called…» and then add the term that goes with the concept in our mind. A quick sharing between us would bring out both concepts, both definitions of what we think we are looking at. And we’d do the same, probably, for the cookie/biscuit concepts of the instances we see.
This is why it is important to know how to write good definitions, but more on this later. We took an instance from reality and stated the term we have given to the definition of its concept. We have, for one bright shining moment, communicated with each other. Being from Chicago, while living in London for a period of time, I ended up simply using the definitions of things I’d point to; «can I have one of those fluffy pastry things there…» I’d ask at the bakery.
This is why defining your term is important.
The Importance of Defining Terms (part one)
There is a quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw that follows along the lines of, «Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language». Whether or not the attribution is or isn’t Shaw’s, the point is that even though we use the same words, those words can (and often do) have quite distinctly different meanings because of our cultural differences1. There’s even a British English vs. American English translation dictionary2!
UK to US Dictionary
To put it short and sweet — words, the terms we use, do not have one correct meaning. Words can mean different things at different times. They come into existence to express thoughts by a group of people that share them, at a point in time, with a meaning that reflects their origin, use, and timeframe.
Take, for instance, the word awful. Originally, that word meant «worthy of awe», as in «very inspiring». However, over time it has come to mean bad, displeasing, offensive, etc. A quick Google search will produce list upon list of terms that have changed over time3. More specifically, the words and phrases that you find in a dictionary exist to express these shared thoughts, which we’ll refer to as concepts throughout this document.
We won’t go into the philosophical debate of whether concepts define words or words define concepts, a debate that is currently plaguing educators today4, as it has been since the times of Plato and Socrates5. Nor will we spend time debating about specific definitions of terms, how the definitions morph over time, or the nature of, and demands on, definitions6.
Instead, this document will focus on how to fulfill the need to establish and maintain definitions for specific terms within specific subject fields7. There is an entire international standard dedicated this pursuit8, from which we have drawn much of our inspiration. The issue we are attempting to remedy in this document, is the tendency of each subject field to create its own sub-language of specific terms and their definitions. These terms might be shared with other subject fields, but quite often the definitions for these shared terms are different. And just as often, those in specific subject fields create new, distinct terms used to describe the same concept as other terms found in other subject fields. So, we end up with this:
Same words — different definitions.
Same definitions — different words.
If you want a real-word example, perform this Google search:
What is personally identifiable information?
The last time we performed this search, Google returned over 1.7 million entries with well over 100 definitions (we stopped counting about then)9. With this huuuuuuge list of potential definitions for a key term such as Personally Identifiable Information, you have to agree with us that the only way you can share your meaning is through how you use the term. Better yet, you can provide a definition for the key terms you are using. In short, if you define your key terms, you’ll clarify the concepts behind the terms you are using in that argument, in that document you wrote, or if they are added to some custom dictionary, in that specific field the dictionary covers.
The Importance of Defining Terms (part two)
Yes, certain words have multiple meanings. We’ve covered the reason to define which meaning you are using if you think those you are communicating with will be befuddled. That’s one reason to define what you are saying. The other is when you are creating new words. And let’s face it — we do that more of-ten than you’d think.
When we wrote about using words your audience doesn’t know it was because we were pointing out you didn’t know either. If you find yourself in a place where you are using words that others don’t know — look up those words to see if someone has given them a definition. Look it up online and find a consistent meaning. If you can’t readily find a definition for the term, then define it! Where do you think dictionary definitions come from? You. Me. Them. Everybody! (Everybody, needs somebody! Everybody — needs somebody to define! he laughingly sings…)
Dictionaries are historical references There. I said it. But more importantly, so did John Simpson, former Chief Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. Here’s a passage (edited for clarity) from a book he recently wrote10:
«It is easy to be too precipitate in selecting a word for inclusion in the dictionary… In general, we learned to shy away from trying to define any new word – wherever possible — until it had a chance to settle down in the language…it is helpful for us to see whether others publish preliminary accounts of the word from their own impressions or research. That’s not cheating; it’s just good research sense.»
The simple point is this — if you want to use a term you can’t find a definition for, you need to write that definition. And the great part is, if it is your word, your definition can’t be wrong! These types of definitions are called Stipulative definitions, and we’ll cover them in a bit.
What is a Definition?
In its simplest form, a definition is “a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol1”. In other words, a definition explains through clarification and further explanation what we are trying to say with one or a few short words. Aristotle would say that the definition provides the essence (ὁρισμός horismos) of the term2.
Good ol’ Aristotle spouting off philosophy
Well, that’s nice, but it isn’t that helpful unless you are a philosophy major who can spout out what essence means as part of dinner conversation. And even if you wanted to we’d rather you just stare blankly at your iPhone.
So, to start this off, let’s look at an example of a bad definition, one that just doesn’t fit the essence of the term it is supposed to describe. In our research we come across a great deal of bad definitions, many of which are found in published glossaries.
For example, a technical glossary from the United States’ National Institute of Standards and Technology, their Glossary of key Information Security Terms, defines the term Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) as — a capability set up for the purpose of assisting in responding to computer security-related incidents. This term, absent of the definition, and because it describes a team, brings to mind a group of people who respond to computer security incidents. However, the presented definition egregiously leaves out the entire essence of team and replaces it with capability. Although the team in this definition should be comprised of individuals who possess the capability to respond to security incidents, the definition fails by mistaking a group for a capability.
How to format a well-written definition
All of the reading we’ve done, all of the research we’ve done, except for Purdue’s Online Writing Lab example13 (which states you need to always start with the term, which we will ignore), breaks a definition down (roughly) into two parts, as shown below:
category of concept + differentiating characteristics
Or if you like to use scientific words:
genus + differentia
Category (genus)
This defines the category or class your concept fits into. In essence, you are relating the term to its broader category so that your audience says, “yeah, I know what those are”.
Differentiating Characteristics (differentia) These are the specific characteristics that set your term apart from other terms within that category. Once you’ve related your term to the broader category, now you are saying “well, it’s like those things, but with these differences.”
Most often, the category of the concept is presented first, followed by the differentiating characteristics. Other types of definitions will lead with what differentiates the concept and then show how it fits into the broader category. The best way to bring this point home is to give you some examples of the different types of definitions that are out there, using terms that we should all be familiar with. By doing this, we’ll be able to give you the definition and then point out how it was formulated.
Let’s say that we were going to describe a Zebra using this method. We would say that a Zebra was a mammal in the family of Equidae (Equus) with black and white stripes and an erect mane.
Zebra defined using genus and differentia
If this were a conversation, you might be stating it like this; “Hey, you know what a horse is, right? Well this is in the family of horses, but they Zebras have black and white striped coats and short manes that stand straight up.” You are equating it to something they know and then adding the differences for this particular concept or thing. This is the basic form of a definition.
Of course, folks can’t leave well enough alone, so they’ve created several kinds of definitions that you can either delve into or skip over.
- 11 “Definition of DEFINITION.”
- 12 There are two really nice papers on this, the first, Gibson’s PhD thesis, the other Blundon’s paper on subject and meaning. Gibson, “The Bottom of Things”; “The Subject. Aristotle: The First Subject, by Andy Blunden October 2005.”
- 13 “Purdue OWL: Definitions.”
- 14 LLC, “‘Extensional and Intensional Definitions’ on Revolvy.Com.”
The Various Types of Definitions
The wild thing about definitions is that there are many different types of definitions, each used to explain a particular type of concept. However, the two most general types of definitions are intensional and extensional definitions.
What are the two general kinds of definitions?
There are specific types of definition forms we’ll cover in a minute. But first, we need to start with the most used forms of definitions, intensional and extensional. Let’s look at defining what we see in the illustration that follows:
Baked Goods
Intensional definitions
An intensional definition specifies the necessary and sufficient set of features or properties that are shared by everything to which it applies.
| Term | Definition |
| Baked Goods | Foods that are cooked in an oven of some fashion that uses prolonged dry heat, and are usually based on wheat flour or cornmeal. |
In this first definition, we see that the category portion of the definition is “foods that are cooked in an oven”, followed by the differentiator of being “based on wheat flour or cornmeal”. It is both necessary and sufficient for anything being baked to be cooked in an oven of some fashion.
Intensional definitions are best used when something has a clearly defined set of properties and hastoo many referents to list in an extensional definition. For instance, you would want to use an intensional definition to define business records, as a business record is a document (hard copy or digital) that records a business dealing. To attempt to enumerate each and every type of business record would be nearly impossible.
Extensional definitions
The opposite of an intensional definition, an extensional definition is usually a list naming every object (or at least enough of a list to create clarity in the reader’s mind) that belongs to the concept.
| Term | Definition |
| Baked Goods | Breads, cakes, pastries, cookies, biscuits, scones, and similar items of food that are cooked in an oven of some fashion. |
This example presents the individual differentiators first (“breads, cakes, pastries, cookies, biscuits, scones”) that belong to a common category, “cooked in an oven”.
Beyond the two basic types of definitions, there are several other notable definition types that can be employed. We’ll cover them now.
What are stipulative definitions?
This is used when you make up a term for the first time. This means that you’ve completed all of the research necessary and can’t find that term anywhere. It is your assignment of meaning to your term. The illustration below shows two scones, a plain scone on the left and a Charlotte’s Sprinkle Scone on the right.
A plain scone and Charlotte’s Sprinkle Scone
| Term | Definition |
| Charlotte’s Sprinkle Scone | A baked vanilla flavored scone, dusted with sugar, covered in chocolate sprinkles both baked in and rolled onto the top of the scone. |
The stipulative definition here begins with the general definition of scone – the category – and then adds the differentiator, or specific characteristics of this particular type of scone.
What are lexical definitions?
This is how the term is used in a particular community (think Urban Dictionary), or many of the definitions in Compliance Dictionary that are derived from usage in a single document. In this case – let’s say that the document was Charlotte’s Cookbook – the stipulative definition and the lexical definition could be one and the same, as probably no one else would name their scone Charlotte’s Sprinkle Scone.
Charlotte’s Sprinkle Scone defined as ingredients
| Term | Definition |
| Charlotte’s Sprinkle Scone | These wonderful scones are made with
|
Most definitions in cookbooks, like this one, will start with the category of the item, “scones”, and then the rest of the definition, the differentiator, will be a listing of ingredients. One of our collective favorite recipe sites, Epicurious, follows this format quite often. They’ll describe, in general (the category) what is being cooked, and then provide the differentiator – not only in ingredients, but several versions of the ingredient lists for variations of the food in question.
However, there are other times when industry-specific terms are used in various documents, where you’ll get each of those documents giving their own, particular, definition of the term. Take, for instance, the term retail payment system. Within the United States’ banking world, the FFIEC defines a retail payment system one way. Within the European banking system, the European Central Bank defines it differently, with the European definition being more precise.
| Term | Definition |
| retail payment system | A system that transfers funds between non-financial institutions. (US’ FFIEC) |
| retail payment system | Funds transfer systems which typically handle a large volume of payments of relatively low value in forms such as cheques, credit transfers, and direct debits. They are generally used for the bulk of payments to and from individuals and between individuals and corporates. (European Central Bank) |
Notice that both of these definitions provide the category first, “systems that transfers funds” and “funds transfer system”, and then follow that with the differentiator: “between non-financial institutions” and “handle a large volume of payments of relatively low value in forms such as cheques, credit transfers, and direct debits”.
While these lexical definitions are fairly close, there are other lexical definitions that are very different. For instance, a common term used in many laws is covered entity. Generally speaking, that’s any person or organization covered by the particular law. Two examples show how the US healthcare law called HIPAA, defines the term and how the US New York State defines the term:
| Term | Definition |
| covered entity | Healthcare providers who transmit health information. (HIPAA) |
| covered entity | Any Person or organization operating under or required to operate under a license, registration, charter, certificate, permit, accreditation, or similar authorization under the Banking Law, the Insurance Law, or the Financial Services Law. (New York State) |
Each document has a specific audience they are writing to. Each document has defined the term for the readers of that document. What both of them share in common is the format of the definition. Both start with the category of “healthcare providers” and “any person or organization” and then provide the differentiator after that: “who transmit health information” and “operating under or required to operate under a license, registration, charter, certificate, permit, accreditation, or similar authorization under the Banking Law, the Insurance Law, or the Financial Services Law”.
Here are a couple of different takes on writing a definition that you’ll see sometimes, the partitive definition and the encyclopedic definition. To show the differences, we’ll define yeast, first as a part of something, and then provide a more, exhaustive, definition.
Yeast
What are partitive definitions?
These are definitions that explain the concept as being a part of a greater whole; the distinct part(s) of a more comprehensive concept.
| Term | Definition |
| yeast | As a key ingredient for most baked goods that is commonly used as a leavening agent in baking bread and bakery products. |
Notice here that this definition begins by saying that the yeast is “a key ingredient”, or part of the category “baked goods”, then adds the differentiator for the part it plays: “leavening agent”.
What are functional definitions?
These are definitions that explain the actions or activities of the concept in relation to the more comprehensive concept.
| Term | Definition |
| yeast | An ingredient that is commonly used as a leavening agent in baking bread and bakery products. |
This definition focuses on what yeast does within the baking process.
What are encyclopedic definitions?
These are definitions that go beyond the requirements of definition. Not only do these types of definitions provide the context and characteristics of the concept, they provide additional information about the concept as well.
| Term | Definition |
| yeast | As a key ingredient for most baked goods that is commonly used as a leavening agent in baking bread and bakery products, where it converts the fermentable sugars present in the dough’s gluten into carbon dioxide and ethanol, thus trapping the releasing bubbles of gas into the gluten and making the dough fill up like a balloon as it rises. |
As with the partitive definition, this definition begins by saying that the yeast is “a key ingredient”, or part of the category “baked goods”, then adds the differentiator for the part it plays “leavening agent”. It then goes on to add how yeast works to make the dough rise as part of the definition. You don’t really need to know how yeast works to understand that it’s a leavening agent, unless you don’t know what a leavening agent is and don’t want to look it up.
What are theoretical definitions?
A definition that is really a scientific hypothesis in disguise. It attempts to present an argument for a concept. Here’s a rare and I think erudite theoretical definition of a US scone that we found.
British Scone (left) and US Scone (right)
| Term | Theoretical Definition |
| American scone | A scone in America is a derivative of the British scone with the following differences that have occurred because of time and mannerisms. The American scone has twice the butter-to-flour ratio as the British Scone. It is also normally chock-full of little bits of lovely, such as currants, chocolate nibs, etc. This has occurred because of the incorrigible need for inclusiveness in the American persona. They tend to blend everything and include everything in everything. It seems “more is better” applies not just to their life, but to their baking world as well. |
Notice in this definition that it begins with including the American scone in the category of British scone, and then adds the differentiators of “butter-to-flour ratio” and being “chock-full of little-bits of lovely…”. After the category and differentiator, the definition attempts to provide a theory of how the differentiation came to be.
Useful? Who knows.
Humorous? Yes.
What are synonym definitions?
Then there are the very simplistic synonym definitions. These definitions use synonyms of the concept to describe the concept. They are normally used when you need to define instances of a concept in a simple fashion.
Biscuits and cookies
| Term | Synonym Definition |
| biscuit | A British version of an American Cookie. |
| cookie | An American version of a British biscuit. |
Types of Definitions Cheat Sheet
Okay, we’ve gone over all of the various types of definitions. You’ll want to keep this cheat sheet around so that you have a shortened version of what should go into each type of definition.
Intensional definitions (genus + differentia)
Begins with the category, or properties and features shared by other concepts or things like it.
Continues with what makes this concept or thing different than the other members of its category.
Extensional definitions
Lists as many objects, properties, or features as necessary that represent the concept or thing being described.
Explains how those objects, properties, or features fit into a more generalized category.
Lexical definitions
Begins with the setting, how the term is used in the document(s) it is drawn from, or the audience it is aimed at.
Places that setting into the context of the category, or properties and features shared by other concepts or things like it.
Continues with what makes this concept or thing different than the other members of its category.
Partitive definitions
Begins by describing this particular concept or thing as a part of a greater whole.
Continues with the category that the greater whole fits into.
Adds what makes this concept or thing different than the other parts of the same greater whole.
Functional definitions
Begins by explaining what the concept or thing does.
Continues by explaining how that role fits into a larger category with properties and other functions like it.
Encyclopedic definitions
Begins with the category, or properties and features shared by other concepts or things like it.
Continues with what makes this concept or thing different than the other members of its category.
Provides additional classification, history, etc. about the concept or thing for elucidation purposes.
Theoretical definitions
Begins with the category, or properties and features shared by other concepts or things like it.
Continues with what makes this concept or thing different than the other members of its category.
Continues with the theory of why this concept or thing fits into the category or why the differentiators are important.
How to Test Existing Definitions
Searching Google for a definition will almost undoubtedly return multiple definitions for the same term. And it isn’t just Google returning too many definitions. Many organizations that create glossaries for their documents are very sloppy with their terms – even the US National Institute of Standards and Technology!
Just because someone wrote a definition, that doesn’t mean it’s correct. Heck, if the United States’ own National Institute of Science and Technology can write some pretty bad definitions in their glossaries, anyone can write bad definitions in theirs.
The test forms
Here are some forms for you to use when examining various definitions. We’ll use these forms to examine a few terms below.
Intensional Definitions
Extensional Definitions
Lexical Definitions
Partitive Definitions
Functional Definitions
Encyclopedic Definitions
Theoretical Definitions
Testing termsIn researching terms relating to cybersecurity (a topic very close to our organization’s heart), we found that everyone agrees on what the definition of cyber means, but there are two different definitions of security, and eight definitions of cybersecurity. So let’s go through the process of analyzing their definitions using the rules for testing the definitions that we listed above. Testing Cyber
So we know that cyber works. The category works; the specifics work. Testing dictionary vs. glossary definitions of securityWe recently ran into two different definitions of security in two different glossaries. Both were much wordier than the dictionary definition of security. One, though wordy, was a good definition. The other, also wordy, had the wrong category altogether.
Testing definitions of cybersecurityMuch like the definition of security, we found multiple definitions of cybersecurity. It’s almost laughable that each and every glossary we encounter with cybersecurity in it, we encounter yet another different definition of the term. Let’s put the definitions to the test. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Analyzing definitions isn’t that hard. Look for the term to fit a general category. Look for the differentiators. Follow the other questions for each of the definition types. You’ll be fine.
How to Write Simple Definitions
There are three steps to follow for creating simple definitions.
- Research the term. If you find an existing definition that you like, use it (and cite the original author). If not, then follow the rest of these steps.
- Determine what the term’s concept is. Is it a noun, verb, pronoun, etc.? Or is it more distinct, some type of named entity? This designation will format your definition’s focus.
- Choose the definition type that fits. Intensional, extensional, partitive, etc. Then craft the definition to fit the designation and subject matter using a standardized format.
Step 0 – Limit Your Definitions to a Single Concept
If you can’t define the term in your mind to a single concept, then split the concepts into separate definitions. Think of report as both the sound of gunfire and calling the police to tell them about the sound of gunfire. That’s two definitions. One is a noun (the sound) the other is a verb (the act of calling or reporting). You have to define one concept at a time.
Step 1 — Research the Term
Here’s the scenario, you are writing whatever document it is and you’ve determined that you want to create a definition in your document. But your organization doesn’t have a definition for that term that you can draw from. So your first step in how to write a definition is to see if there’s a definition readily available that you can leverage (and cite so you aren’t plagiarizing).
The Unified Compliance team is in that predicament quite often. Where do we find the definitions? What methods do we use to look for them? Our methodology works its way down from the most authoritative sources to the least authoritative sources. From absolute definitions down to definitions you will have to build out yourself (following standards set forth by international committees).
Searching dictionaries for single words
You might have luck searching the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, or any other host of online dictionaries for single-word terms.
However, searching for phrases, especially technical phrases, won’t work really well with this list of dictionaries. For that, you’ll need to follow a different set of practices.
Searching dictionaries for phrases
Here’s a couple of realworld scenarios for you from a technical document we were working with. The bolded terms are the ones you’d need to search for.
Use session lock with pattern-hiding displays to prevent access/viewing of data after period of inactivity.
Authorize remote execution of privileged commands and remote access to security-relevant information.
With these two sentences, we now have the following phrases:
- session lock
- pattern-hiding display
- period of inactivity
- remote execution
- privileged command
- remote access
- security-relevant information
Both Cambridge and Merriam-Webster found one of the terms listed above (remote access). However, none of them found the rest of the terms. Therefore, you’ll need to turn to searching more technical dictionaries and glossaries for phrases such as these.
| Dictionary | URL |
| webopedia | http://www.webopedia.com/ |
| TechTerms | https://techterms.com/ |
| Computer Dictionary | http://www.computer-dictionary-online.org/ |
| Free Online Dictionary of Computing | http://foldoc.org/ |
| Business Dictionary | http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ |
| Investopedia | http://www.investopedia.com/dictionary/ |
| TechTarget’s Dictionary | http://whatis.techtarget.com/ |
| The Law Dictionary | http://thelawdictionary.org/ |
Even when searching the technical dictionaries above, however, only one term was found in one dictionary – “remote access” in webopedia. This means that you’ll need to turn to broader search engines, about 90% of the time. We’ll cover how to use search engines next. For now, if you were lucky enough to find the definition, save the URL. You will need to add it to the definition as the source of where the definition came from.
Searching Google for phrases
The bad news is that over 90% of the terms you are going to have to add to the dictionary are phrases that don’t exist in any known glossary or dictionary entry. As of this writing, most document authors fail to provide definitions for their key terms. Don’t worry yet, there’s one more search capability at your fingertips – searching Google’s definitions.
Here’s how to do it:
- Enter terms in both singular and plural form.
- If a term has a hyphen, search for it with and without the hyphen.
- Use is and are —
The last step is important, because you are looking for definitions written within a document and not in a glossary entry or definition of terms section. These definitions will be written within the context of the document’s content itself. Therefore, authors are most likely to state the terminology as saying, “X is this” or “many Ys are that”.
| Base Term | Single form | Plural form |
| session lock | define “session lock is” | define “session locks are” |
| period of inactivity | define “period of inactivity is” | define “periods of inactivity are” |
| security-relevant information | define “security-relevant information is”define «security relevant information is» |
As an example, searching define “session lock is” turns up uses of the term, but no real definition of the term as shown in the diagram that follows:
Figure 1: A search for “session lock is”
However, searching for “session locks are” finds the definition in the very first search result Google returned, as shown below:
with the following definition 
Figure 2: A search for “session locks are”
One of our researchers, Steven Murawski, adds that he has found some sticky definitions by typing «session lock» meaning or «session lock» definition. It only works about 10% of the time, but it is worth noting if you can’t find anything else. If you found the definition, save the URL. You will add it to the terminological entry as the source of where the definition came from.
This methodology works great for a few of the terms in our list. However, there wasn’t a single source that we searched for which had a solid definition for pattern-hiding display. So what do you do when you can’t find a source that specifically defines the term? You build the term’s definition following a well-defined international standard for doing so.
Step 2 — Determine the Term’s Concept
The first thing you need to do is to place your term into the proper context. If you are in a discussion and need to define your term, you’ll be thinking about the discussion you are having, and what types of concepts are being bandied about. If you are writing a document, you’ll probably need to narrow the concept down to one.
We’ll stick with you writing a definition for a document, and we’ll use the term pattern-hiding display. The document you are working with will form the subject field for the broadest context you are going to work with. The citation, no doubt, falls within a section of that document. And sections are broken down into various contexts within the document. Within that section, the Citation will provide the most specific context you are dealing with.
Figure 3: Broadest to narrowest concepts
Now let’s look at the phrase pattern-hiding display within the context of the document, the Section, and the Citation it was found in.
| What | Context |
| Information Security Policy | Protecting Information |
| Section 3.1 | Using Access Controls |
| 3.1.10 | pattern-hiding displays protect information by preventing viewing of data |
From this, we know that the context is about hiding information from view as a form of access control that protects information. Got it.
We know from our document that pattern-hiding displays are covered in the section on access controls. So we are pretty certain that the general category for our term is going to be access control. But on looking up the definition for access control, we found that it can cover physical access, computer system access, and information access as well. So we have several subcategories of access control that exist.
So let’s start a worksheet for adding the term, the term’s possible category, and any possible subcategories that we know of. Then we’ll see if they fit.
| Term | Category | Subcategory | Fit? |
| pattern-hiding display | access control | physical assets | N |
| computer system | N | ||
| information | Y |
In our context, neither computer system nor physical assets fit our genus. Therefore, we know that the context we are dealing with is information access control.
But what type? That’s found in the attributes.
Identifying the attributes of the term
Now that you have the general category for the concept, you must examine the language for its attributes.
When we talk about attributes in this document, we specifically mean the distinguishing features as derived from the words used and the context in which they are used.
Because you are going to be dealing with terms you’ve found in a Citation, the attributes are really the individual terms you are dealing with within the context of the document you are working with. If you have two words in a phrase, you have two attributes. In our scenario, we have two words: pattern-hiding and display. Our attributes for this term are threefold:
- information protection mechanism (from the context)
- pattern-hiding (from the term)
- display (from the term)
We now need to search for each term in the various dictionaries and check to see if there are any definitions that fit our context of information access control that we are dealing with. Searching dictionaries for either pattern-hiding or pattern hiding produces nothing on its own. Searching the web for either one produces some rough definitions of algorithms and software methodologies to obscure numbers or images on a screen.
| Term | Category | Subcategory | Fit? |
| pattern-hiding | session lock | Concealing information previously visible on a display. | Y |
| prime number | Artificial numeric patterns that are embedded with previously thought to be random numbers. | N | |
| screen saver lock | The capability, when the computer is locked, to set the screen to black or display selected or random images or numbers. | Y |
Searching for display gives us a bunch of definitions. One of which is a computer monitor, another of which is the process or facility of presenting data or images on a computer screen or other device. Within the context of the Citation and its section, we can conclude that the characteristic isn’t about the monitor per se, but about the ability to display data or images.
| Term | Category | Subcategory | Fit? |
| display | art | A performance or show. | N |
| assets | An electronic device for the visual presentation of data. | N | |
| computing | Process or facility of presenting data or images on a computer screen or other device. | Y |
We now have a comprehensive view of what our concept is and are one step closer to writing a good definition.
| Term | Category | Subcategory | Attribute |
| pattern-hiding display | access control | information | |
| pattern-hiding | session lock | Concealing information previously visible on a display. | |
| screen saver lock | The capability, when the computer is locked, to set the screen to black or display selected or random images or numbers. | ||
| display | computing | Process or facility of presenting data or images on a computer screen or other device. |
Step 3 — Choosing the Definition Type
You need to start with the designation for the definition. You can’t define the concept unless you know what type of concept you are defining. Let’s put the research we’ve done into this section as a reference for our work here.
| Term | Category | Subcategory | Attribute |
| pattern-hiding display | access control | information | |
| pattern-hiding | session lock | Concealing information previously visible on a display. | |
| screen saver lock | The capability, when the computer is locked, to set the screen to black or display selected or random images or numbers. | ||
| display | computing | Process or facility of presenting data or images on a computer screen or other device. |
Choosing the definition designator
Designations are attributed to the concept you are defining, not the individual term.
Designations for definitions fall into two categories: parts of speech designations and named entity designations.
- Parts of speech are noun, pronoun, adjective, determiner, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction, or interjection.
- Named entities can be any of those entities we’ve already named; asset, data contents, events, group, organization, organizational function, person, record example, role, or title. Or they can be additional named entities that you have defined.
We will ignore named entities for now and discuss parts of speech. From our research here, we know that this isn’t a verb. It’s a noun. Simple.
| Term | Designator |
| pattern-hiding display | noun |
Deciding on a definition type
Now it’s time to go back to the cheat sheet. We listed seven different definition types. We are going to ignore all except the intensional definition because we are starting with simple definitions here. So we know that we’ll first be defining the genus of the term and then adding its differentia. We’ll do that in our worksheet for each of the attributes that we have.
| Term | Designator | Genus | Attribute |
| pattern-hiding display | noun | ||
| pattern-hiding | noun | session lock mechanism | conceals information previously visible on the display |
| noun | screen saver mechanism | sets the screen to black or displays selected or random images or numbers | |
| display | verb | computing | presenting data or images on a computer screen or other device |
How to format your definition
This is really just a matter of putting everything together.
| Term | Designator | Genus | Attributes |
| pattern-hiding display | noun | A session lock or screen saver mechanism that | conceals information previously on the display by |
| setting the screen to black, or | |||
| displaying selected or random images or numbers. |
And there you have it, you have learned how to write a definition. A pattern-hiding display is a session lock or screen saver mechanism that conceals information previously on the display by setting the screen to black or displaying selected or random images or numbers.
How to Write Advanced Definitions
There are six steps to follow for creating advanced definitions. The first three steps are the same as creating simple definitions, so we’ll skip these steps in the documentation that follows.
- Research the term. If you find an existing definition that you like, use it (and cite the original author). If not, then follow the rest of these steps.
- Determine what the term’s concept is. Is it a noun, verb, pronoun, etc.? Or is it more distinct, some type of named entity? This designation will format your definition’s focus.
- Choose the definition type that fits; intensional, extensional, partitive, etc. Then craft the definition to fit the designation and subject matter using a standardized format.
- Formalize the way you name the term.
- Add semantic relationships to the definition to connect it to other terms.
- Review your definition with your team and test it.
Step 4 — How to Formalize the Term Entry
We’ve already covered how to write definitions, the communication of the concept of an instance we see or think about. We’ve covered some pretty basic rules about definition types and what should and shouldn’t be in them. Now we have to cover a few rules about how to express the term itself.
Why do we have to set rules?
Because many people who create glossaries are just plain sloppy (they probably don’t even make their beds in the morning). They’ll have plural forms. Capitalization where none is called for. Unconventional spelling. And – most egregiously – they’ll also include acronyms as terms themselves.
Ugh.
In order for modern electronic glossaries and dictionaries to work with Natural Language Processing engines, the following rules for entering the term itself should be followed.
Enter terms as a base form only
If you aren’t aware, nouns and verbs have a base form and additional forms. Here they are:
| Base Form | Other Forms |
| Singular Non-Possessive Noun | Possessive |
| Plural | |
| Plural Possessive | |
| Simple Present Verb | Past |
| Past Participle | |
| Present Participle | |
| Third Person |
Here are the rules for both nouns and verbs.
What are noun entry rules?
-
- All nouns are entered as singular (check irregular nouns).
- Remove all apostrophes from the last word in a term or phrase.
- Enter the term or phrase in lowercase unless it is a proper noun
- All terms with “non” in them should have the dash “non-” unless specified in the Oxford English Dictionary
NO acronyms should be added as terms, unless this is an acronym dictionary
What are noun pluralization rules?
Most nouns are pluralized by adding an –s to the end of a word. There are seven other pluralization rules that depend on what letter(s) the noun ends in.
- Most nouns add s to the end.
Examples: cat – cats; car – cars; team – teams
- If the noun ends in -ch, -sh, -s, -ss, -x, or -z add -es to the end
Examples: church – churches; tax – taxes; pass – passes
- If the noun ends in -for -fe change -f or -fe to -ves
Examples: elf – elves; loaf – loaves; thief – thieves
- If the noun ends in a vowel and -y add -s to the end
Examples: toy – toys; boy – boys; employ – employs
- If the noun ends in a vowel and -o add s to the end
Examples: video – videos; studio – studios; zoo – zoos
- If the noun ends in a consonant and -y change -y to -ies
Examples: baby – babies; country – countries; spy – spies
- If the noun ends in a consonant and -o add -es to the end
Examples: hero – heroes; potato – potatoes; volcano – volcanoes
NOTE: Irregular nouns follow none of these rules.
What are verb entry rules?
When adding verbs to the dictionary, ensure that you follow these rules:
- Verbs are entered in simple present tense
- Remove any conjugations. (check irregular verbs)
- Enter the term or phrase in lowercase.
What are verb conjugation rules?
Most verbs are conjugated by following these rules.
- Past tense: add –d,-ed, or –t to end of verb
- For verbs ending in –y change –y to -i and add -ed
- Past participle: add -d or –ed or –t to end of verb
- For verbs ending in –y change –y to -i and add -ed
- Present Participle: add -ing to end of verb
- For verbs ending in –e remove –e before adding –ing.
This rule excludes verbs ending in –ee. Verbs ending in –ee follow normal convention of adding –ing to the end.
- Third Person: add -s or -es to the end of verb
- For verbs ending in –y change –y to -i and add -es
NOTE: Irregular verbs do not follow the rules for past and past participle conjugation.
How to deal with Irregular Verbs
Verbs are considered to be irregular when their past tense and past participle forms are different from one another and those forms are not formed by adding -ed, -d, or -t to the base form. Here are a few irregular verbs.
| Verb | Past | Past participle |
| arise | arose | arisen |
| begin | began | begun |
| catch | caught | caught |
| do | did | done |
| fall | fell | fallen |
| go | went | gone |
| hide | hid | hidden |
| lay | laid | laid |
| lie | lay | lain |
There are great resources to learn more about irregular verbs online. One of them is here: http://speakspeak.com/resources/vocabulary-general-english/english-irregular-verbs
The next step to writing advanced definitions is to add semantic relationships to the definition.
Step 5 — Add Semantic Relationships to the Definition
Once you are finished with your definition you’ll need to place the new term into context with other terms. It allows your readers to see how terms interact with each other and allows Natural Language Processing Engines to relate terms together. It is the core of pattern-matching to harmonize regulatory structures to each other.
Basic semantic relationships
The following basic relationships have been taken from the Simple Knowledge Organization System’s (SKOS) Mapping Vocabulary Specification[1], as shown below.
They offer the ability to distinguish subtle relationships between two terms. As stated in the specification:
“Many knowledge organization systems, such as thesauri, taxonomies, classification schemes, and subject heading systems, share a similar structure, and are used in similar applications. SKOS captures much of this similarity and makes it explicit, to enable data and technology sharing across diverse applications.”
has-exact-match
If two concepts are an exact match, then the set of resources properly indexed against the first concept is identical to the set of resources properly indexed against the second. Therefore, the two concepts may be interchanged in queries and subject-based indexes.
(Is inverse with itself.)
has-broad-match
If “concept A has-broad-match concept B,” then the set of resources properly indexed against concept A is a subset of the set of resources properly indexed against concept B.
(Is inverse of has-narrow-match.)
has-narrow-match
If “concept A has-narrow-match concept B,” then the set of resources properly indexed against concept A is a superset of the set of resources properly indexed against concept B.
(Is inverse of has-broad-match.)
has-major-match
If “concept A has-minor-match concept B,” then the set of resources properly indexed against concept A shares less than 50% but greater than 0 of its members with the set of resources properly indexed against concept B.
(No inverse relation can be inferred.)
has-minor-match
If “concept A has-minor-match concept B,” then the set of resources properly indexed against concept A shares less than 50% but greater than 0 of its members with the set of resources properly indexed against concept B.
(No inverse relation can be inferred.)
The limitations with basic semantic relationships based off the SKOS model
The problem in the SKOS model is relationships are limited to a single term or a single phrase. This model is great if you want to know that draft or chart is the same as map or not as broad as interpret. Basically, you are limited to three categories for practical purposes; broader, same, and narrower as shown in the diagram below.
What the SKOS and basic semantic relationship model doesn’t tell you is why interpret is a broader concept, or why scale is a narrower concept. What they don’t show are the linguistic relationships between the terms.
To extend the relationships past broader, same, and narrower, you’ll need a more advanced semantic relationship system. It should consider real-world relationships such as:
- One concept being a category for another concept.
- One concept enforcing another concept.
- One concept including another concept as a part of it (versus the parent being a category).
The illustration that follows re-examines the semantic relationships of the term map, shown above, using a more advanced set of semantic relationships. These relationships provide a much more robust understanding of connecting terms than a simple broader, same as, and narrower model can provide.
Advanced semantic relationships extend the model by adding linguistic and conceptual connections to each relationship.
Advanced Semantic Mappings
There are many more relationships you’ll need to put into place if you want to provide greater context for your readers or Natural Language Processing Engine. Here are a few more of the relationships you’ll need.
Synonyms and Antonyms instead of has-exact-match
Synonyms are broader than exact matches, as they extend the relationship to facts or states of having correlation, interrelation, materiality, conformity, and pertinence between concept A and concept B.
Antonyms then have enough variability, incongruence, and disassociation to be their opposite. The antonym is the inverse of the synonym and vice versa.
What is a metonymy?
Included in the type of synonyms is metonymy, the semantic relationship that exists between two words (or a word and an expression) in which one of the words is metaphorically used in place of the other word (or expression) in particular contexts to convey the same meaning. Included in the category of antonyms are complementary pairs, gradable pairs, and relational opposites[2].
What are complementary pairs?
Complementary pairs are antonyms in which the presence of one quality or state signifies the absence of the other and vice versa. A couple of samples are single/ married, not pregnant/pregnant. There are no intermediate states in complementary pairs.
What are gradable pairs?
Gradable pairs are antonyms which allow for a natural, gradual transition between two poles. A couple of examples are good/bad, hot/cold. It is possible to be a little cold or very cold, etc.
What are relational opposites?
Relational opposites are antonyms that share the same semantic features, but with the focus, or direction reversed. A few examples are tied/untied, buy/sell, give/receive, teacher/pupil, father/son, and open/refrain from opening.
Are there non-standard forms of has-exact-match?
A spigot and a faucet are two defined words that are exact matches, or synonyms, of each other. That’s an easy rule to implement. However, language is messy, and the uses of language within compliance documents are even messier. That’s why you must have advanced rules that go beyond synonyms for use cases (such as a personal data request being called a request for personal data, an information request from the data controller, or even a request for information on the processing of personal data).
To handle these types of use cases you must have a semantic rule that says “if the definition of a term-of-art matches the definition of a previously accepted dictionary term, the term-of-art should be considered an exact match and therefore be labeled a non-standard representation of the accepted term”.
Replacing the broad and narrow matches with more specific categorization
The major and minor relationships described in the SKOS model are limited to linguistic parents and their children (or half-children as a minor match might be thought of). However, there are many relationships that are more specific that can and should be applied, especially when working with named entities and leveraging a Natural Language Processor’s named entity recognition engine.
By replacing the simple broader and narrower matches with more specific categorization, you can achieve structures like those employed by the Compliance Dictionary, as shown below.
| Relationship | Description | Examples |
| Linguistic Parent | Terms that are linguistically broader than the focus term, including origins of terms. | Term– Senior Systems Analyst |
| Linguistic Parent – systems analyst, senior | ||
| Linguistic Child | Terms that are linguistically narrower than the focus term, including derivatives. This is the inverse of Linguistic Parent. | Term — systems analyst |
| Linguistic Child — Senior Systems Analyst | ||
| Category For | A term of which the focus term is a kind of. | Term – tablet |
| Category For – portable electronic device | ||
| Type of | Terms that are kinds or examples of the focus term. This is the inverse of Category For. | Term – portable electronic device |
| Type of – laptop | ||
| Includes | Terms the focus term is an element of. It is the same as hyponymy. | Term – Personally Identifiable Information |
| Includes – mailing address, individual’s Social Security Number | ||
| Part of | Terms whose definitions are an element of the focus term. This is the inverse of Includes | Term – Personally Identifiable Information |
| Part of – privacy-related information | ||
| Used to Create | A term that is a template for or used to create the focus term. | Term – UCF Mapper software |
| Used to Create – Authority Document mapping | ||
| Is Created by | A term that comes from or is generated by the focus term. This is the inverse of Used to Create. | Term – system audit report |
| Is Created by – Secure Configuration Management Tool | ||
| Is Referenced by | A term that mentions or references the focus term. | Term – evidence |
| Is Referenced by – probable cause | ||
| References | A term that the focus term mentions or cites. This is the inverse of Is Referenced by. | Term – evidence |
| References – business exception rule | ||
| Used to Enforce | A term that uses the focus term to happen or cause compliance. | Term – configuration rule |
| Used to Enforce– system configuration | ||
| Is Enforced by | A term that uses the focus term to happen or cause compliance. This is the inverse of Used to Enforce. | Term – PCI-DSS |
| Is Enforced by – payment brand | ||
| Used to Prevent | A term that prevents the focus term. | Term – sanctions |
| Used to Prevent-– unauthorized data processing | ||
| Is Prevented by | A term that is prevented by the focus term. This is the inverse of Used to Prevent | Term – stealing |
| Is Prevented by– armed guard |
Questions for analyzing the relationships of your terms
As of this writing, there isn’t a computer system that will automatically analyze terms, even in their context within a document, and determine what the relationships should be. At best, they are running between 40-45% accuracy[3]. This means you’ll want to manually ask yourself the questions, which isn’t really that hard[4].
Here’s our cheat sheet for you:
| Relation Type | Questions |
| Synonyms | Have you seen this term spelled differently? |
| Have you seen this term written completely differently (Personally Identifiable Information/individual’s non-public data)? | |
| Is this a metaphor for another term? | |
| Are there metaphors for this term? | |
| Antonyms | Are there any qualities of this term that signify the absence of qualities of another term (single/married)? |
| Could this term be graded on a spectrum (hot/cold)? | |
| Is there an opposite relationship of this term (tied/untied)? | |
| Category of | What terms fall under this category? |
| Type of | Are there any other examples of this term? |
| Includes | What does this term include? |
| Part of | Is this term a part of a greater whole? |
| References | Does this term refer to other terms? |
| Is this term referenced by other terms? |
By creating semantic relationships to your definitions, the reader will be able to understand how the term works with other terms.
[1] https://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/mapping/spec/ and https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/
[2] “Linguistics 201: Study Sheet for Semantics.”
[3] Malaise, Zweigenbaum, and Bachimont, “Detecting Semantic Relations between Terms in Definitions.”
[4] Storey, “Understanding Semantic Relationships.”
Step 6 – Reviewing Your Definitions
The final step is reading your definition and making sure that it agrees with the word and the sense you are trying to define. Testing your definition on the format we wrote earlier.
In math, the substitution principle refers to the useful practice of replacing instances of a variable with a different variable. In definitions, it should be possible to replace a word in a definition by that word’s own definition without obtaining an unsatisfactory result[1].
For instance, if we were to use the substitution principle to examine covered entity, we would take the simple definition below:
| Term | Definition |
| covered entity | Healthcare providers who transmit health information. |
and replace key terms, such as healthcare provider, transmit, and health information.
| Term | Definition |
| covered entity | Healthcare providers [individuals and organizations that provide healthcare services] who transmit [to send or cause something to pass on from one place or person to another] health information [Any information, including demographic information collected from an individual, that: (1) is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse; and (2) relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual; and (i) that identifies the individual; or (ii) with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual]. |
Verbose, but it works. The term doesn’t circle back on itself, begins with the category, and ends with the characteristics.
The verdict? It’s a good definition.
[1] Svensén, A Handbook of Lexicography.
How to Write Definitions for Specific Circumstances
We’ve established that in order to communicate clearly and effectively, we need to define our terms. Great. Got that out of the way.
We’ve covered what a definition is, and generally how it is formatted with both category and differentiator content. Coolio (which means really great according to Dorian’s nieces and nephews).
Now it’s time to look at how definitions are presented to people in writing. The scholars out there who talk about these things call all of these entries, collectively, terminological entries. And because we couldn’t think of anything easier to call them, that’s what we’ll call them too.
We are going to divide terminological entries into three types, from the least formal to the most formal:
- conversational entries
- glossary entries
- custom dictionary entries.
Why custom dictionary entries? Simple. We, collectively, aren’t the editors of Webster’s or the Oxford English Dictionary. But we can be editors of other dictionaries, custom dictionaries.
What are Conversational Entries?
Conversational definitions are those definitions wherein you write the definition into the normal discourse. A quick search of Wordnik (https://www.wordnik.com), the world’s largest online dictionary (as measured by numbers of words) run by Erin McKean, shows how they pick up and enter definitions through conversational entries.
The term in question is deepfake. It was picked up by Wordnik and reported in their Word Buzz Wednesday blog entry, taken from the New York Times20. As you can see in the illustration below, the term deepfake was bracketed with quotes and then the definition immediately follows.
deepfake
Through what we see here, conversational definitions have two parts; the term and the definition, without formally introducing either one, and without any cataloging of the terms.
To write conversational entries, follow steps 1 through 3 of how to write definitions.
What are Snippet Entries?
Google takes conversational entries one step farther. These are fantastic if you want to drive a point home to the search universe as our team at Unified Compliance has done with the answer to “what is Unified Compliance”.
When you search in Google with the phrase “what is/are XXX”, Google looks for either formal dictionary definitions of the term (first) and then if it can’t find one, will search for the most authoritative snippet of the term it can find. It then shows a search result in a special featured snippet block at the top of the search results page. This featured snippet block includes a summary of the answer, extracted from a webpage, plus a link to the page, the page title, and URL – as shown in the illustration below.
Searching what is Unified Compliance in Google
How do those get there?
When Google recognizes that a query asks a question, it programmatically detects pages that answer the user’s question, and displays a top result as a featured snippet in the search results16.
Can you mark a page as a featured snippet so that Google can find it easier?
Sorry, Google programmatically determines that a page contains a likely answer to the user’s question, and displays the result as a featured snippet. You can’t code your way into owning definitions. You can, however, be the authoritative source for those definitions if you write your snippet as a definition!
Here’s how the Unified Compliance team did it.
We wrote a page that we specifically designed to be a definition page for the term Unified Compliance. We wrote above the definition “What is Unified Compliance?”, thus asking the question. We then answered the question in the form of a conversational definition. We supplied the term first, “Unified Compliance”, followed by is (which acts as the separator between the term and the definition), and then followed that with the definition itself.
What is Unified Compliance?
Like all good definitions, we began with the category into which the term fit, followed by the differentiators for the term. We even put bullet points in front of each differentiator for emphasis. The illustration above shows the page with the term and the definition called out.
To write snippet entries, follow steps 1 through 3 of how to write definitions.
How to Automate Glossary Creation
There is a new methodology for technical authors who do not want to equivocate about what they meant when writing whatever technical document it is they are writing.
The Unified Compliance team has developed a verb and noun tagging and definition selection tool, shown below. The process is simple. When writing, the author tags the verbs and nouns they want to select definitions for, for that instance (knowing that terms such as report can mean many things, even within the same sentence).
UCF Mapper tagging and definition process
Once the term has been tagged as either a verb or a noun, the system displays all of the definitions in the dictionary for that verb or that noun. Because the system is tied to an AI-based Natural Language Processing Engine, the system will automatically suggest the definition most used in the context of the sentence presented for tagging and matching.
Once the terms have been tagged and the definitions selected, the tagging is hidden to readers but exposed to computer systems. This can generate pop-ups showing the definition for the term as it was tagged by the author. Or, as is the case with each document the Unified Compliance team manages, the system can automatically create a glossary of verbs and nouns for the document in question.
This does, by the way, sometimes produce humorous results. One of our clients used the system to create a document written by multiple authors. The same term, only used six times in the document, had three different definitions selected. That’s because the different authors selected different definitions.
Since that point, we’ve changed the software so that once a definition has been selected in the document, it is a bit more insistent that the same definition be used in the same context. This is a great tool for technical documents, regulatory documents, etc. in that there is no equivocation about what the author meant for any verb or noun the author wishes to select a definition for.
Each word is tagged. Each definition is assigned. No doubt about what was meant. And the tagging and definitions follow the electronic format of that document forever.
For more information on using this tool, please contact the Unified Compliance team.
What are Dictionary Entries?
Dictionary entries have grown in complexity over the past several years due to the restraint of physical printing being removed. Originally, as John Simpson pointed out several times in The Word Detective22, definitions had to be as concise as possible, owing to the need to conserve printed space.
Electronic and online dictionaries don’t have such a restriction. Computer storage space, even on mobile phones, has grown exponentially year after year. The only restrictions on space now are those of the screen on which the dictionary is being presented.
Dictionaries will always have the first three categories of content, just like glossaries. However, given that electronic dictionaries are no longer constrained by printed size, many will have additional content that includes the various types of definitions.
- Term or lemma – This is the term that will be defined. Lemma is the fancy word lexicographers give the term. Dictionaries always list their terms following strict capitalization rules.
- Pronunciation helpers – Some dictionaries will have a small speaker () next to the term’s entry. When pressed, the term will be spoken out loud to assist the reader in understanding how to vocalize the term. Other dictionaries will have a syllable breakdown of the term entry, such as the breakdown for dictionary [dik-shuh-ner-ee]. This was the original pronunciation helper.
- Preferred, nonstandard, and alternate spelling variants – Not many dictionaries, as of yet, contain these categories of data. Preferred terms are those terms normally found within a manual of style. The manual of style will list certain terms to use instead of other, like, terms. Nonstandard variants have entered the dictionary world as a part of analyzing various sets of corpora (the documents you are using and drawing terms from) and determining that the writers are using differing terms with the same definitions. The nonstandard variants are those outlying term uses that get added to dictionaries to let the Natural Language Processing engines know that personal data and individual’s information are the same thing. Alternate spelling variants are those versions where the US spells organization with a “z” and the UK spells organization with an “s”.
- Acronym – Some dictionaries will place the acronym on a line below the term entry. Others will simply follow the term entry with the acronym in parentheses.
- Designator and Definition – Dictionary definitions are more stringent than glossary definitions. Dictionary definitions will always begin with the definition’s designator. A designator is needed because some terms have multiple definitions, such as the term report (it has multiple definitions for both noun and verb). All dictionaries will list whether the definition that follows is a noun, pronoun, adjective, determiner, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction, or interjection. Custom dictionaries will take this concept farther and will list whether the definition fits any specific type of named entity (we cover those later).
- Attribution – Many online dictionaries, such as Wordnik and Compliance Dictionary will include definitions from multiple sources. When including definitions from multiple sources, these dictionaries will include the source’s attribution along with the definition.
- Related forms – Any electronic dictionary that is built with the intention of working with Natural Language Processing Engines will also include all of the other forms that the term can take. The most common being plurals and possessives for nouns and all of the various verb tenses.
- Relationships – Most dictionaries will list each term’s synonyms and antonyms. Dictionaries that also blend in a thesaurus will add additional terms related to the primary term. As of this writing, only Compliance Dictionary lists advanced semantic relationships such as category of, part of, used to enforce, references, manages, used to create, etc. These advanced semantic relationships are necessary for Natural Language Processing engines’ understanding of named entity relationships of terms.
- Examples of use – Examples of use are wonderful. And with modern “document scraping” software, once a term has been identified, examples can be found in the dictionary’s corpus and brought to the forefront.
- Reverse lookup – These are terms that the scraping engine of the dictionary has found that use the primary term in their definition.
- Etymology – Some dictionaries will list the term’s origin, showing which parts of the term originated when and where, and how the term has evolved.
- Visuals – Some of the newer online dictionaries, like Wordnik, will also have pictures and illustrations of the term listed with the definitions. They say a picture is worth a thousand words…
Not every dictionary will have every item. Wordnik, for example, has most of these items, but doesn’t have the named entity recognition designators, or the advanced semantic relationships that go with them. ComplianceDictionary doesn’t have the reverse lookup, etymology, or visuals.
A sample dictionary entry from ComplianceDictionary.com
To write custom dictionary entries, follow steps 1 through 6 of how to write definitions.
Get the Definitions Book
AWL
Words on this page from the academic word list
Show AWL words on this page.
Show sorted lists of these words.
Donate
Dictionary
Look it up
Any words you don’t know? Look them up in the website’s built-in
dictionary.
It is sometimes necessary to define one or more of the terms used in academic writing, in order to
make the meaning clear, and also, in some cases, to demonstrate understanding to an examiner.
While definitions will generally be only a sentence long, it is also possible to write an extended
definition which covers a paragraph or even an entire essay. This page gives information on
how to write a definition,
language for definitions, and
how to structure a definition essay or paragraph (if writing an extended definition).
How to write a definition
The most common way to write a definition in academic writing is to use a relative clause. See the following examples.
- Academic English is the branch of English which is used in formal settings, for example at university.
- Tertiary education may be defined as the period of study which is spent at university.
- A university is a place where students go to study after finishing secondary education.
- A teacher is a person who is engaged in educating students, usually at a school.
In each case, the following structure is used:
- Word to be defined + verb + category + wh-word + characteristics
In the examples above, the verbs ‘is’ and ‘may be defined as’ are used. The categories are ‘branch of English’, ‘period of study’,
‘place’ and ‘person’. The wh-words are ‘which’, ‘where’ and ‘who’. Remember that ‘which’ is used for objects and animals,
‘where’ is used for places, while ‘who’ is used for people.
Language for definitions
In addition to the relative clause language given above, the following phrases are useful.
- X may be defined as…
- X is concerned with…
- X deals with…
- X relates to…
- X involves…
How to structure a definition essay/paragraph
There are many ways to organise a definition essay. Some of these use structures covered on other pages, e.g.
comparison,
contrast and
classification.
Each of the following might form a single paragraph in the main body, though not all of these would be used,
as the essay would be too long. If the extended definition is only one paragraph long, these could be used as
supporting ideas in the paragraph.
- Etymology. The etymology (the origin of the word) is a common way to begin an extended definition.
In addition to giving the origin, it can be helpful to show how the meaning or usage has changed over time. - Exemplification. Giving examples is a common way to extend the definition of a word.
- Comparison. If the word being defined is complex, it can be compared to something which is simpler
(by giving an analogy). - Contrast. The word can be contrasted with others in the same category which are close in meaning.
- Classification. If the word being defined can be divided into different types,
classification can be used to extend the definition. - Process. If the word being defined is a process, or is used to carry out a process,
then the definition can be extended by explaining the process. - Negation. It is sometimes helpful to extend the definition of the word by explaining what it is not,
in order to explain what it is. - Description. If the word being defined is something physical, then a description of its
characteristics, possibly including a diagram, might be appropriate. - Enumeration. If the word being defined has many characteristics, then it might be helpful to
enumerate (i.e. list) each of these characteristics in detail.
GET FREE EBOOK
Like the website? Try the books. Enter your email to receive a free sample from Academic Writing Genres.
Checklist
Below is a checklist for definitions. Use it to check your own writing, or get a peer (another student) to help you.
| Item | OK? | Comment |
| The definition uses an appropriate verb (e.g. is…, may be defined as…). |
||
| The definition has an appropriate category (e.g. place, person). |
||
| The definition uses an appropriate wh-word (e.g. which for objects, who for people). |
||
| Other language for definitions is accurate. | ||
| If an extended definition is given (in a paragraph or whole essay), appropriate ways to structure the definition are used, e.g. etymology, exemplification, comparison, contrast, and so on. |
Download Article
Download Article
Whether you’re compiling a glossary, writing a dictionary, or simply trying to sound official to play a dictionary bluffing game or to define your own made-up words, here are a few ideas to make your definitions as helpful and as powerful as they should be.
These steps are appropriate for a descriptive definition of how a term is actually used. Note that this is a more demanding process than writing a prescriptive definition, such as one defining how an author will use a term in a document.
Steps
-
1
Find examples of the word in use. Google (and especially Google Books) are excellent resources for finding citations. Citations provide evidence that the word is in use and show how it is used.
-
2
Examine how the word functions in the examples that you find.
Advertisement
-
3
Determine the part of speech of the word, for the sense or senses you wish to define. This will help you write the right definition. Recall these basics:[1]
- Noun: A person, place, or thing: Utah, minivan, moon, grocer, January. Nouns can also be ideas, such as «confidence» or «hesitation».
- Pronoun: A word that takes the place of a noun. He, she, it, they.
- Verb: An action word. Go, jump, harangue, grill, gaze, ponder, hurry.
- Adjective: A word that describes, or modifies, a noun. A red hat, a slow train, a precarious ledge.
- Adverb: A word that modifies a verb or an adjective. He landed painfully and rose slowly. The train was ridiculously slow.
- Conjunction: A word that joins two independent clauses. In English, these include and, or, for, nor, but, yet, and so.
- Preposition: This describes the location of something. On, above, under, to, into, at, during, inside.
- Interjection: An exclamation, often with no grammatical relation to the rest of the sentence. For example: Wow, hey, yikes, abracadabra, ouch, hmm, oh boy!
-
4
Make further distinctions within the parts of speech. If you wish to be thorough about the grammatical function of this word, further determine whether a noun is countable or uncountable, whether a verb is transitive or intransitive, and so on.[2]
-
5
Choose a specific sense of the word and think about the word’s meaning in that sense. One good way to go about this is to consider how you would explain this word to a small child or a person who is just beginning to speak the language. Avoid using descriptive words that are more complicated than the word in question, unless you also explain their meaning.[3]
-
6
Explore the word. What other words seem similar? What words are close? What is the difference between this word and other related words? What distinguishes «fragile» from «weak» from «flimsy»?[4]
-
7
Think of synonyms (words that mean the same) and antonyms (words that mean the opposite) for the word. Some of these can go into the definition, if they are appropriate.
-
8
Describe the word. While it’s perfectly all right to include synonyms in the definition, a definition composed entirely of synonyms may not be as helpful as it could be. Thus, try to be as descriptive as possible.
- If the word has a range of meanings, you’ll need to address each one separately.
-
9
Use words in the definition that will be familiar to a reader who does not already know the word being defined. Compare:
- moxie — Gumption; pluck; chutzpah.
- moxie — Bold determination; strength or fortitude.
-
10
Write the definition in the typical style of a dictionary. Phrases such as «This word is used to…» or «Describes a situation in which…» may help to get you started, but edit them out of your final definition.[5]
-
11
Write the definition so that it matches the part of speech. Verb definitions will contain many verbs; noun definitions, many nouns.[6]
- Most verb definitions will begin with the word «to». For instance, a definition for the verb «pause» might read, «To stop briefly or temporarily; to interrupt a process or activity and later resume it.»
- Noun definitions may begin with the words «a», «an» or «the».
-
12
Read your definition and make sure that it agrees with the word and the sense you are trying to define.
-
13
Have somebody else read your definition and tell you if it makes sense.
Advertisement
Add New Question
-
Question
Should the first letter of the word be capitalized?
Not necessarily. Only proper nouns should be capitalized.
-
Question
Do I need to reference definitions?
You shouldn’t steal a definition from a collection of definitions. Review a couple of definitions and put a definition of a word into your own words. For example, if defining the word idiosyncrasy, one definition example says «a mode of behavior or way of thought peculiar to an individual». I would say «a way somebody acts that is seen as odd to someone or some people.»
-
Question
How do I use dictionary?
Sherringford
Community Answer
A dictionary is used to find the meaning of an unknown word. First, you must have a word in need of a meaning. Then you must search for the word. The dictionary is arranged alphabetically, so you must look it up accordingly. Once you find the word, the definition will be under (or beside) it.
See more answers
Ask a Question
200 characters left
Include your email address to get a message when this question is answered.
Submit
Advertisement
-
Have a look at the etymology of the word, too. Do you know what a kibosh (as in «put the kibosh on») was? What did it originally mean if something fizzled? Sometimes, the etymology can add some perspective to a word’s meaning.[7]
-
Read some entries in a dictionary or glossary and take note of the style in which definitions are written.
-
Consult other dictionaries to see what they have to say about your word. Synthesizing a selection of other definitions can help you write your own, or help you learn to write your own definitions independently.
Show More Tips
Thanks for submitting a tip for review!
Advertisement
-
The parts of speech listed in this article are the basic parts of speech for English. Other languages have other parts of speech, and some people distinguish additional parts of speech in English.
-
Avoid describing the word by what it is not — focus on describing what it is.
-
If you include an etymology in your dictionary, make sure it is well-researched. Some words and phrases tend to have many «folk etymologies» circulating about them. These are groundless theories, basically guesses about word origins that get passed around without any sort of verification. Do your own research and evaluate carefully whether you can trust a given source.
-
Avoid circular definitions, especially if you are defining multiple words. There is a tendency, when defining words, to circle back to the word or root with which one began. While it may be legitimate to define an adverb in terms of the adjective from which it has grown (for example, ridiculously — in a ridiculous manner), this sort of definition supposes that the word ridiculous is defined somewhere. Generally, avoid using variations of the word being defined in the definition.
Advertisement
About This Article
Thanks to all authors for creating a page that has been read 211,695 times.
Did this article help you?
Definitions are a core part of any dictionary, and Wiktionary is no exception. Writing basic definitions requires some skill, more practice, and sometimes help.
First principles[edit]
There are a few basic guidelines to follow when writing a definition:
-
- Wiktionary is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. A definition does not need to contain every piece of information known about a subject. Rather, it should contain information about the word and what the word refers to, and enough explanation to allow a user to distinguish that word from most other words.
- Don’t include usage notes in a definition. If additional clarification is needed to separate a term from other words with a similar meaning, then Usage notes can be added.
- Keep it simple
- Write with simple grammatical structures rather than complicated ones. Limit the use of dependent clauses and phrases, whether set off by commas (or parenthetical). If many such additional modifications are needed in a definition, then that definition probably needs a thorough rewrite.
- Place key terms and short explanations near the start of the definition. If a definition requires qualifications and modifying phrases, then try to place those near the end of the definition, after the main point has been made.
- Avoid bombast, and get to the point. Padding an entry with superfluous verbiage may sound impressive, but that’s not the purpose of a definition.
- Avoid complicated terms
- Avoid terms that are more complicated or more technical than the term being defined. The purpose of a definition is to clarify meaning, not to obfuscate it.
- Avoid polysyllabic monstrosities in the amalgamation of lexicographic phraseology. Don’t use big words if you can avoid them. They may be fun, but in a definition they tend to confuse people more than help them.
- Avoid specialized terms
- Use mainstream English words in explanations whenever possible. The more widespread a term is, the more users will benefit. Terms with restricted usage may leave a significant fraction of Wiktionary’s readership clueless.
- Avoid jargon. Highly technical terms will probably require a user to look up many terms in the definition just to understand what it says. Although there are cases which require the use of a technical term in a specialized field, these should be kept to a minimum.
- Avoid words whose use is restricted to certain geographic regions, social or ethnic groups, or that might otherwise leave many readers confused.
- Avoid circularity
- It is poor form to define a word with that same word in the definition. Use different terms.
- Avoid defining a term solely using etymologically or morphologically related terms. Adverbs are especially prone to being defined by the adjective from which they derive. While it is possible to define words this way, definitions ideally should stand on their own.
- Check the primary words in the definition to see whether any point right back at the term being defined. If two entries are defined solely or primarily as each other, then there will be no basis for a reader to understand either definition.
Style[edit]
Basic style[edit]
Numbering definitions: Each definition line should begin with a # (hash, octothorpe, pound sign). This will number the definitions. Place the hash at the leftmost position on the line, with no spaces or tabs prior to the hash. Additional definitions must be placed on a separate line, but there should be no blank lines within a group of definitions, since that will break the sequence of the numbering.
There are two basic styles of definition:
- In explanatory style, beginning with a capitalized first letter and ending in a period.
- translation style
Most English entries follow the first style, so that their definitions should begin with a capital letter and end with a period. In other words, such definitions are formatted as if they were sentences, even if they are actually sentence fragments. In contrast, most non-English entries follow the second style, since they typically translate the non-English word to one (or a few) English terms. However, there are non-English terms defined in the first style, especially when the term has no simple or straightforward English translation, and so it must be explained fully rather than just translated. When translating a word with a single English term, you can use template {{gloss}} to disambiguate the used term.
Definitions with more than one explanation: When a definition consists of more than one parallel explanation, the parts may be separated by commas or by semicolons. Commas are preferred in separating short and simple items, but semicolons are preferred when separating longer defining phrases or clauses.
Linking: One of the more powerful tools at Wiktionary’s disposal is the wikilink. Key terms in a definition should be linked by the use of double square brackets (i.e., [[word]]) around the term. This creates a link to the entry for that term.
Links should always be present around any word in the definition that is synonymous, or nearly synonymous with the term being defined. Likewise, link words which provide key descriptions or qualifications in defining a term. However, do not link every word in a definition. Linking all the words detracts from the visual emphasis that a wikilink provides, and creates visual confusion. Articles, prepositions, conjunctions, particles, and other short words should never be linked unless they are synonyms or translations of the term being defined.
When the explanatory style of definition writing is used, special care must be taken to link the capitalized first word in the definition. Wiktionary is case sensitive, so a simple link of the first word will often yield a red (broken) link, or may link to a German noun that happens to be spelled the same way. In these cases, the link must be «piped», as in the example: [[bridge|Bridge]]. This links to the first (lower-case) word while displaying the second (capitalized) word.
Part of speech variations[edit]
The wording in a definition depends on the part of speech of the word being defined. Nouns, especially proper nouns, are considered the easiest, followed by adjectives, and verbs. The most difficult words are included in the other parts of speech, especially those with purely grammatical functions like prepositions, conjunctions, determiners, articles, and particles.
Proper nouns[edit]
If a proper noun meets our standards for inclusion (WT:CFI), its definition should be relatively easy. If it seems to be difficult, insert a link to Wikipedia, follow the link to an article of that title if one exists or search for the term in other Wikipedia articles.
Other nouns[edit]
Concrete nouns are the next relatively easy class. Wikipedia may have an article. Wikicommons may have photographs or drawings. The insertion of photographs or drawings may reduce the need for users to rely on the words of a definition for the basics, allowing the definition to address questions of the boundaries of the term instead.
Abstract nouns are more challenging. Within this class the most challenging are core abstractions such as «time», basic emotions, etc. The easiest abstract nouns are those that are definable in terms of the most basic ones. Fortunately, few people will rely on a dictionary for the core abstractions. Definitions can be used to define the scope of the term, its boundaries, rather than attempting to define its essence.
Grammatical parts of speech[edit]
Grammatical parts of speech include all conjunctions, pronouns, determiners, prepositions, articles and particles, and most of the most common adverbs. Such words are often very hard to define in the same way as nouns, verbs, adjectives, and most adverbs derived from adjectives. If a particular word of this type cannot readily be defined, for example, by a synonym, consider a «non-gloss definition». Such a definition would typically begin with words such as «Used to indicate ….». Such a definition needs usage examples or citations even more than other definitions do. To facilitate review of such challenging definitions, please put the definition inside {{non-gloss definition}}.
Interjections[edit]
Interjections are not grammatical parts of speech, but also may not be easy to define. If a particular word of this type cannot readily be defined, for example, by a well-known synonym, consider a «non-gloss definition». Such a definition would typically begin with words such as «Used to express…», followed by a noun or noun phrase suggesting an emotion. Such a definition may need usage examples or citations even more than other definitions do. To facilitate review of such challenging definitions, please put the definition inside {{non-gloss definition}}.
Context tags[edit]
See Wiktionary:Context labels for details on context/usage tags.
External links[edit]
- Wikihow to write a dictionary definition
A definition states the meaning of a word using other words. This is sometimes challenging. Common dictionaries contain lexical descriptive definitions, but there are various types of definition – all with different purposes and focuses.
A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols).[1][2] Definitions can be classified into two large categories: intensional definitions (which try to give the sense of a term), and extensional definitions (which try to list the objects that a term describes).[3] Another important category of definitions is the class of ostensive definitions, which convey the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. A term may have many different senses and multiple meanings, and thus require multiple definitions.[4][a]
In mathematics, a definition is used to give a precise meaning to a new term, by describing a condition which unambiguously qualifies what a mathematical term is and is not. Definitions and axioms form the basis on which all of modern mathematics is to be constructed.[5]
Basic terminology
In modern usage, a definition is something, typically expressed in words, that attaches a meaning to a word or group of words. The word or group of words that is to be defined is called the definiendum, and the word, group of words, or action that defines it is called the definiens.[6] For example, in the definition «An elephant is a large gray animal native to Asia and Africa», the word «elephant» is the definiendum, and everything after the word «is» is the definiens.[7]
The definiens is not the meaning of the word defined, but is instead something that conveys the same meaning as that word.[7]
There are many sub-types of definitions, often specific to a given field of knowledge or study. These include, among many others, lexical definitions, or the common dictionary definitions of words already in a language; demonstrative definitions, which define something by pointing to an example of it («This,» [said while pointing to a large grey animal], «is an Asian elephant.»); and precising definitions, which reduce the vagueness of a word, typically in some special sense («‘Large’, among female Asian elephants, is any individual weighing over 5,500 pounds.»).[7]
Intensional definitions vs extensional definitions
An intensional definition, also called a connotative definition, specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing to be a member of a specific set.[3] Any definition that attempts to set out the essence of something, such as that by genus and differentia, is an intensional definition.
An extensional definition, also called a denotative definition, of a concept or term specifies its extension. It is a list naming every object that is a member of a specific set.[3]
Thus, the «seven deadly sins» can be defined intensionally as those singled out by Pope Gregory I as particularly destructive of the life of grace and charity within a person, thus creating the threat of eternal damnation. An extensional definition, on the other hand, would be the list of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. In contrast, while an intensional definition of «Prime Minister» might be «the most senior minister of a cabinet in the executive branch of parliamentary government», an extensional definition is not possible since it is not known who the future prime ministers will be (even though all prime ministers from the past and present can be listed).
Classes of intensional definitions
A genus–differentia definition is a type of intensional definition that takes a large category (the genus) and narrows it down to a smaller category by a distinguishing characteristic (i.e. the differentia).[8]
More formally, a genus–differentia definition consists of:
- a genus (or family): An existing definition that serves as a portion of the new definition; all definitions with the same genus are considered members of that genus.
- the differentia: The portion of the new definition that is not provided by the genus.[6]
For example, consider the following genus–differentia definitions:
- a triangle: A plane figure that has three straight bounding sides.
- a quadrilateral: A plane figure that has four straight bounding sides.
Those definitions can be expressed as a genus («a plane figure») and two differentiae («that has three straight bounding sides» and «that has four straight bounding sides», respectively).
It is also possible to have two different genus–differentia definitions that describe the same term, especially when the term describes the overlap of two large categories. For instance, both of these genus–differentia definitions of «square» are equally acceptable:
- a square: a rectangle that is a rhombus.
- a square: a rhombus that is a rectangle.
Thus, a «square» is a member of both genera (the plural of genus): the genus «rectangle» and the genus «rhombus».
Classes of extensional definitions
One important form of the extensional definition is ostensive definition. This gives the meaning of a term by pointing, in the case of an individual, to the thing itself, or in the case of a class, to examples of the right kind. For example, one can explain who Alice (an individual) is, by pointing her out to another; or what a rabbit (a class) is, by pointing at several and expecting another to understand. The process of ostensive definition itself was critically appraised by Ludwig Wittgenstein.[9]
An enumerative definition of a concept or a term is an extensional definition that gives an explicit and exhaustive listing of all the objects that fall under the concept or term in question. Enumerative definitions are only possible for finite sets (and in fact only practical for relatively small sets).
Divisio and partitio
Divisio and partitio are classical terms for definitions. A partitio is simply an intensional definition. A divisio is not an extensional definition, but an exhaustive list of subsets of a set, in the sense that every member of the «divided» set is a member of one of the subsets. An extreme form of divisio lists all sets whose only member is a member of the «divided» set. The difference between this and an extensional definition is that extensional definitions list members, and not subsets.[10]
Nominal definitions vs real definitions
In classical thought, a definition was taken to be a statement of the essence of a thing. Aristotle had it that an object’s essential attributes form its «essential nature», and that a definition of the object must include these essential attributes.[11]
The idea that a definition should state the essence of a thing led to the distinction between nominal and real essence—a distinction originating with Aristotle. In the Posterior Analytics,[12] he says that the meaning of a made-up name can be known (he gives the example «goat stag») without knowing what he calls the «essential nature» of the thing that the name would denote (if there were such a thing). This led medieval logicians to distinguish between what they called the quid nominis, or the «whatness of the name», and the underlying nature common to all the things it names, which they called the quid rei, or the «whatness of the thing».[13] The name «hobbit», for example, is perfectly meaningful. It has a quid nominis, but one could not know the real nature of hobbits, and so the quid rei of hobbits cannot be known. By contrast, the name «man» denotes real things (men) that have a certain quid rei. The meaning of a name is distinct from the nature that a thing must have in order that the name apply to it.
This leads to a corresponding distinction between nominal and real definitions. A nominal definition is the definition explaining what a word means (i.e., which says what the «nominal essence» is), and is definition in the classical sense as given above. A real definition, by contrast, is one expressing the real nature or quid rei of the thing.
This preoccupation with essence dissipated in much of modern philosophy. Analytic philosophy, in particular, is critical of attempts to elucidate the essence of a thing. Russell described essence as «a hopelessly muddle-headed notion».[14]
More recently Kripke’s formalisation of possible world semantics in modal logic led to a new approach to essentialism. Insofar as the essential properties of a thing are necessary to it, they are those things that it possesses in all possible worlds. Kripke refers to names used in this way as rigid designators.
Operational vs. theoretical definitions
A definition may also be classified as an operational definition or theoretical definition.
Terms with multiple definitions
Homonyms
A homonym is, in the strict sense, one of a group of words that share the same spelling and pronunciation but have different meanings.[15] Thus homonyms are simultaneously homographs (words that share the same spelling, regardless of their pronunciation) and homophones (words that share the same pronunciation, regardless of their spelling). The state of being a homonym is called homonymy. Examples of homonyms are the pair stalk (part of a plant) and stalk (follow/harass a person) and the pair left (past tense of leave) and left (opposite of right). A distinction is sometimes made between «true» homonyms, which are unrelated in origin, such as skate (glide on ice) and skate (the fish), and polysemous homonyms, or polysemes, which have a shared origin, such as mouth (of a river) and mouth (of an animal).[16][17]
Polysemes
Polysemy is the capacity for a sign (such as a word, phrase, or symbol) to have multiple meanings (that is, multiple semes or sememes and thus multiple senses), usually related by contiguity of meaning within a semantic field. It is thus usually regarded as distinct from homonymy, in which the multiple meanings of a word may be unconnected or unrelated.
In logic and mathematics
In mathematics, definitions are generally not used to describe existing terms, but to describe or characterize a concept.[18] For naming the object of a definition mathematicians can use either a neologism (this was mainly the case in the past) or words or phrases of the common language (this is generally the case in modern mathematics). The precise meaning of a term given by a mathematical definition is often different from the English definition of the word used,[19] which can lead to confusion, particularly when the meanings are close. For example a set is not exactly the same thing in mathematics and in common language. In some case, the word used can be misleading; for example, a real number has nothing more (or less) real than an imaginary number. Frequently, a definition uses a phrase built with common English words, which has no meaning outside mathematics, such as primitive group or irreducible variety.
In first-order logic definitions are usually introduced using extension by definition (so using a metalogic). On the other hand, lambda-calculi are a kind of logic where the definitions are included as the feature of the formal system itself.
Classification
Authors have used different terms to classify definitions used in formal languages like mathematics. Norman Swartz classifies a definition as «stipulative» if it is intended to guide a specific discussion. A stipulative definition might be considered a temporary, working definition, and can only be disproved by showing a logical contradiction.[20] In contrast, a «descriptive» definition can be shown to be «right» or «wrong» with reference to general usage.
Swartz defines a precising definition as one that extends the descriptive dictionary definition (lexical definition) for a specific purpose by including additional criteria. A precising definition narrows the set of things that meet the definition.
C.L. Stevenson has identified persuasive definition as a form of stipulative definition which purports to state the «true» or «commonly accepted» meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an altered use (perhaps as an argument for some specific belief). Stevenson has also noted that some definitions are «legal» or «coercive» – their object is to create or alter rights, duties, or crimes.[21]
Recursive definitions
A recursive definition, sometimes also called an inductive definition, is one that defines a word in terms of itself, so to speak, albeit in a useful way. Normally this consists of three steps:
- At least one thing is stated to be a member of the set being defined; this is sometimes called a «base set».
- All things bearing a certain relation to other members of the set are also to count as members of the set. It is this step that makes the definition recursive.
- All other things are excluded from the set
For instance, we could define a natural number as follows (after Peano):
- «0» is a natural number.
- Each natural number has a unique successor, such that:
- the successor of a natural number is also a natural number;
- distinct natural numbers have distinct successors;
- no natural number is succeeded by «0».
- Nothing else is a natural number.
So «0» will have exactly one successor, which for convenience can be called «1». In turn, «1» will have exactly one successor, which could be called «2», and so on. Notice that the second condition in the definition itself refers to natural numbers, and hence involves self-reference. Although this sort of definition involves a form of circularity, it is not vicious, and the definition has been quite successful.
In the same way, we can define ancestor as follows:
- A parent is an ancestor.
- A parent of an ancestor is an ancestor.
- Nothing else is an ancestor.
Or simply: an ancestor is a parent or a parent of an ancestor.
In medicine
In medical dictionaries, guidelines and other consensus statements and classifications, definitions should as far as possible be:
- simple and easy to understand,[22] preferably even by the general public;[23]
- useful clinically[23] or in related areas where the definition will be used;[22]
- specific[22] (that is, by reading the definition only, it should ideally not be possible to refer to any other entity than that being defined);
- measurable;[22]
- a reflection of current scientific knowledge.[22][23]
Problems
Certain rules have traditionally been given for definitions (in particular, genus-differentia definitions).[24][25][26][27]
- A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined.
- Definitions should avoid circularity. To define a horse as «a member of the species equus» would convey no information whatsoever. For this reason, Locke adds that a definition of a term must not consist of terms which are synonymous with it. This would be a circular definition, a circulus in definiendo. Note, however, that it is acceptable to define two relative terms in respect of each other. Clearly, we cannot define «antecedent» without using the term «consequent», nor conversely.
- The definition must not be too wide or too narrow. It must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies (i.e. not miss anything out), and to nothing else (i.e. not include any things to which the defined term would not truly apply).
- The definition must not be obscure. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. The violation of this rule is known by the Latin term obscurum per obscurius. However, sometimes scientific and philosophical terms are difficult to define without obscurity.
- A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define «wisdom» as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. For example, it appears difficult to define blindness in positive terms rather than as «the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted».
Fallacies of definition
Limitations of definition
Given that a 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 rely upon primitive notions. If every term of every definiens must itself be defined, «where at last should we stop?»[28][29] A dictionary, for instance, insofar as it is a comprehensive list of lexical definitions, must resort to circularity.[30][31][32]
Many philosophers have chosen instead to leave some terms undefined. The scholastic philosophers claimed that the highest genera (called the ten generalissima) cannot be defined, since a higher genus cannot be assigned under which they may fall. Thus being, unity and similar concepts cannot be defined.[25] Locke supposes in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding[33] that the names of simple concepts do not admit of any definition. More recently Bertrand Russell sought to develop a formal language based on logical atoms. Other philosophers, notably Wittgenstein, rejected the need for any undefined simples. Wittgenstein pointed out in his Philosophical Investigations that what counts as a «simple» in one circumstance might not do so in another.[34] 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»,[35] claiming instead that explanation of a term is only needed to avoid misunderstanding.
Locke and Mill also argued that individuals cannot be defined. Names are learned by connecting an idea with a sound, so that speaker and hearer have the same idea when the same word is used.[36] This is not possible when no one else is acquainted with the particular thing that has «fallen under our notice».[37] Russell offered his 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. Saul Kripke pointed to difficulties with this approach, especially in relation to 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.[38] 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.[b]
See also
- Analytic proposition
- Circular definition
- Definable set
- Definitionism
- Extensional definition
- Fallacies of definition
- Indeterminacy
- Intensional definition
- Lexical definition
- Operational definition
- Ostensive definition
- Ramsey–Lewis method
- Semantics
- Synthetic proposition
- Theoretical definition
Notes
- ^ Terms with the same pronunciation and spelling but unrelated meanings are called homonyms, while terms with the same spelling and pronunciation and related meanings are called polysemes.
- ^ Note that one learns inductively, from ostensive definition, in the same way, as in the Ramsey–Lewis method.
References
- ^ Bickenbach, Jerome E., and Jacqueline M. Davies. Good reasons for better arguments: An introduction to the skills and values of critical thinking. Broadview Press, 1996. p. 49
- ^ «Definition of definition | Dictionary.com». www.dictionary.com. Retrieved 2019-11-28.
- ^ a b c Lyons, John. «Semantics, vol. I.» Cambridge: Cambridge (1977). p.158 and on.
- ^ Dooly, Melinda. Semantics and Pragmatics of English: Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Univ. Autònoma de Barcelona, 2006. p.48 and on
- ^ Richard J. Rossi
(2011) Theorems, Corollaries, Lemmas, and Methods of Proof. John Wiley & Sons p.4 - ^ a b «DEFINITIONS». beisecker.faculty.unlv.edu. Retrieved 2019-11-28.
- ^ a b c Hurley, Patrick J. (2006). «Language: Meaning and Definition». A Concise Introduction to Logic (9 ed.). Wadsworth. pp. 86–91.
- ^ Bussler, Christoph, and Dieter Fensel, eds. Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems and Applications: 11th International Conference, AIMSA 2004: Proceedings. Springer-Verlag, 2004. p.6
- ^ Philosophical investigations, Part 1 §27–34
- ^ Katerina Ierodiakonou, «The Stoic Division of Philosophy», in Phronesis: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy, Volume 38, Number 1, 1993, pp. 57–74.
- ^ Posterior Analytics, Bk 1 c. 4
- ^ Posterior Analytics Bk 2 c. 7
- ^ . Early modern philosophers like Locke used the corresponding English terms «nominal essence» and «real essence».
- ^ A History of Western Philosophy, p. 210.
- ^ homonym, Random House Unabridged Dictionary at dictionary.com
- ^ «Linguistics 201: Study Sheet for Semantics». Pandora.cii.wwu.edu. Archived from the original on 2013-06-17. Retrieved 2013-04-23.
- ^ Semantics: a coursebook, p. 123, James R. Hurford and Brendan Heasley, Cambridge University Press, 1983
- ^ David Hunter (2010) Essentials of Discrete Mathematics. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Section 14.1
- ^ Kevin Houston (2009) How to Think Like a Mathematician: A Companion to Undergraduate Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, p. 104
- ^ «Norman Swartz — Biography». sfu.ca.
- ^ Stevenson, C.L., Ethics and Language, Connecticut 1944
- ^ a b c d e McPherson, M.; Arango, P.; Fox, H.; Lauver, C.; McManus, M.; Newacheck, P. W.; Perrin, J. M.; Shonkoff, J. P.; Strickland, B. (1998). «A new definition of children with special health care needs». Pediatrics. 102 (1 Pt 1): 137–140. doi:10.1542/peds.102.1.137. PMID 9714637. S2CID 30160426.
- ^ a b c Morse, R. M.; Flavin, D. K. (1992). «The Definition of Alcoholism». JAMA. 268 (8): 1012–1014. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03490080086030. PMID 1501306.
- ^ Copi 1982 pp 165–169
- ^ a b Joyce, Ch. X
- ^ Joseph, Ch. V
- ^ Macagno & Walton 2014, Ch. III
- ^ Locke, Essay, Bk. III, Ch. iv, 5
- ^ This problem parallels the diallelus, but leads to scepticism about meaning rather than knowledge.
- ^ Generally lexicographers seek to avoid circularity wherever possible, but the definitions of words such as «the» and «a» use those words and are therefore circular. [1] [2] Lexicographer Sidney I. Landau’s essay «Sexual Intercourse in American College Dictionaries» provides other examples of circularity in dictionary definitions. (McKean, p. 73–77)
- ^ An exercise suggested by J. L. Austin involved taking up a dictionary and finding a selection of terms relating to the key concept, then looking up each of the words in the explanation of their meaning. Then, iterating this process until the list of words begins to repeat, closing in a «family circle» of words relating to the key concept.
(A plea for excuses in Philosophical Papers. Ed. J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1961. 1979.) - ^ In the game of Vish, players compete to find circularity in a dictionary.
- ^ Locke, Essay, Bk. III, Ch. iv
- ^ See especially Philosophical Investigations Part 1 §48
- ^ He continues: «Whereas an explanation may indeed rest on another one that has been given, but none stands in need of another – unless we require it to prevent a misunderstanding. One might say: an explanation serves to remove or to avert a misunderstanding – one, that is, that would occur but for the explanation; not every one I can imagine.» Philosophical Investigations, Part 1 §87, italics in original
- ^ This theory of meaning is one of the targets of the private language argument
- ^ Locke, Essay, Bk. III, Ch. iii, 3
- ^ Philosophical Investigations
- Copi, Irving (1982). Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-977520-5.
- Joseph, Horace William Brindley (1916). An Introduction to Logic, 2nd edition. Clarendon Press repr. Paper Tiger. ISBN 1-889439-17-7. (full text of 1st ed. (1906))
- Joyce, George Hayward (1926). Principles of logic, 3d ed., new impression. London, New York: Longmans, Green and co. (worldcat) (full text of 2nd ed. (1916))
- Locke, John (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. ISBN 0-14-043482-8. (full text: vol 1, vol 2)
- McKean, Erin (2001). Verbatim: From the bawdy to the sublime, the best writing on language for word lovers, grammar mavens, and armchair linguists. Harvest Books. ISBN 0-15-601209-X.
- Macagno, Fabrizio; Walton, Douglas (2014). Emotive Language in Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Robinson, Richard (1954). Definition. Oxford: At The Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-824160-7.
- Simpson, John; Edmund Weiner (1989). Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (20 volumes). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-861186-2.
- Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-23127-7.
External links
Look up definition in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
- Definitions, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Gupta, Anil (2008)
- Definitions, Dictionaries, and Meanings, Norman Swartz 1997
- Guy Longworth (ca. 2008) «Definitions: Uses and Varieties of». = in: K. Brown (ed.): Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Elsevier.
- Definition and Meaning, a very short introduction by Garth Kemerling (2001).
Definition of a Word
A word is a speech sound or a combination of sound having a particular meaning for an idea, object or thought and has a spoken or written form. In English language word is composed by an individual letter (e.g., ‘I’), I am a boy, or by combination of letters (e.g., Jam, name of a person) Jam is a boy. Morphology, a branch of linguistics, deals with the structure of words where we learn under which rules new words are formed, how we assigned a meaning to a word? how a word functions in a proper context? how to spell a word? etc.
Examples of word: All sentences are formed by a series of words. A sentence starts with a word, consists on words and ends with a word. Therefore, there is nothing else in a sentence than a word.
Some different examples are: Boy, kite, fox, mobile phone, nature, etc.
Different Types of Word
There are many types of word; abbreviation, acronym, antonym, back formation, Clipped words (clipping), collocation, compound words, Content words, contractions, derivation, diminutive, function word, homograph, homonym, homophone, legalism, linker, conjunct, borrowed, metonym, monosyllable, polysyllable, rhyme, synonym, etc. Read below for short introduction to each type of word.
Abbreviation
An abbreviation is a word that is a short form of a long word.
Example: Dr for doctor, gym for gymnasium
Acronym
Acronym is one of the commonly used types of word formed from the first letter or letters of a compound word/ term and used as a single word.
Example: PIA for Pakistan International Airline
Antonym
An antonym is a word that has opposite meaning of an another word
Example: Forward is an antonym of word backward or open is an antonym of word close.
Back formation
Back formation word is a new word that is produced by removing a part of another word.
Example: In English, ‘tweeze’ (pluck) is a back formation from ‘tweezers’.
Clipped words
Clipped word is a word that has been clipped from an already existing long word for ease of use.
Example: ad for advertisement
Collocation
Collocation is a use of certain words that are frequently used together in form of a phrase or a short sentence.
Example: Make the bed,
Compound words
Compound words are created by placing two or more words together. When compound word is formed the individual words lose their meaning and form a new meaning collectively. Both words are joined by a hyphen, a space or sometime can be written together.
Example: Ink-pot, ice cream,
Content word
A content word is a word that carries some information or has meaning in speech and writing.
Example: Energy, goal, idea.
Contraction
A Contraction is a word that is formed by shortening two or more words and joining them by an apostrophe.
Example: ‘Don’t’ is a contraction of the word ‘do not’.
Derivation
Derivation is a word that is derived from within a language or from another language.
Example: Strategize (to make a plan) from strategy (a plan).
Diminutive
Diminutive is a word that is formed by adding a diminutive suffix with a word.
Example: Duckling by adding suffix link with word duck.
Function word
Function word is a word that is mainly used for expressing some grammatical relationships between other words in a sentence.
Example: (Such as preposition, or auxiliary verb) but, with, into etc.
Homograph
Homograph is a word that is same in written form (spelled alike) as another word but with a different meaning, origin, and occasionally pronounced with a different pronunciation
Example: Bow for ship and same word bow for shooting arrows.
Homonym
Homonyms are the words that are spelled alike and have same pronunciation as another word but have a different meaning.
Example: Lead (noun) a material and lead (verb) to guide or direct.
Homophone
Homophones are the words that have same pronunciation as another word but differ in spelling, meaning, and origin.
Example: To, two, and too are homophones.
Hyponym
Hyponym is a word that has more specific meaning than another more general word of which it is an example.
Example: ‘Parrot’ is a hyponym of ‘birds’.
Legalism
Legalism is a type of word that is used in law terminology.
Example: Summon, confess, judiciary
Linker/ conjuncts
Linker or conjuncts are the words or phrase like ‘however’ or ‘what’s more’ that links what has already been written or said to what is following.
Example: however, whereas, moreover.
Loanword/ borrowed
A loanword or borrowed word is a word taken from one language to use it in another language without any change.
Example: The word pizza is taken from Italian language and used in English language
Metonym
Metonym is a word which we use to refer to something else that it is directly related to that.
Example: ‘Islamabad’ is frequently used as a metonym for the Pakistan government.
Monosyllable
Monosyllable is a word that has only one syllable.
Example: Come, go, in, yes, or no are monosyllables.
Polysyllable
Polysyllable is a word that has two or more than two syllables.
Example: Interwoven, something or language are polysyllables.
Rhyme
Rhyme is a type of word used in poetry that ends with similar sound as the other words in stanza.
Example; good, wood, should, could.
Synonym
Synonym is a word that has similar meaning as another word.
Example: ‘happiness’ is a synonym for ‘joy’.