I guess what I’m wondering is if there’s a word or phrase that denotes the difference between the working definition someone uses in daily life and the formal definition they’d give if asked — Brad Thompson

I think the 'working definition' is what dictionaries offer. The second kind of definition is sometimes called a convention (Popper suggests 'defining' science in terms of falsifiability, but of course none of us own the language, and dictionaries, unlike many philosophers, are descriptive rather than prescriptive.)

I have noticed lately that words (given the way we use language) must exist before their definitions, and concepts must exist before their words. — Brad Thompson

I would say the difference results from the fact that we use words to constrain meanings (or interpretations) in a holistic sense, rather than to define meanings in an atomistic sense.

So dictionary definitions are always awkward and frustrating as they treat language like a game of construction. A word carries some definite content in terms of its semantics. It starts with some complete certainty about the unit of information it represents.

But that is backwards when it comes to how language actually works as a semiotic code.

Instead what is fundamental to interpretation is that a vocal grunt could mean ... anything. It is a unit of radical uncertainty rather than one of absolute, unambiguous, certainty. But within a system of language practice, words come to exert constraints over some state of interpretation.

They are used in ways to limit the confusion between what I have in mind, and you have in mind. Or even when used as the self-adressed speech of our inner voices - our thinking - they are employed to narrow uncertainty about what it is that we actually "have in mind".

So take an example: I saw it again today. That "it" might tell you everything you need to know or pretty much nothing, depending on the degree of experiential context - semantics - we happen to share.

To define it, we could play 20 questions. We could hierarchically constrain the possibility of being uncertain as to what "it" means.

Is it animal, vegetable or mineral? Is it a large or small animal? Is it a domestic or wild large animal? Is it a herbivore or carnivore wild large animal.

Eventually we narrow "it" down to an elephant. But even then there is uncertainty in the word as much as certainty. Is the elephant african or asian? Regular or pygmy? Dead or alive? In the local zoo or running wild in the streets?

So the meaning of any word is potentially inexhaustible as any one word must always retain a fruitful degree of interpretive uncertainty. If a word in fact fitted all exemplar cases too closely, speech would cease to have its creative edge, its flexibility of being able to encompass any number of one off, or particular, locutions.

That is why dictionary definitions are rather hateful. They are language treated as something dead and robotic, rather than lively and endlessly creative.

We can always give a definition if we must. But we are also always aware of how much the idea of absolutely pinning down a word meaning goes against the whole spirit of effective communication.

But within a system of language practice, words come to exert constraints over some state of interpretation. — apokrisis

:up:

Or even when used as the self-adressed speech of our inner voices - our thinking - they are employed to narrow uncertainty about what it is that we actually "have in mind". — apokrisis

I like that you stress narrowing as opposed to elimination...and those scare claws around have in mind.

If a word in fact fitted all exemplar cases too closely, speech would cease to have its creative edge, its flexibility of being able to encompass any number of one off, or particular, locutions. — apokrisis

:up:

the idea of absolutely pinning down a word meaning goes against the whole spirit of effective communication — apokrisis

:up:

That which makes talking worthwhile makes 'perfect' talk impossible. The possibility of recontextualization comes at the cost of an irreducible ambiguity. The 'mind' is interpretation?

:smile:

Lewis Carroll nailed it in Alice Through the Looking Glass..

‘ Humpty Dumpty begins by asking Alice her name and her business:

‘My name is Alice, but––‘

‘It’s a stupid name enough!’ Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. ‘What does it mean?’

‘Must a name mean something?’ Alice asked doubtfully.

‘Of course it must,’ Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh: ‘my name means the shape I am – and a good handsome shape it is too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.’

....

[Humpty Dumpty}…and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents––‘

‘Certainly,’ said Alice.

‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

‘Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’

‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”, Alice objected.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things – that’s all.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all’

So dictionary definitions are always awkward and frustrating as they treat language like a game of construction. A word carries some definite content in terms of its semantics. It starts with some complete certainty about the unit of information it represents. — apokrisis

I very much doubt a lexicographer would agree with you on that.

I very much doubt a lexicographer would agree with you on that. — bert1

A pedant would surely disagree with me. But amusingly ... "Lexicographers define words but still lack a clear and unambiguous understanding of the word lexicographer."

And in case you haven't considered the art involved....

...the traditional dictionary definition, although it bears all the trappings of authority, is in fact a highly stylized, overly compressed and often tentative stab at capturing the consensus on what a particular word “means.” A good dictionary derives its reputation from careful analysis of examples of words in use, in the form of sentences, also called citations. The lexicographer looks at as many citations for each word as she can find (or, more likely, can review in the time allotted) and then creates what is, in effect, a dense abstract, collapsing into a few general statements all the ways in which the word behaves. A definition is as convention-bound as a sonnet and usually more compact. Writing one is considered, at least by anyone who has ever tried it, something of an art.

Absolutely it's an art. And it's a descriptive rough snapshot, and doesn't pretend (or shouldn't) to offer prescriptive certainties.

Absolutely it's an art. And it's a descriptive rough snapshot, and doesn't pretend (or shouldn't) to offer prescriptive certainties. — bert1

Would you now expect a lexicographer to agree with your re-statement? Did you suddenly change your mind? :up:

Yes I would. And I didn't change my mind. Again, I think we are speaking at cross purposes. It sounded to me as if you changed your mind, but no matter.

It sounded to me as if you changed your mind, but no matter. — bert1

I was talking about the folk who pedantically demand dictionary definitions in - for example - philosophical discussions. Those who have to deal with words professionally, like lexicographers, would understand that definitions can only be guides and not actually definite.

And in case you haven't considered the art involved.... — apokrisis

I find that this is often overlooked. Of course lexicographers are just people who go to school to study the art/science of creating these very strange books known as dictionaries. Unless they are equivalent to high priests, they merely articulate/condense what words do in the wild. The art is to minimize the violence involved in decontextualization. As others have noted, you have to already be 'in' a living language to use a dictionary, for words are defined only in terms of other words. The signified terns out to be (or at least to seem like) nothing but more signifiers.

To define it, we could play 20 questions. We could hierarchically constrain the possibility of being uncertain as to what "it" means.

Is it animal, vegetable or mineral? Is it a large or small animal? Is it a domestic or wild large animal? Is it a herbivore or carnivore wild large animal. — apokrisis

As others have noted, a thing can be described in terms of everything that it is not. Difference/distinction plays a central role.

As others have noted, a thing can be described in terms of everything that it is not. Difference/distinction plays a central role. — jas0n

Yep. That is the definition of a constraint. It does not specify the exact nature of some action. It instead narrows the scope of the possible by eliminating every other alternative.

It does not specify the exact nature of some action. It instead narrows the scope of the possible by eliminating every other alternative. — apokrisis

I am reminded of the real numbers being defined as systems of nested intervals of rational numbers (Bachmann's largely forgotten vision.) The real number is progressively but never finally specified by the ejection of rational numbers from consideration/possibility.

I guess what I’m wondering is if there’s a word or phrase that denotes the difference between the working definition someone uses in daily life and the formal definition they’d give if asked, — Brad Thompson

Babies learn language long before they learn to read. People don't give children definitions, they talk to them, tell them things, ask them questions. Babies and little kids build their worlds at the same time they build their language. Their, our, minds are built that way. People learn the meaning of language by using it. Meaning is usage.

Definitions come much later. People don't need to know what hamburgers are, what to call their dogs. We only need definitions so we can know what "onomatopoeia" and "dorsal fin" mean.

Right, that’s what I’m saying. I’m also saying that the difference between a working definition and a formal definition has massive pedagogical and societal consequences. I’m wondering if those consequences have been/are being discussed, and if any work has been done addressing possible ways to help people reconcile the two.

that’s what I’m saying. — Brad Thompson

I don't think you and I are saying the same thing. Definition is defined as a written or spoken statement of the meaning of a word or phrase. It seems that you are equating "working definition" and "meaning." Is that correct? A meaning and a definition are not equivalent.

I’m also saying that the difference between a working definition and a formal definition has massive pedagogical and societal consequences. — Brad Thompson

I don't see how this is true.

Pragmatic rhetorical language theoretical philosophical text for you! (university stuff)

I don’t know a lot about how words came about but I do know a little something else about langue, meaning, definitions, human nature and psychology that might help you in your philosopyhsing.

Language is constructed with syntax ((form(x and, y then z)) and semantics (meaning) and is always prone to misinterpretations stemming from ambiguity and lack of clarity in constructed sentences. This is especially true in communication because people are, a lot of times very unclear. There are for some languages, a goverment institution that gives out lexicons and such deciding what words are "real" words and what they mean. What people think a word means is often based on their schooling, upbringing, socioeconomic background, circles etc.

If you want to be understood you need to be aware of what words generally mean, but also what they mean, and could mean to the recipient at hand. Central to this is the concept doxa; basically everything you hold as a truth that is not necessarily true. Example: what does the word fate mean.

I find it silly how a lot of debate and philosophy usually boils down to a debate over semantics, (what does this word mean? etc.) It means whatever the recipient thinks it means, always has, always will. The romans did a lot of thinking on this. Central to it is also identity, group thinking, ideology, metafors and so on.

Words can as you said bring about emotion, and this can be understood with common sense and does not require deep evolutionary psychological thinking. Say you are at war and someone mentions the other country? This may bring about feelings of fear, hope, national pride. Politicians use this kind of thinking all the time.

When it comes to art that's a different beast entirely. As anti-art (art made to not be art) was being considered art by the main stream during the da-daist wave, one could argue; because art specifically made not to be art, is now considered art, then anything can be art. At least this is what you say if you talk to a museum guide. Before that the conceptual definition of art was much more narrow if you understand what i mean.

Talking about words and groups the word sociolect is one to know. It's a way to speak used by a group and can contain rad slang words. Think surfer dudes riding gnarly waves. If a group of any size decides a word Φ means something then it does, later that word may enter the dictionary, later it may become frooptwwyth.

I have noticed lately that words (given the way we use language) must exist before their definitions, and concepts must exist before their words. — Brad Thompson

This is wrong. If words existed before definitions then why do different languages that use different words have the same definition? How is it that different string of scribbles mean the same thing? To translate different words from different languages means the different words have the same meaning. We're not sharing words. We're sharing meanings.

What does the word, "word" mean? Seems like scribbles existed before words and "word" existed after to distinguish different scribbles from other scribbles.

Seems like the acts we engage in existed prior to the verbs we use to identify them and characteristics existed before the adjectives we use to categorize them.

If a word in fact fitted all exemplar cases too closely, speech would cease to have its creative edge, its flexibility of being able to encompass any number of one off, or particular, locutions. — apokrisis

You seem to be conflating what some scribble could arbitrarily mean when not being used with with what it means when it used. I'm sure you have something specific you mean when you use your words, or else what are you actually saying?

The question is absolutely mind-blowing! As far as I can tell, definition is objective, but, for better or worse, meaning is subjective.

There's a definition for the word "coffee" but I recall someone telling me that when a girl offers you coffee, she means something else :wink:

Definition Meaning is use. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

Well, relatively specific. And relatively general. Depending on the needs of the occasion. As I said.

Well, relatively specific. And relatively general. Depending on the needs of the occasion. As I said. — apokrisis

And as I said, words are only specific when used and arbitrary when not. The only example I can think of when words are "used" and the meaning is not specific is when a politician speaks in generalities and platitudes, essentially not saying anything useful. Another example might be the word salad and misuse of terms that creates the philosophical problems one claims they are attempting to solve that appears on these forums regularly. So I see arbitrary use of words as a misuse of words.

I cannot pinpoint at what point in that story where it happened, but I am confident that the category “art” already exists in this hypothetical primate society.

Just like instincts come before knowledge, the heart grows before the brain, an atom already has electrons, so too does language have its own inherent characteristics.

I guess what I’m wondering is if there’s a word or phrase that denotes the difference between the working definition someone uses in daily life and the formal definition they’d give if asked...

Are you looking for the word, "vernacular"?

...if this phenomenon has been studied in depth recently, and if there are any behavioral interventions that can help a person to bridge that gap, or at least be aware of it. Any help, and anything I might have missed, will be greatly appreciated. — Brad Thompson

I would study linguistics if I were interested in a deep understanding of language, especially syntax, how sentences are formed, etc. That should give you a good grasp about something as simple as definitions. I've never studied that stuff so I can't really say more than that.

So I see arbitrary use of words as a misuse of words. — Harry Hindu

Sure. You see what you want to see. Words are flexible like that. You can misrepresent my words and convince yourself that was specifically what I was trying to say. Go for it. :up:

Talking about words and groups the word sociolect is one to know. — trogdor

:up: Hadn't encountered that before, very useful term. Rad indeed. (Or sick. Or cool.....)

In some schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism, it is said that Buddha's actual spoken words (i.e. all of the content preserved in the Buddhist scriptures) are only baubles or toys to attract the ignorant. His actual meaning is forever unspoken and communicated in silence. (This is the gist of the legendary origin of Zen Buddhism in the Flower Sermon.)

In some schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism, it is said that Buddha's actual spoken words (i.e. all of the content preserved in the Buddhist scriptures) are only baubles or toys to attract the ignorant. His actual meaning is forever unspoken and communicated in silence. (This is the gist of the legendary origin of Zen Buddhism in the Flower Sermon.) — Wayfarer

I don't think this is what Derrida had in mind when he said 'there is nothing outside of the text' :wink:

Perhaps not although there's always this.

Thanks - this is actually something I have wondered about.

In some schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism, it is said that Buddha's actual spoken words (i.e. all of the content preserved in the Buddhist scriptures) are only baubles or toys to attract the ignorant. His actual meaning is forever unspoken and communicated in silence. (This is the gist of the legendary origin of Zen Buddhism in the Flower Sermon.) — Wayfarer

Both Buddhism and Christianity require the relation of scripture to the context of a single, exemplary life for their actual meaning.

Early language was ideographic: consisting of logical signs for qualitative ideas; any emotional aspect or affect was considered evident in the human element of an exchange. Meaning is usage, and value is subjective.

Conceptual language developed later, enabling users to define their intended meaning to an extent without relying on the human element. Affect was increasingly incorporated into the language itself, often as a tool for manipulation, and ‘official’ or dictionary definitions became necessary to determine meaning from usage that often includes cultural perceptions of value or potential. Language took on a ‘life’ of its own, evolved in interaction with humanity, its meaning increasingly indeterminate and subjective.

It is this ‘official value’ attributed to names and concepts that Laozi cautioned against in the Tao Te Ching. His view was that our most stable and simplistic understanding of the world consisted of recognising our own affected relation to a consistently logical structure of qualitative ideas.

In all three traditions, meaning is use and the value/significance of a concept is subjective. A definition may be a suitable starting point for discussion, but it’s not the truth of language, whose meaning comes to life through perspective and interaction.