Kinds of Definition

The most common way of preventing or eliminating differences in the use of

languages is by agreeing on thedefinition of our terms. Since these explicit accounts
of the meaning of a word or phrase can be offered in distinct contexts and employed
in the service of different goals, it's useful to distinguish definitions of several kinds:

A lexical definition simply reports the way in which a term is already used within
a language community. The goal here is to inform someone else of the accepted
meaning of the term, so the definition is more or less correct depending upon the
accuracy with which it captures that usage. In these pages, my definitions of technical
terms of logic are lexical because they are intended to inform you about the way in
which these terms are actually employed within the discipline of logic.

At the other extreme, a stipulative definition freely assigns meaning to a

completely new term, creating a usage that had never previously existed. Since the
goal in this case is to propose the adoption of shared use of a novel term, there are no
existing standards against which to compare it, and the definition is always correct
(though it might fail to win acceptance if it turns out to be inapt or useless). If I now
decree that we will henceforth refer to Presidential speeches delivered in French as
"glorsherfs," I have made a (probably pointless) stipulative definition.

Combining these two techniques is often an effective way to reduce

the vagueness of a word or phrase. These precising definitions begin with the lexical
definition of a term but then propose to sharpen it by stipulating more narrow limits
on its use. Here, the lexical part must be correct and the stipulative portion should
appropriately reduce the troublesome vagueness. If the USPS announces that "proper
notification of a change of address" means that an official form containing the
relevant information must be received by the local post office no later than four days
prior to the effective date of the change, it has offered a (possibly useful) precising
definition.

Theoretical definitions are special cases of stipulative or precising definition,

distinguished by their attempt to establish the use of this term within the context of a
broader intellectual framework. Since the adoption of any theoretical definition
commits us to the acceptance of the theory of which it is an integral part, we are
rightly cautious in agreeing to it. Newton's definition of the terms "mass" and "inertia"
carried with them a commitment to (at least part of) his theories about the conditions
in which physical objects move.
 Finally, what some logicians call a persuasive definition is an attempt to
attach emotive meaning to the use of a term. Since this can only serve to confuse the
literal meaning of the term, persuasive definitions have no legitimate use.

Extension and Intension

A rather large and especially useful portion of our active vocabularies is taken up
by general terms, words or phrases that stand for whole groups of individual things
sharing a common attribute. But there are two distinct ways of thinking about the
meaning of any such term.

The extension of a general term is just the collection of individual things to which
it is correctly applied. Thus, the extension of the word "chair" includes every chair
that is (or ever has been or ever will be) in the world. Theintension of a general term,
on the other hand, is the set of features which are shared by everything to which it
applies. Thus, the intension of the word "chair" is (something like) "a piece of
furniture designed to be sat upon by one person at a time."

Clearly, these two kinds of meaning are closely interrelated. We usually suppose
that the intension of a concept or term determines its extension, that we decide
whether or not each newly-encountered piece of furniture belongs among the chairs
by seeing whether or not it has the relevant features. Thus, as the intension of a
general term increases, by specifying with greater detail those features that a thing
must have in order for it to apply, the term's extension tends to decrease, since fewer
items now qualify for its application.

Stipulative definitions of existing terms are useful in making theoretical arguments,

or stating specific cases. For example:

Suppose we say that to love someone is to be willing to die for that person.

Take "human" to mean any member of the species Homo sapiens.

For the purposes of argument, we will define a "student" to be "a person under 18
enrolled in a local school."

Some of these are also precising definitions, a subtype of stipulative definition that
may not contradict but only extend the lexical definition of a term. Theoretical
definitions, used extensively in science and philosophy, are similar in some ways to
stipulative definitions (although theoretical definitions are somewhat normative
-more like persuasive definitions).[2]
Many holders of controversial and highly charged opinions use stipulative definitions
in order to attach the emotional or other connotations of a word to the meaning
they would like to give it; for example, defining "murder" as "the killing of any living
thing for any reason." The other side of such an argument is likely to use a different
stipulative definition for the same term: "the premeditated killing of a human
being." The lexical definition in such a case is likely to fall somewhere in between.

When a stipulative definition is confused with a lexical definition within an argument

there is a risk of equivocation.

Precising Definitions

These definitions are used to try and decrease the ambiguity of a word. Precising
definitions attempt to clear an expressions vagueness, which means that it isnt
clearly or explicitly stated. Words such as rich and poor are conisdered vague
because they dont really express a clear and definite meaning. However when put
into the right context for example, if we say that the definition of "poor" is anybody
making less than 4,000 dollars a year and is worth less than 20,000 dollars, then
anybody could pinpoint what we mean by being poor in that context. Another
example of precising definitions is by taking the lexical definition of a word, but
using it towards a different discipline such as logic. An example would be the word
formal, which in lexical terms could mean being dressed nicely or meeting the usual
requirements. However in logic, formal means reasoning from known premises or
premises prevoiusly assumed to be true, to the conclusion. Precising definitions
differ from stipulative definitions because stipulative definitions are based solely on
individual will or discretion. While precising definitions are subject to a great deal of
rationality because it must ensure that the definition is correct for the context it is
being used in.

Lexical meaning is defined as the meaning of a base or root word without

considering any prefix or suffix which may be attached. An example of
lexical meaning is the meaning of the word "port" in the words import or
portable.

Here are two examples of lexical definitions:

1. atheist: one who disbelieves in or denies the existence of God or

gods.2. atheist: one who knows that God exists, but is in denial for
some reason.

Persuasive definitions are probably most common in political debates

people frequently define key terms in ways that make their opponents look as
bad as possible.
Thus opponents of abortion will define the practice as murder, which
makes supporters of abortion choice look like murderers. Libertarians will
define taxation as a form of theft, thus making supporters of at least
some sort of government taxation look like thieves, not to mention the
government itself.

He persuaded his friend to go back to school.

She couldn't be persuaded to go.
He would not let himself be persuaded into buying the more expensive
stereo.
I am not easily persuaded.
They persuaded us that we were wrong.
He persuaded himself that he had made the right choice.