WHAT DO WE MEAN BY THE WORDS WE USE?


An essay in simple language about a problem which arises when we try to think clearly - what exactly do we mean by the words we're using? When we think about important things like Truth and Love and Justice, we wonder about their essential nature and ask ourselves what these words really mean. We often find the words seem to be indefinable. We start to wonder whether we have a problem about the things themselves, or just a problem with how to describe them.

 


CONTENTS


INTRODUCTION

 

Difficulties about the meanings of words are often central to many philosophical problems and disagreements. We can reduce these difficulties by clarifying and specifying the meanings of the words we use.

 

But some words can be hard to define - especially words of particular interest to philosophers, like "Truth", "Reality", "Consciousness" and "Justice". Indeed, it's often said that these words are indefinable in principle. We’ll see why this view is mistaken and discuss how to deal with these problems of definition.

 

We’ll also consider whether some philosophical disagreements are really about facts or whether they’re merely about the way the facts should best be described.

 


THE MEANING OF A WORD OR PHRASE

 

When you use a word, it's associated in your mind with fragments of memories of your experiences, with other words, and with various ideas and feelings. These mental associations may be precise or vague, many or few. The word "meaning" refers to this cloudy network of associations.

 


WORDS ARE SYMBOLS

 

Many of the simple everyday words are really names given to the elements of our experience, such as the things around us and their characteristics. When we talk and think, words are used as symbols for these elements of our experience. And of course they're also used as symbols for more complex ideas like "intelligence" and "history".

 


THE EMOTIONAL ASSOCIATIONS OF WORDS

 

Many of the mental associations with a word relate to attitudes and feelings. It's important to be aware of and to distinguish these associations from those which correspond to observable external things.

 

Of course, it's desirable to try to eliminate emotion-laden words from a rational discussion. We can more effectively discuss controversial subjects like pornography, capital punishment and drug addiction, if we can concern ourselves with observable facts, without the distortions arising from strong personal feelings.

 

Unfortunately, it's not always practicable to eliminate words with emotional meanings from our discussions. But if we fail to recognise and accept the emotional associations of the words we do use, we may confuse ourselves and others.


THE VARIABILITY OF MEANING

 

There are great variations between the associations which many words have for different people, arising from the differences between their experiences. For example, "marriage" has different meanings to a romantic young girl in love and the middle-aged wife of a violent alcoholic.

 

The meanings of words change with time and they vary from place to place and between different social groups. (This mainly depends on the amount of communication taking place; the more people talk to each other, the more they use words in the same way.)

 

And some words have different meanings for the same person on different occasions, depending on the situation and the context. "Rear" means different things when you're thinking about bringing up a child, walking round a house, or breaking in a wild horse. "Love" means different things when you're talking about a lover, a child, or a cat.

 

Clearly, the meaning of a word is not always fixed and well-defined. On the contrary it's often variable and sometimes quite vague.

 


LEARNING WHAT WORDS MEAN

 

We can clarify the problems of definition by first reminding ourselves of how we normally learn what words mean, i.e. how we form appropriate mental associations with words.

 

We all know how a child learns to talk. Mummy points to a dog and says "dog".... "dog".... dog", till one of them gets sick of it. When he finally points to the dog and says "dog", he's rewarded with approval, and with more for every repeat performance. The word becomes associated in his mind with dogs and with his memories of dogs: what the dogs he knows look like, sound like, smell like, feel like, the one that always licks him - and how good that makes him feel, the one that bit him, how it hurt, how frightened he is of that dog.

 

In this way, the memories of various fragments of experience (including emotional experience) start to become associated with words, in great complexity. These associations continue to accumulate throughout our lives.

 

The child notices the similarities between all these animals Mummy's been pointing at. He then applies the word "dog" to other things he hasn't heard so named but which possess these similarities.

 

Parents and others correct him when he uses the word wrongly: when he points to the cat and proudly says "dog" they shake their heads and say "No" like they do when he's naughty, and then say "cat".... "cat".... "cat". In this way he learns to distinguish the things a word is used for, from those similar things it's not used for, and so limit his over-generalisation.

 

Later, he continues to learn the meanings of new words by the same process, but without deliberate instruction. When he hears (and later reads) words he doesn't know, he notices and remembers the way they're used. As he later hears and sees them used in different ways, he continually amends his concepts in accordance with this subsequent experience.

 

By the time he starts to progress beyond the basic common words, the child has already grasped the idea of language and how it's used. We can start to teach him the meanings of new words using language alone, i.e. we can define the new words using the words he already knows. The mental associations which constitute meaning start to include words, and they are the most important part of the meaning of some words. But non-verbal associations continue to accumulate around these words also - fragments of memories of sights, sounds, feelings and other experiences.

 

This process of language acquisition, the way in which these mental associations with words are formed and extended and modified, isn't exact or deliberate, and its haphazard nature is one reason why words mean different things to different people.

 


THE TWO DIFFERENT NEEDS SERVED BY DEFINITION

 

There are two quite different needs served by definition. The first is simply a need to teach or clarify the customary meaning of a word.

 

The other is a need to stipulate the particular meaning of a word which is to be used for a specific purpose. This need usually arises when the variability and lack of precision of customary meanings creates problems. It also arises when there's no suitable word to express exactly what we want to say. Then we have to modify or limit the meaning of an existing word or make up a new word.

 

It's important to recognise which of these two needs we're trying to meet, because as we'll see, different methods of definition are appropriate to each. We'll also see that the two objectives give rise to different sorts of difficulties. So if we're clear about whether we're talking about customary meanings or specifying a meaning for a particular purpose, we can avoid those difficulties which only arise with the other of these two aims.

 


ESTABLISHING THE CUSTOMARY MEANING OF A WORD

 

To do this we have to link the word with the mental associations customarily involved in its use. At best this includes a discussion of all the customary variations of meaning, including the attitudes and emotions normally involved in its use.

 

However, some words have so many associations, and such vague and variable meanings, that it can be very difficult to do this really adequately. That's why dictionary definitions are often less than satisfactory. And although we usually expect definitions to be brief, even a reasonably satisfactory dictionary definition of some words often has to be fairly long.

 

Some of the customary associations with a word may be quite inconsistent with each other. Sometimes they may be related to a common misconception of the facts to which the word relates. A satisfactory definition of the customary meaning of a word doesn't try to pretend that these errors and inconsistencies don't exist.

 


SPECIFYING THE MEANING OF A WORD TO BE USED FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE

 

Confusion often arises because different people attach different meanings to words, and because words are used with different meanings on different occasions - even during the course of a single discussion. We simply can't think or communicate clearly, or engage in meaningful discussion, unless we use words with clear and consistent meanings. At the centre of many arguments are words whose customary meanings are especially vague and variable. Confusion about the meanings of these words is often a significant source of the disagreement, which may be more apparent than real. The difficulty can be avoided by clearly stipulating the meanings of important words before we begin. This is especially important in serious discussion.

 

Providing such definitions presents quite different problems from defining customary meanings.

 

When specifying a meaning for a particular purpose we may just select from and limit the customary meanings of a word. For example, for the purposes of a political discussion we might agree to define "Liberty" as "the freedom to do anything not prohibited by the laws of the land" - (though anyone who has lived in a dictatorship would naturally find this definition unhelpful).

 

Or we may modify a customary meaning, e.g. when the meaning of the word "trauma" was extended from the concept of a physical wound to include emotional injuries also.

 

It may even be convenient to make up a completely new word for a new concept. A made-up word may be introduced simply to avoid the unwanted customary associations (factual or emotional) carried by an existing word. Then they aren't dragged into the discussion to cause confusion. For example, some confusion has been caused by adopting the word "Assertiveness" to refer to the ability to stand up for yourself without arousing anxiety or hostility in others or yourself. It was the most neutral word available. But it carries associations of being "pushy" in a way that arouses resentment and disapproval. An alternative might have been to make up a new word like say "Assertivity" to avoid these customary associations. But the trouble is that newly made-up words are an irritating additional burden for the mind to carry. (They also make you feel someone's trying desperately to impress you.)

 

A newly defined word may be merely an abbreviation of language, e.g. when the word "projection" was defined as "the process by which characteristics belonging to oneself are attributed to others". But this abbreviation can be very valuable. It's the reason for the creation of most specialist jargon. Jargon is infuriating to non-specialists but it enables specialists to communicate complex information to each other in fewer words. Defining new words for complex ideas also enables us to hold a lot more information in our heads at one time. And this makes it easier to recognise and remember significant relationships within a large volume of complex information. That's what we have to do to gain a real understanding of that information.

 

There are areas in which we need concepts which are especially precise in meaning, and capable of certain application beyond any possibility of even partial misunderstanding - e.g. for scientific, technical, or administrative use. For these purposes we need concepts which correspond to measurable things. Very specific definitions can be used to achieve this end, but such definitions often have to be extremely arbitrary. For example, immigration statistics can define "permanent immigrants" as "all those who state that they intend to stay in the country longer than one year". But there are dangers in using these precise arbitrary definitions.

 


THE DANGERS OF PRECISE DEFINITION

 

If we want to think clearly it's important to use words in ways consistent with the facts that they describe. We're not doing this if we use sharply defined concepts which don't correspond to sharp distinctions in the real world.

 

But that's just what the statistician has to do when he defines "permanent immigrants". In situations where this can't be avoided, all we can do is try not to forget that statements using the measurable concept defined aren't as precise as they seem.

 

It's often tempting to over-simplify a problem by "seeing things in black and white" when in fact there are many shades of grey between them. For example, we're doing this when we talk about war and peace, democracy and dictatorship, effectiveness and incompetence. In practice we find situations and conditions falling somewhere between such simple extremes.

 

Using words like these confuses our thinking. In serious discussion it's desirable to use more appropriate words to describe the facts concerned - or at least to bear in mind the implied over-simplification.

 


METHODS OF TEACHING AND SPECIFYING MEANING

 

The word "definition" usually means specifying the meaning of a word using only other words the meaning of which is already known. That's what dictionaries do.

 

But it's worth reminding ourselves that this isn't the only way of teaching and specifying meaning, and that the meanings of all the common words are not learnt in this way. Rather they are learnt naturally in the way already described. Attempting to specify the meanings of these words just by using other words, is on the contrary unnatural and artificial. We only define the less common words this way.

 

Showing Examples:

 

This is the commonest way of teaching meaning. We simply accelerate the natural learning process by showing the learner one or more of the type of thing referred to and allowing him to form a concept in the usual way.

 

Naming Examples:

 

Showing the actual things may be unnecessary if the learner can recall having seen or experienced them previously and if the "teacher" can prompt this recall by giving examples - naming the individual things or types of things referred to. (e.g. "mass media" could be defined as "TV, radio, newspapers and magazines").

 

Emotional Associations:

 

Emotional associations can be conveyed in corresponding ways, either by arousing the relevant experiences in the learner or by referring him to his previous experiences.

For example, we could play soft music and speak gently and soothingly to someone, and if this appears to make them calm and relaxed, name the emotional effect as "serenity". Or we could simply define "serenity" as the emotional experience usually aroused by quietness, comfort, and freedom from fear in a pleasant but unexciting situation.

 

Describing Things:

 

The major shortcoming of the above methods of definition is that the learner may form a concept different from that intended. It is therefore sometimes appropriate to support these methods by indicating which characteristics of the things shown or named are to be included in the meaning of the word defined and which characteristics are to be excluded from the meaning. e.g. the above definition of "mass media" could be improved by defining them as "all the vehicles for regularly communicating information to very many people at the same time, e.g. TV, radio, newspapers and magazines".

 

A word can also be defined in this way alone. This involves breaking down the meaning of the word to a number of simpler concepts which together make it up. This is the natural method of defining words which represent complex ideas built up from simpler concepts. But it obviously can't be used to define words for those elements of experience which are so simple and basic that they can't be broken down into anything more simple and basic, e.g. the words for the various basic elements of experience such as "red", "cold", "heavy", and "loud", and for common substances such as air, fire, and water.

 

We don't usually specify all the mental associations included in the meaning of the word defined. This is often just not practicable because these associations are so extensive. Consider for example the incredible richness of detail of the mental associations of simple words like "cat", "tree" and "car". This wealth of associations is held in the mind without being analysed - as it would have to be in order to set it out verbally. Definitions can avoid the need to specify all these associations by relating the defined word to other words whose meanings are already known (in all their considerable detail) e.g. "pragmatic" means "concerned with practical rather than theoretical matters".

 

The task of setting out the characteristics or qualities to be included in the meaning of the word to be defined is often simplified by stating that the word refers to a specified type of a more general class of things. It is then only necessary to specify those characteristics which distinguish the type of thing defined from the general class. (e.g. "A triangle is a plane figure bounded by three straight sides.")

 

Combinations of the Above Methods

 

As we've already seen, combinations of the above methods are often used, especially combinations of the methods of giving an analysis of the meaning and giving examples. e.g. "A planet is one of the heavenly bodies revolving in an orbit around the Sun, viz. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto." This combined method is obviously more effective than using one method alone.

 


WHEN WE SPECIFY THE MEANING OF A WORD FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WE HAVE A FREE CHOICE

 

You can argue about whether someone’s definition of the customary meaning of a word is correct or wrong, but when someone specifies the meaning to be used for a particular purpose, that’s a different matter. People often don’t realise this (or don’t keep it in mind).

 

There are no fixed and necessary relationships between the meanings of the words to be used in a particular discussion and the elements of the real world that those words are being used to refer to. The same applies when the words relate to abstract concepts. We're free to choose any meaning we find useful for our purpose. (Though of course it's confusing when someone chooses a meaning very different from the customary meaning.)

 

So it's not worth while to argue about the validity of the definition someone has chosen to use for a specified particular purpose, because such a definition can't be right or wrong; it can only be useful or unhelpful. It's not a statement which can be true or false, but a request to understand a specified word in a specified way.

 

For example, if someone defines Love as "an intense affection for, and sexual attraction towards, another person", then one can argue about how valid that is as a statement of the customary meaning of the word, or about whether that was the intended meaning in a particular context, or about how useful it will be as a definition in a particular discussion. But there's no point in arguing about whether the definition is right or wrong.

 

Why Is This So Often Forgotten?

 

One major reason is that for the everyday uses of language, there's a fairly simple one-to-one-to-one relationship between a word, the mental associations of that word, and the thing to which the word refers. Because much of the meaning of most words is fairly fixed, we easily forget the variability of the meaning of many special words. And we don't normally think about limiting or changing the meaning of a word to suit a specific purpose.

 

Another Reason - Anxiety and Other Strong Feelings Make Rational Discussion Difficult

 

It's difficult to think clearly about subjects which arouse anxiety or other strong emotions. And it's much more difficult to discuss them with others. Argument involves conflict and this causes anxiety. But this is of course intensified when the subject itself generates strong feelings.

 

In such discussions the key words themselves often carry powerful associations of anxiety - and of moral, religious or other values.

 

We naturally want to include in the definition of those key words those elements of meaning which we value, and to exclude from the definition those elements of meaning we disapprove of. We may feel that useful discussion is impossible unless such a definition is agreed upon before discussion begins. And naturally those with different views and values want to define the value-laden word differently. For example, those whose religious faith centres around a belief in a Supreme Being may want to define "Religion" in terms of that belief, whereas others might want to propose a definition in terms of a system of moral beliefs and behaviour.

 

The fact is that any definition which assigns to a key word a meaning laden with anxiety or value will make it harder to use the word without prejudice in subsequent discussion. And a value-laden definition doesn't only make it harder to think clearly for those whose values are denied by the definition; it makes it just as difficult for those whose values are embodied in it.

 

A writer who fails to appreciate the arbitrary nature of definition may try to persuade his readers (either deliberately or unintentionally) of the "truth" of a definition he proposes. In fact the basis for the definition is simply his own attitudes and values. There's no reason why a writer shouldn't try to persuade his readers to accept his values and ideals, but it can be misleading to the reader (and the writer himself) not to frankly acknowledge what he's doing.

 

It's possible to structure a discussion so that it doesn't get bogged down in arguments which are really only about definitions of the words to be used. And it's worth while to do this; it can make discussion more productive. Arguments about mere words aren't really interesting. It's much more satisfactory to instead agree upon relatively value-free concepts and definitions which all can accept as a starting point, so that the discussion can move on to the matters of real substance which are actually at issue.

 

We can agree upon value-free definitions without rejecting values and denying feelings. To exclude an element of meaning from a definition isn't to deny its existence or its value. It just means that it has to be discussed separately.

 


A CONCLUSION IS SOMETIMES MISTAKEN FOR A DEFINITION OF A WORD TO BE USED IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION

 

There's another closely related problem which can lead to frustrating discussions. Sometimes a person who's thought deeply about a subject summarises his conclusions or recommendations in the form of a brief definition - e.g. he might assert that "Poetry is the expression of an important truth in a beautiful form." This is really only an arbitrary definition. But in providing a summary of conclusions, it serves a quite different function from the sort of arbitrary definitions of basic terms that are required at the outset of a discussion. Discussion of such a statement can go round in circles if you don't realise it's a conclusion, and that what's interesting about a conclusion is the path by which it was arrived at.

 


ARE THERE WORDS WHICH ARE INDEFINABLE?

 

People sometimes think there are words which are indefinable. In philosophical discussions there's often great uneasiness about this. And there's often considerable effort to develop acceptable definitions, but without success. These difficulties are usually unnecessary.

 

Words for the Basic Elements of Experience

 

It's often said that such words (e.g. "blue" and "hot") can't be defined. This belief arises first from the feeling that the aims of definition must be achieved using words alone, and secondly from the assumption that the only satisfactory way to define a word is by describing the thing that the word stands for. We've already talked about why both of these ideas just aren't correct.

 

The meanings of the words for these basic elements of experience can be taught or specified by the methods of showing things and naming examples, e.g. "green is the colour of grass and leaves".

 

What about the words for more abstract elements of experience like time and consciousness? Well, we all know perfectly well what the words "time" and "consciousness" mean; we've learnt their meanings in the ways described earlier. And if we want to, we can specify these meanings in the same way - by showing things and giving examples.

 

There are interesting and difficult philosophical questions concerning concepts like time and consciousness. Rigorous consideration reveals that many accepted beliefs about them just don’t make sense. (And that means that the customary meanings of the words for them are actually incoherent.) Some philosophers have tried to state the conclusions of their work in the form of (less incoherent) definitions of the problem words concerned. These definitions are often complex and technical, and may seem completely unrelated to the commonly accepted meanings of these words. It seems questionable to me whether these definitions are any help in understanding and unraveling the problems concerned.

 

Must All Definition Inevitably Go Round in Circles?

 

Some people feel that because definition uses words, which in turn also need to be defined, the whole process of definition must continue without end in a circular fashion, or finally come to an end resting on a set of undefinable basic words. They therefore suggest that this weakens the value of the whole process of definition, and - since definitions are the foundations of thought - of any systematic thinking based upon these foundations.

 

But of course, in practice you usually understand all the words in a definition. If it includes a word you don't understand then you do have to look that word up in the dictionary too. But even in the worst case, after a few references you find out what you want to know.

 

So this isn't a problem in real life. And because it simply isn't true that some words are indefinable, it needn't be a philosophical problem either.

 

Words for Things Whose Existence or Nature is Uncertain or Disputed

 

We sometimes feel uncomfortable about defining words for such things. There's no need for this. After all, we have words for imaginary things like dragons, fairies, and Father Christmas. And there are words and phrases used to refer to the appearance of things rather than reality, for example mirages and mirror images. All these words have meanings and there's no problem in providing definitions of them using the methods we've discussed.

 

If we can define words for things we're certain don't exist, then of course someone can define a word referring to something which he believes is real but which in fact isn't -or when he's mistaken about it's nature. His ideas and definitions are based on ignorance, or at least a mistaken view of the facts. And so his definition will of course incorporate that misunderstanding. For example, the idea of witches was real enough to those who sought to burn them, and in those days the word "witch" wasn't hard to define.

 

There's likewise no problem about defining words for things whose existence is in doubt or dispute (e.g. telepathy), or for things whose existence is purely speculative. And there's similarly no problem when we're just uncertain about the precise nature of something. When this uncertainty arises in philosophical discussions it's often quite unnecessary, and we'll discuss why in a moment.

 

But when the uncertainty is justified, it's often very helpful to establish clear provisional definitions of the words concerned, and to later modify these definitions as our knowledge increases or as discussion clarifies our ideas.

 


THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF LOVE AND BEAUTY AND JUSTICE

 

In philosophical discussions of major questions, are we concerned with facts and experiences, or merely with how to describe them? Of course, what we're really concerned with is the facts and experiences. But the trouble is that we can only talk about facts by using words. And it's often very easy to get confused about whether we have a problem or disagreement about the facts, or merely with the way we're describing them. Especially in the heat of an argument.

 

When someone's talking about and trying to define say Love or Intelligence or Beauty, they usually feel that they're not really concerned with the word at all, but with trying to establish and describe the essential nature of the thing the word refers to.

 

We've already discussed one major difficulty about trying to do this. That is the fact that you simply can't "describe" simple experiences and concepts like "time" that are so basic that they can't be broken down to anything simpler. So trying to "specify the essential nature" of such things is a pointless activity which only gets you into a hopeless tangle. We’ve talked about how we can define the words for these basic experiences; it doesn’t involve "describing their essential nature".

 

The problem that arises when you try to establish the essential nature of something complex is quite different. Let's consider for example the word "intelligence". People have always discussed what intelligence "really is". They've asked whether or not "intelligence" necessarily includes "common-sense", "wisdom", the ability to think quickly, to solve complex problems, to think deeply, to learn quickly, or to gain a deep understanding of a subject - qualities which often, but don't always, go together. These questions are now raised in arguments about whether or not computers exhibit intelligence - or whether they may come to do so in the future.

 

This discussion implies that intelligence is something definite, like say "sweetness", which we're trying to perceive clearly and then describe. But it's not. Rather there's only a set of related mental abilities which we customarily associate with the word "intelligence". Problems arise only because the word isn't used in a clear and consistent way.

 

There's no question of fact about whether each of these particular abilities is an "essential" or a "non-essential" ingredient of intelligence. So it's pointless to argue about what intelligence "really is".

 

The same applies to many other words like say "Love" and "Justice", which cause difficulty. The meanings of these words, i.e. their customary mental associations, haven't been established by deliberate and logical choice. On the contrary, their meanings have developed over a long period in an unplanned accidental way.

 

The idea that these "problem" words correspond to definite things is just a misconception. The complexes of things, of experiences, of concepts, which these words refer to, are really only convenient but arbitrary patterns imposed on our thoughts and experience by our culture and by the ways in which our language happens to have developed. That's why trying to "specify the essential nature" of "intelligence" and "love" and "justice" is a mistaken endeavour.

 

The misconception that these words correspond to definite things rather than vague concepts leads people into all sorts of confusion. In particular they sometimes feel that their difficulties arise because human beings can't clearly perceive or understand the things the words stand for. And that it's these imagined difficulties of perception or understanding which are the source of the variability and vagueness of the meanings of the problem words.

 

Because the meanings of the problem words are only arbitrary, people sometimes say "There's no such thing as intelligence" ... (or "love" or "beauty"). This is unhelpful. After all, we are talking about observable facts and real experiences. It's just that we have difficulty finding and agreeing on the most useful way of talking about them.

 

Can we define these words then? Of course we can. On the one hand we can set out their customary meanings, with all the errors and inconsistencies implied by those customary meanings. And on the other we can choose and specify a more restricted, more rational meaning to be used in a particular discussion.

 

And we can profitably discuss things like intelligence, love, beauty and justice. Just so long as we can accept that the conclusions we reach aren't certain and inevitable consequences springing out of the nature of these things. That's because the things being discussed, the things these problem words refer to, aren't clear and definite things. They're nothing more than a useful but arbitrary way of organising and referring to our experiences and thoughts and feelings.


 

CONCLUSION

 

Definition is stating the meaning of a word or phrase. In this essay we've examined the idea of meaning, and especially its variability. We've discussed the two very different purposes of definition - to specify customary meanings, and to specify special meanings for particular purposes. We've considered the main methods of defining words. And lastly we've considered some of the philosophical problems associated with definition.

 

Because definition is so fundamental to any serious discussion, it's important not to be confused about it. Unfortunately however, it is often much misunderstood. There's no need for this, because definition is really a simple straightforward matter about which there need be no real difficulty.

 

© Barry Simons 2001