What does definition of a word mean

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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. At least one thing is stated to be a member of the set being defined; this is sometimes called a «base set».
2. 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.
3. All other things are excluded from the set

For instance, we could define a natural number as follows (after Peano):

1. «0» is a natural number.
2. 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».
3. 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:

1. A parent is an ancestor.
2. A parent of an ancestor is an ancestor.
3. 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]}

1. A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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

Notes

References

External links

• 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).

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

¹Sapir
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

¹Meillet
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]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

Asked by: Margarette Brekke Sr.

Score: 5/5
(23 votes)

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term. Definitions can be classified into two large categories, intensional definitions and extensional definitions. Another important category of definitions is the class of ostensive definitions, which convey the meaning of a term by pointing out examples.

What is meant by the word defined?

adjective. determined, fixed, or clearly marked out as to extent, outline, or form: an itchy red rash with sharply defined edges.

What are the 3 types of definition?

All definitions attempt to explain or clarify a term. This lesson will introduce you to the three different types of definitions: formal, informal, and extended.

What is definition give an example?

In modern usage, a definition is something, typically expressed in words, that attaches a meaning to a word or group of words. … 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.

What are the 4 types of definition?

Here are just four among the many types of definitions: (1) Definition by synonym; (2) Ostensive definitions; (3) Stipulative definitions, and. (4) Analytical definitions.

44 related questions found

Definition and meaning are two words we use to explain the sense of a word or concept. In other words, they describe what that particular concept means. Definition is the statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially as given in a dictionary. Meaning explains a word or concept in a very general sense. This is the main difference between definition and meaning. Both meaning and definition help us to understand what is inferred by a word.

In this article, we are going to look at,

1. What is a Definition? – Definition, Scope, Categories, and Examples

2. What is a Meaning? – Definition, Explanation, Categories, and Examples

3. Key Differences Between Definition and Meaning

What is a Definition

The Oxford dictionary defines definition as “an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something” and the Merriam-Webster defines it as “a statement expressing the essential nature of something”. A definition is usually the meaning given in a dictionary. For example, let’s look at the definition of the word dog in the dictionary.

Dog: A domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractile claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. (Oxford dictionary)

This definition includes the physical features as well as behavioral patterns of dogs to define the term dog. The characteristics listed here distinguish dogs from other mammals. Thus, it enables the read to understand what is implied by the word.

Definitions can be broadly categorized into two groups known as intentional definitions and extensional definitions. Intentional definitions try to give the essence of the word by specifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for an item to belong to a member of a specific set.  For example,

Bachelor: a man who is not and has never been married

Extensional definitions, on the other hand, define an item by listing every item that belongs to that particular set. For example,

The seven deadly sins: the sins of pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth

What is Meaning

Meaning explains what a particular word or concept implies. The Oxford Dictionary defines meaning as “what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action” and Merriam-Webster defines it as “the idea that is represented by a word, phrase, etc.” The meaning can refer to both implied and explicit significance of a word or concept.

A word may have only one definition; definitions provided by different sources may contain the same message, albeit with different wordings. However, a word might have different meanings to different individuals. There are different levels of meaning. The same word can even have contrary meanings to two readers. This happens because meaning is connected with our emotions and experience. Meaning can be basically divided into two categories known as connotation and denotation. Denotation is the surface meaning or literal meaning of a word. Connotation is the personal, emotional and cultural associations of a word.

Difference Between Definition and Meaning

Definition

Definition: Definition is a statement expressing the essential nature of something.

Meaning: Meaning is the idea that is represented by a word, phrase, etc.

Scope

Definition: A word usually has only one definition.

Meaning: A word can have different meanings.

Classification

Definition: Can be broadly categorized under two classifications; intentional definition, extensional definition.

Meaning: Can be basically divided into two categories: connotation, denotation

Image Courtesy: Pixbay

About the Author: Hasa

Hasa has a BA degree in English, French and Translation studies. She is currently reading for a Masters degree in English. Her areas of interests include literature, language, linguistics and also food.

Meaning is that abstract, fuzzy thing in your head that a word or a phrase represents. It includes what the word denotes and what the word connotes, but it also carries associations in memory, the context in which it occurs at the present and in which it had occurred in the past, class , regionality, ethnicity — a whole panoply of things that, in the end, prevent most words from ever meaning precisely the same thing to two different people.

A definition of a word is an explicit statement in other terms that is intended to capture the meaning of the word. In a formal, sense one should be able to replace the word with the contents of its definition, but often the complexity of meaning of an individual word is too great to be captured in a short sentence.

Ordinary language is, at best, a tool that allows us to convey a very good approximation of what we mean to others. (We’ll leave the narrowly-defined and deliberately precise professional and technical vocabularies aside for the moment.) Obviously, there isn’t going to be a lot of communication going on if we can’t reach some sort of agreement on the broad meaning of words. If I use red to talk about a small furry creature that you would call Thursday — well, that’s how wars get started. So we agree to call it a hamster for no good reason other than that we can agree on the word. We can express that broad agreement in a definition, an alternate word or phrase that means approximately the same thing to both of us. Still, the word hamster means something completely different to my sister (who loved her pet dearly and was devasted by its passing) than it does to me (who was annoyed by the racket it made, disgusted by the droppings it left everywhere, and who had to tear the ductwork apart to retrieve the thing after it made its way through the cold air return register), even if we agree on the definition of the word, and therefore the looser sense of the word meaning.

A dictionary is a collection of those alternate words and descriptive phrases, those definitions that we’ve agreed upon. A very good dictionary may define a word well enough that you begin to get a sense of its meaning, but ultimately the word will mean whatever that abstract, fuzzy thing in your head that it points to tells you it means.

Princeton’s WordNetRate this definition:3.7 / 28 votes

1. definitionnoun

   a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol

2. definitionnoun

   clarity of outline

   «exercise had given his muscles superior definition»

WiktionaryRate this definition:3.7 / 14 votes

1. definitionnoun

   A statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol (dictionary definitions).

2. definitionnoun

   A statement expressing the essential nature of something; formulation

3. definitionnoun

   The action or process of defining.

4. definitionnoun

   The act of defining; determination of the limits.

5. definitionnoun

   A product of defining.

6. definitionnoun

   The action or power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear.

   Her comic genius is beyond definition.

7. definitionnoun

   Clarity of visual presentation, distinctness of outline or detail.

8. definitionnoun

   Clarity, especially of musical sound in reproduction.

9. definitionnoun

   Sharp demarcation of outlines or limits.

   A jacket with distinct waist definition.

10. definitionnoun

    The degree to which individual muscles are distinct on the body.

11. definitionnoun

    A statement which provides a previous delcaration with a value or body of a subroutine (in the case of function).

12. Etymology: From diffinicioun, from definition, from dēfīnītiō, from dēfīniō.

Samuel Johnson’s DictionaryRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

1. Definitionnoun

   Etymology: definitio, Latin; definition, French.

   1. A short description of a thing by its properties.

   I drew my definition of poetical wit from my particular consideration of him; for propriety of thoughts and words are only to be found in him; and, where they are proper, they will be delightful.
   Dryden.

   2. Decision; determination.3. [In logick.] The explication of the essence of a thing by its kind and difference.

   What is man? Not a reasonable animal merely; for that is not an adequate and distinguishing definition.
   Richard Bentley, Serm.

WikipediaRate this definition:5.0 / 1 vote

1. Definition

   A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols). 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). 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.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.

Webster DictionaryRate this definition:5.0 / 1 vote

1. Definitionnoun

   the act of defining; determination of the limits; as, a telescope accurate in definition

2. Definitionnoun

   act of ascertaining and explaining the signification; a description of a thing by its properties; an explanation of the meaning of a word or term; as, the definition of «circle;» the definition of «wit;» an exact definition; a loose definition

3. Definitionnoun

   description; sort

4. Definitionnoun

   an exact enunciation of the constituents which make up the logical essence

5. Definitionnoun

   distinctness or clearness, as of an image formed by an optical instrument; precision in detail

FreebaseRate this definition:2.6 / 5 votes

1. Definition

   A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term. The term to be defined is the definiendum. The term may have many different senses and multiple meanings. For each meaning, a definiens is a cluster of words that defines that term. As an example: To successfully define the word «Vegan», the definiendum must be given a definiens.
   A definition will vary in aspects like precision or popularity. There are also different types of definitions with different purposes and focuses.
   A chief difficulty in the management of definitions is the necessity of using other terms that are already understood or whose definitions are easily obtainable or demonstrable.
   A dictionary definition typically contains additional details about a word, such as an etymology and the language or languages of its origin, or obsolete meanings.

Editors ContributionRate this definition:2.0 / 2 votes

1. definition

   To define or express the meaning of a word, term, creation, sign or symbol.

   Definition is so important when it comes to a dictionary or the gift of lexicography.

   Submitted by MaryC on January 27, 2020  

Matched Categories

1. • Distinctness
   • Explanation

British National Corpus

1. Spoken Corpus Frequency

   Rank popularity for the word ‘Definition’ in Spoken Corpus Frequency: #2163

2. Written Corpus Frequency

   Rank popularity for the word ‘Definition’ in Written Corpus Frequency: #2390

3. Nouns Frequency

   Rank popularity for the word ‘Definition’ in Nouns Frequency: #760

How to pronounce Definition?

How to say Definition in sign language?

Numerology

1. Chaldean Numerology

   The numerical value of Definition in Chaldean Numerology is: 5

2. Pythagorean Numerology

   The numerical value of Definition in Pythagorean Numerology is: 6

Examples of Definition in a Sentence

1. Daniel Vaughn:

   My definition of barbecue has only expanded. The more that I explore the subject, the more the subject grows.

2. Taylor Swift:

   And let me just say that the definition of the toxic male privilege in our industry is people saying,’ But he’s always been nice to me,’ when I’m raising valid concerns about artists and their rights to own their music, and, of course, he’s nice to you. If you’re in this room, you have something he needs.

3. Behnam Ben Taleblu:

   Relieving sanctions on entities active in funding Irans revolutionary foreign policy, especially under the auspices of trying to claw back a fatally flawed deal that added to Tehrans coffers, would be the definition of a self-imposed strategic setback.

4. Doug Kass:

   More and more money is going to passive products and strategies and away from active managers — who have failed to meet the returns of the indices, passive products are by definition not as energetic — it is a strategy that trades less actively — compared to active managers.

5. Alyssa Rhoden:

   Because the surface of Mimas is heavily cratered, we thought it was just a frozen block of ice, iWOWs, such as Enceladus and Europa, tend to be fractured and show other signs of geologic activity. Turns out, Mimas’ surface was tricking us, and our new understanding has greatly expanded the definition of a potentially habitable world in our solar system and beyond.

Popularity rank by frequency of use

---

Translations for Definition

From our Multilingual Translation Dictionary

• تعريف, تَعْرِيْفArabic
• билдәләмәBashkir
• дэфіні́цыя, вызначэ́нне, азначэ́ннеBelarusian
• определе́ние, я́сност, дефини́ция, определя́не, ря́зкост, раздели́телна спосо́бностBulgarian
• definicióCatalan, Valencian
• definiceCzech
• opløsning, definition, gengivelse, opløsningsevneDanish
• Konturentreue, Trennschärfe, Schärfe, Begriffserklärung, Scharfzeichnung, Definierung, Definition, PräzisionGerman
• ορισμόςGreek
• difinoEsperanto
• definiciónSpanish
• تعریفPersian
• tarkkuus, määritelmä, kirkkaus, määrittely, erottuvuus, erottelukyky, rajausFinnish
• définitionFrench
• gléineIrish
• comharrachadh, sònrachadhScottish Gaelic
• definiciónGalician
• הגדרהHebrew
• परिभाषाHindi
• definisyonHaitian Creole
• meghatározásHungarian
• definisiIndonesian
• definitezza, il definire, livello di definizione, definizioneItalian
• 定義, 語義Japanese
• និយមន័យKhmer
• 정의, 定義Korean
• پێناسه‌Kurdish
• definitionLatin
• definicija, apibrėžimasLithuanian
• дефини́цијаMacedonian
• definiëring, definitie, omschrijving, scherpteDutch
• definicjaPolish
• nitidez, descritibilidade, definição, delineação, clarezaPortuguese
• forță de definire, definire, definiție, [[grad]] [[de]] [[definire]]Romanian
• чёткость, определе́ние, ре́зкость, разреше́ние, дефини́ция, я́сность, объясне́ниеRussian
• definicija, дефиницијаSerbo-Croatian
• definíciaSlovak
• definicijaSlovene
• definition, upplösning, definierandeSwedish
• வரையறைTamil
• คำนิยามThai
• kahuluganTagalog
• билгеләмәTatar
• ви́значення, дефіні́ція, озна́ченняUkrainian
• 定義, định nghĩaVietnamese
• 定義Chinese

Get even more translations for Definition »

Translation

Find a translation for the Definition definition in other languages:

Select another language:

• — Select —
• 简体中文 (Chinese — Simplified)
• 繁體中文 (Chinese — Traditional)
• Español (Spanish)
• Esperanto (Esperanto)
• 日本語 (Japanese)
• Português (Portuguese)
• Deutsch (German)
• العربية (Arabic)
• Français (French)
• Русский (Russian)
• ಕನ್ನಡ (Kannada)
• 한국어 (Korean)
• עברית (Hebrew)
• Gaeilge (Irish)
• Українська (Ukrainian)
• اردو (Urdu)
• Magyar (Hungarian)
• मानक हिन्दी (Hindi)
• Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Italiano (Italian)
• தமிழ் (Tamil)
• Türkçe (Turkish)
• తెలుగు (Telugu)
• ภาษาไทย (Thai)
• Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
• Čeština (Czech)
• Polski (Polish)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Românește (Romanian)
• Nederlands (Dutch)
• Ελληνικά (Greek)
• Latinum (Latin)
• Svenska (Swedish)
• Dansk (Danish)
• Suomi (Finnish)
• فارسی (Persian)
• ייִדיש (Yiddish)
• հայերեն (Armenian)
• Norsk (Norwegian)
• English (English)

Word of the Day

Would you like us to send you a FREE new word definition delivered to your inbox daily?

---

Citation

Use the citation below to add this definition to your bibliography:

Last Updated:
30 Mar 2023
— Updated example sentences