CHAPTER 2

Language: Meaning and Definition

A. Logic and Language

An argument is a group of propositions (or statements), some of which serve as reasons

for others. More commonly we think of an argument as a dispute between two or more persons
in which a great deal of wrangling frequently goes on. A “bull session” in a dormitory is an
example. But this is not the sense in which the term “argument” will be used here. It will refer
rather to the sort of thing we find in some public letterbox of our daily newspaper where one of
the readers, for example, insists that the city provide more classrooms in the public schools.
This is his conclusion, that the city should do so and so, and he generally gives reasons to
support the action he is trying to bring about. This is typical of the sort of argument we very
frequently have to write in our composition course. A senator delivering a speech to his
colleagues is doing the same kind of thing: trying to establish his conclusion as the correct one,
trying to show that what he says is true, that his conclusion follows from the reasons he gives
for it.

An important problem in constructing good arguments is the presentation of reasons,

which will in fact enable the argument to do what it is supposed to do, namely, to show that the
conclusion really does follow. Construction of good arguments relies for the most part on logic.
Logic, the kind that depends on reasons, consists of certain patterns, forms, or models, which,
if followed carefully, will generally result in correct reasoning. This is probably the most
important problem with which logic concerns itself: how to reason correctly, how to give the
right kind of reasons to support certain conclusions. The student, therefore, who is trying to
learn how to construct good arguments, must know something about logic. Some rare
individuals are gifted with the ability to construct good arguments and to detect bad ones
almost intuitively. But for most of us, it is a matter of study, analysis, and exercise. It is indeed
an art, and it can be developed to a certain extent by practice.

Arguments occur in all sorts of contexts. Different patterns of argument exist and while
one pattern may be appropriate for one situation, it may not do at all for another. The question,
“What is a good argument?” then, cannot be answered in just one way. If we were trying to
convince someone that Actor. Montano will make a good senator; we will use a pattern of
argument that differs considerably from the one we would use if we were trying to convince
him that prostitution should be legalized. Thus, if we are trying to show that Jean-Paul Sartre is
really the twentieth century’s greatest novelist or that the square of the hypotenuse is really the
sum of the squares of the two sides, we will use arguments. But the pattern will be decidedly
different in each case.

One further point is the moral aspect. A good argument, in at least one sense, is one that
gets somebody to do what we want him to do, whether it is to vote for somebody, to buy this
product, or to go to the golf course. But there are different ways of producing a good argument.
Some of them, the spurious ones, rest on deception; others rely as much as possible on the
truth. It is the latter that we have in mind when we talk about good arguments and with which
we will be concerned in this chapter. This does not mean that we will not examine the spurious
methods used, for example, by some advertisers and by some demagogues in public life. For by
studying
such methods we can learn both to detect invalid arguments and to construct good ones.

An argument is a form of communication, and we are interested in communication by

means of language. If the argument is to have its intended effect, the communication must be
successful. But before we see that the conclusion follows from the evidence given, we certainly
must know what we are talking about. Unfortunately language is tricky and presents a great
many barriers to successful communication. Sometimes two people may advance what they
think are opposing arguments, when in reality they are not even engaged in a genuine exchange
of ideas because they are not really communicating. Knowing about these barriers, therefore, is
extremely important. In this way we learn how to avoid them. Our leading idea in this chapter
will be clarity. We must learn how to pin down our meaning so that there will be no mistaking
our intention. The main barriers to clarity, which are relevant to our purposes, are that language
is likely to be ambiguous or vague. What makes for clarity depends partly on what language is
being used for; and that a great many words demand precise definition if they are to be
understood. A thorough study of these will reward us by heightening the clarity of our
reasoning.

B. The Uses of Language

Language is used for great many different purposes. When we say, “How are you?” or
“Close the door”, we are obviously using language for a different reason than when we say,
“Tomorrow is another day”. To be able to recognize the different uses to which language can
be put is important. As students of logic we are certainly interested in the ways of showing
what are those uses of language that will make an argument and those uses of language that do
not make up the basic elements of an argument. Foremost to this is the kind of sentence that
will make a discourse that is answerable by “true” or “false”. Not all sentences have the
capability of “true” or “false”. Suppose someone says “Wow, what a beautiful day”, would you
ask whether that is true or false? It is just as absurd for the speaker of the above to say, “Very
well, thank you” is false. He does not understand the different purposes, uses, or functions of
language. He does not realize that each usage of language must be evaluated by a special set of
criteria. To say that a sentence is true or false is just one method of evaluation.

There are two usage of language that are very important to us. These are 1.) to
communicate information, and to which we apply the terms “true” or “false; and, 2.) to
express feelings or emotions.

The informative use of language is the most important for our purposes. In constructing
arguments, we want primarily to use language informatively, that is, to communicate
information; to do so we use sentences which are true or false. This is very important in
relation to the question of verification. We use words whose reference is clear and objective.
This use of language tries to avoid words with private connotations, and it also tries to avoid
words which unnecessarily stir up feelings – emotive words (more of this later). If we want our
reasoning to be clear, we should not use words that will distract our audience’s attention from
what we are saying to how we are saying it. Two examples of the informative use of language
are the following:

“Banana is rich in Vitamin A and potassium. The mashed pulp is very gentle when
used on the skin, making good refining and cleansing face masks”
“Lake Lanao is in Marawi City”.

Secondly, we come to the expressive use of language. Communication is involved in

the expressive use of language also, but the speaker here uses language to communicate not
primarily ideas or knowledge, but rather feelings and emotions. Exclamations generally belong
to this category. For example, “My heart leaps up when I behold your beautiful face!”
Obviously, to ask whether this sentence is true or false is ridiculous. Expressive language, in
addition to providing a vent for feelings, tends to arouse feelings in others. Expressive
language often occurs in advertising, in plays, in poems and in political speeches. When our
purpose in reasoning is to produce genuine arguments, we should as much as possible avoid the
expressive use of language. This restriction cannot be absolute, for these two uses of language;
the expressive and informative do not exist separately, in isolation from one another. Actually
language serves many different purposes at the same time. Only through careful analysis of the
meaning it conveys, beyond the literal sense of the written or spoken words that we can
determine whether the language is a barrier to effective communication of information, or a
language hiding beneath its rhetorical force. This will be discussed in the next chapter. For the
meantime, let us explore the informative use of language.

C. Language and Information Credibility Assessment

Claims are the central element of argument. For the argument to be considered as
cogent, we have to search efficiently for information that will become our claims. It guides us
regarding the kind of argument we will need to use. A clear subject for argumentation gives us
a benchmark against which we can assess the relevance of any information we encounter in
construction of our arguments and explanations. A clear subject also provides the benchmark
that enables us to judge the value of evidence and argumentation needed to meet any
requirements of a cogent argument. But the key issue here is not the final product—the
cogency of the argument, although this is the end of every construction of an argument—but
the insights we gain through the process of formulating it, and that is, the credibility of the
information that will use for the claim of our argument.

In reasoning, two elements are the focus of credibility of information: claims and
sources. Some claims lack credibility regardless of the source, and in the same manner, some
sources lack credibility regardless of the claim. Moreover, some claims depend for their
credibility on some sources, while some sources also depend their credibility on some claims.
In other words, the issue of credibility of information is not an all-or-nothing matter, whether
we are talking about claims or sources.

So, the question is, when is a claim or a source credible?

To begin with claims, one need to go back to our criteria of a good claim, as discussed
in the previous chapter. Claims have credibility in so far as they do not conflict with our
observation or experience with reality - it corresponds with reality, what the world really is.
Furthermore, claims that fits with our background information has more plausibility of being
credible and accepted by others -it is consistent with other beliefs previously (individually or
collectively determined as true.
Doubts about the credibility of sources, in Moore and Parker’s Critical Thinking, can be
casted according to doubts about the source’s knowledge or expertise and doubts about the
source’s veracity, objectivity, and accuracy. In some instance, sources’ credibility can be
determined through the person’s education, experience, accomplishments, reputation and
position, among others. Claims made by experts in their own field of specialization are the
most trustworthy; however, it must not also, if possible, conflict with claims made by others in
the same field of expertise.

Newspapers, magazines, network news, internet and films are generally credible
sources of information. Another medium of information transmission is advertisement. It is
enticing us, through the use of emotive language, to buy certain products, goods, services,
beliefs, and attitudes. However, advertisement is more concerned with profits of the seller than
with the consumers. But, to all these, it is necessary that we keep into consideration the
following criteria in critical thinking when assessing the trustworthiness of the information
sourced from them.

● Fair – willing to take a balanced look at all sides of an issue, even those with
which we disagree;
● Sympathetic – willing to entertain and give credence to points of view other than
our own on an issue;
● Skeptical – unwilling to accept at face value claims for which there is little
rational basis;
● Objective - willing to keep their own personal biases, emotions, interpretations,
and other “subjective” factors out of the issue;
● Open-minded - willing to revise our beliefs in light of new information.

Sources of Information:

I. The Mass Media

Local and national television and radio news programs, newspapers and national and
international news-magazines are the main sources of most people’s information about the
world. Much of what the news media do, they do well. Today’s news is collected and
disseminated with a rapidity that would have been unimaginable, says, ten years ago. There is a
high level of accuracy in the material produced by the journalists, reporters, editors and the
other players in the news industry. Although factual errors do occur in the reporting of news,
most retractions made by media, unfortunately, are rarely given the same emphasis as the
original story.

Nonetheless, the picture of reality presented in the news media leaves much to be
desired. The problem is not so much with what is covered in the news media as it is with what
is omitted. Most media news coverage is both oversimplified and incomplete (A typical
television news story will last anywhere from fifteen to twenty-five seconds).

Not all the news about news is bad. The media often do a competent job of covering
important events. Stories of overriding importance are often given sufficient time or space to
go beyond superficial investigation of the facts and issues. Television news specials and
expanded/special/Sunday editions of newsmagazines and newspapers may be prompted by
such events. But as a general rule, depth of coverage is not the main concern of the media.
Television commercials, news, political speeches, newspaper editorials, and magazine
advertisements, as well as many communications between individuals, all draw their principles
from one idea only: to persuade. To be able to persuade others to accept a potential
controversial idea, or to refute someone else’s position, or to propose a solution to the problem,
the writer must present a thought which is also argumentative, soundly organized, clearly
written and must support the conclusion taken. This can be attained only by doing critical
reading to gather information to support the position taken.

To become competent critical thinkers about the mass media, we need to have a good
deal of information on two basic topics. First, we must be aware of the constraints under which
the media operate – the pressures that determines the content of informational and
entertainment programming. Second, we need to understand the techniques the media use to
gain and keep our interest.

I. Constraints under which the Mass Media operate

a. The mass media are commercial enterprises.

With the exception of publicly/ State owned electronic media, like public television
(Channel 4, PBS etc.) and radio (Radyo Ng Bayan, among others), the overriding concern of
media is to turn a profit. A small share of newspaper and magazine revenue comes from
circulation. All of the income for the electronic media and most of that for print media,
however, come from the sale of advertising.

The first concern of the mass media, then, must be to gather in as many readers,
listeners, or viewers as they can. The bigger the audience, the more revenue that can be realized
from advertising. A newspaper, magazine, television show, or radio program acquires a healthy
circulation or audience share by ensuring that stories are high in entertainment value. The
average television viewer is but a flick of the finger away from something that may be more
entertaining; more and more people are turning from print to electronic media for their news.
So, papers and magazines must continually strive to produce coverage that will keep their
audience’s attention. Thus, news stories are selected largely on the basis of their perceived
interest to the viewing audience. Televised news stories typically involve events that can be
covered briefly and have strong visual appeal. A remarkably large portion of the typical
television newscast is devoted to “human interest” stories – stories about tragedies, like natural
disasters, plane, train, motorcycle, or PUV crashes, and scandals, particularly those involving
celebrities.

In a nutshell, the mass media, to turn on a profit, must indulge to do the following:

• News is about the unusual, not the commonplace. You’ve got to keep the audience
interested and, to keep them interested; you’ve got to entertain them. And to entertain,
you’ve constantly got to come up with something new, something out of the ordinary.
You have heard of the saying “Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog is”.
• News is personalized. We are all attracted to stories of personal tragedy and triumph.
Most news stories almost always involve a “personal interest” bite. If the center of a
story is an event, it will be described against the background of personal reactions to the
event in the form of interview with witnesses, victims and anybody else touched by
event.
• Stories about important events – food riots, war, rice crises, coup-d-etat, elections and
corruption scandals – will be personalized. Every effort will be made to reduce such
stories to a series of anecdotes, illustrating how the problems and issues affect a few
individuals. A story about poverty might show or tell the tale of a starving family and
then interview a relief worker engaged in feeding the hungry. Or, stories about disasters
might detail the plight of the evacuees in the evacuation centers. The personalization of
a complex story is not, in and of itself, a bad idea. We do not want to know the impact
of problems and issues on people. But often, news stories are dominated by such
anecdotes, to the exclusion of information needed to understand the problem and its
causes. Thus, the line between the news and entertainment, it seems, is becoming harder
and harder to draw.
• News is often staged. Many newsworthy events are manufactured for consumption by
the news media by parties who want their story told. Such non-spontaneous events are
normally scheduled in advance so that reporters and camera crews can be there to cover
them. Staged events like speeches, news conferences and briefings, press releases,
ceremonies, protest marches, and strikes are highly attractive to the media. They are
easy and inexpensive to cover and are usually staged in a way to make them attractive
as media events. Moreover, the coverage of the staged events requires minimal effort of
those doing the reporting. Background information is given to reporters, and not
ferreted out. The problem with staged events is that the subject of the coverage, not the
news media, frequently determines what facets of the story are covered. The subject
controls the camera. News coverage of the Basilan war, for example, relied heavily on
 information and film footage supplied by the military. Or, news about the President is
being supplied by Malacañang itself.
• News stories play to our interest in the sensational or dramatic. If we can be shocked,
we will stay glued for the details. Thus, the news is filled with stories involving
violence, accidents and drama. How often is the lead story on the evening news, for
example, of TV Patrol or Saksi, or in Philippine Star or Daily Inquirer about a
particularly violent crime, accident, or disaster?
• News is tension-filled and thrives on controversy. One way to keep our interest is to
insinuate a kind of dramatic tension between parties to a story. This technique is often
used in the coverage of political stories, or business news. Take, for example, the
controversy in the family of the Revilla’s over the killing of one of its member, initiated
by another member of the same family. Although controversy fuels many news stories,
rarely are the issues fully ventilated. Opposed views are oversimplified. The goal is to
heighten and underline the controversy rather than understand the issues.
• News is trendy. Some events remain the focus of media coverage for days and weeks
after they have occurred. These are stories dealing with events considered sufficiently
interesting to the audience to merit sustained coverage, like the controversial Pacquiao-
Marquez fight; the Arroyo’s predicament and others

b. Mass Media does not tell stories critical of the news media themselves.
c. The influence of advertisers in determining the content of the news
d. The ownership of the mass media and the extent to which the interests of the owners can
compromise news coverage,
e. The extent to which the output of the news media is orchestrated by external sources.
II. Devices Used to Slant the News

1. Stories Can Be Played Up or Down

If you like a story, you can play it up. If you don’t, you can play it down. You bury it by
putting it toward the end (relatively few readers get past the first few paragraphs) or by
mentioning it in passing. You play it up by doing just the opposite. On T.V, stories are buried
by running them toward the end of the program when eyes have begun to glaze and by cutting
them to run less than a minute.

2. Misleading or Sensational Headlines Can be Used

Many more people read the headlines on a story than read the story itself. So even if a
story is accurate, a misleading or sensational headline distorts the news for many readers.

3. Follow-up Stories Can Be Omitted

Follow-up stories rarely make headlines, primarily for two reasons. The first is that they
are relatively difficult to obtain. It takes much less time and effort to report a prison uprising
than to investigate day-to-day prison conditions. The second is that the public (and media)
conception of “news” is what is new, and therefore different. Follow-up is reporting on “old
 news,” which isn’t really news. But isn’t it news if, say, the President fails to keep her word, or
a bill passed by Congress fails to implemented?

4. Emotive Language Can Be Used

5. Ignorance Is Cloaked in an Aura of Authority

Television and newspapers reporters and editors are not generally experts on the topics
they have to cover. How could they be when reporters may cover one thing one day and
something much different the next, and can’t spend much time on background digging
(because it’s too expensive). But it would be hard to guess at this ignorance when reading the
polished stories the media turn out. On the contrary, reporters quote fact and figures (and the
words of the high and mighty) in a way that makes them seem on top of their subject.

II. Advertisement

Advertisement is derived from the Latin word “adverto” which means to drive the
attention towards something, thus making its goal of attracting the attention of the people to a
certain products or services. Due to its effective publicity, it has become ubiquitous and greatly
affects not only the people’s taste when it comes to food but as well the whole person of an
individual.

There are two kinds of advertisements: promise and identification advertisements.

However, both can go together in one advertisement. Promise advertisements promise to
satisfy desire or allay fears in buying a certain product. All you have to do is buy the product
advertised. Most promise ads, but not all, give” reasons why” the product will fulfill the
promise or do it better than competitors. Identification advertisements sell the product by
getting their audience to identify with the product, to remember its name, and to think of it
positively, for instance, “Come to Marlboro country”. Some identification ads are designed to
get you to identify with a particular company, not a special product. Advertisement is a source
of information, but we must look into the bad feature or drawback of the advertisement in order
for us to make sound decision.

The following are common drawbacks of advertisement:

1. Ads don’t say What’s Wrong with the

Product

The true objective of advertisement in

attracting the consumers is to sell certain
product. This is the reason why, in all
products or services advertised, the
highlights are the benefits which make the people inclined towards the use of the particular
products or services.

2. Ads Use Psychological Tricks more than Direct Appeal to Reason

Rather than appealing to reason, some advertisements use psychological tricks to their
consumer in pursuing them to buy a certain product. We said before that promise advertisement
promises that the product you will buy will satisfy some need or desire or alleviate some fear,
and that they usually give reasons why the product can do this for us. Thus, it would be
reasonable to suppose that such ads chiefly appeals to the rational side of our nature, since that’s
what “reasons why” are all about. In fact, most ads are a blend of devices designed to appeal
both to reason and, via non-rational aspect predominates.

Examples:
1.) Makulay ang buhay sa ginataang gulay,

2.) PalawanExpress: Walay Kuskos Balungos,

Take the ad below. The psychological trick is the statement given by the baby.
3. Ads are often Deceptive or Misleading; Puffery is Legal
Ads make certain claim that will mislead the readers or viewers. The following are
examples of misleading ads:
1. “Open happiness, open coca cola”--- which suggest that if you open a bottle of coke,
you bring happiness to yourself.
2. 7-in- 1 Herbal Coffee is made from all natural herbs, perfect for health conscious
individuals.

In the advertising world, puffery is one of the effective practices in print, radio and TV
ads. Puffery employs exaggerated praise for a certain product especially for promotional
purposes. However, it is often misleading. Ads do not only circulate information but also
promises long-life, good health and success though none of the products or services guarantees
your future. To make the ads more attractive to the eyes and ears of the consumers, magical
statements are being used, just as the ample shown below.

4. Ads often Use Meaningless Jargon or Deceptive Humor

 Ads use poetic and rhetorical elements to attract the attention of the consumers. As
language is used with less and less precision, it comes closer and closer to being meaningless
noise or jargon. Some advertisements have a kernel of sense to mask their general
mindlessness. Jargon often used in ads for products that either doesn’t fulfill its promise at all
(like cosmetics, and weight reducers) or don’t do better than competing products like cigarettes
and detergents.

An example of this is the picture below

5. Ads Trade on Human Tendencies to Reason Fallaciously

Ads implicitly give arguments about their products or advertisement as they usually use
conditional claims by using the “ifs and thens” or “cause and effect” claims, thus allowing the
consumers to reason fallaciously about using or not using the product. Take this example,
“Master Eskinol, Sekreto ng mga Gwapo”. This line assumes that the cause of being handsome
and maintaining it is by using this kind of product. This is fallacious because it provide us false
assumption that by using Master Eskinol men becomes good-looking or attractive. This product
is for skincare and would only affect

“A man uses Master Eskinol every day and whenever he goes to school, women follow
him everywhere.” This ad implies that if you use Master Eskinol you will be handsome and if
you are handsome then you will be attractive to women. This ad technique also plays in its
negative “if not, then not”. This implies that using Master Eskinol will make you attractive and
could even boost your confidence.

6. Changes Our Values

Ads penetrate the public mind with desires and beliefs. It changes not just our taste to
food and of things, but also our perceptions of values. Because of ads, some values are now
interpreted depending on the product or service they use. Like, being a good father means buying
an Ipod 6 for his children. Success in drinking Tanduay (“Tanduay, Isang tagay sa tagumpay”).
Friendship is with Emperador (Para sa Matibay na samahan, mag Emperador). And Love is
taking you to Starbucks.

Another example is the advertisement of Liver-Aide which is one of the most identified
food supplement in the country. The advertisement of the product suggests that it is alright to
drink and eat unhealthy foods and drinks since the food supplement would aid our liver from
toxins. This ad changes our values because it somewhat encourages us to unrestrained our food
intake since it protects our liver rather than we disciplined our liver ourselves. Instead of self-
control and discipline, we tend to be dependent to the product.

Ads make people do unneeded purchases, they persuade people to buy which they do not
need or worst, products that cannot afford.

III. The Internet

Today, the internet is the main source of useful information and opinion. Often, it is
more up-to-date than the best reference books; it allows people everywhere to read some of the
best newspapers and magazines; and it often is more readily available than books or other print
media. Basically, there are two kinds of information sources on the Internet:
1) Information from commercial and institutional sources, and
2) Information from individual and group sites as provided by World Wide Web.
The first includes, among others, Google Data Facility, as well as online services
provided by TV networks, e-news organizations, and government and private institutions. The
second category includes everything that you will find in www nomenclature – “an assortment
of good and bad information, entertainments, hot tips, games, advertisements, come-ons,
fraudulent offers, outright lies. (Critical Thinking, Moore and Parker 2014)”.

Although the Internet gives us unspeakable mines of data, one must be careful enough to
evaluate these information. Just like the information and claims that one gets from mass media
where the prudent thing to do is to be skeptical, so it is with claims and information one gets
online. There’s a caution that “the information one gets from a source is only as good as that
source”. In other words, anybody can put up a Web site, and, the caveat is, anybody can say
anything they want to say on it. It has no geographic boundaries and worse, no censorship as to
what is truthful or mere hoax.

Though we are grateful for the availability of information for academic research, for
business and social analysis, and even for everyday practical matters, we should be cautious of
the fact that some webs contain tricks and hoaxes. There are also websites with confusing and
misleading domain names, like www.martinlutherking.org and www.globalwarming.com.
Martin Luther King was the hero who fought for equal rights for all races, yet the website
named after him is done to dishonor him since it is a racist website. The other cited site,
globalwarming.com sells the idea that global warming is a hoax.

In an article from the 2001 Journal of Social Work Education, the authors Lynch,
Vernon and Smith started with a not uncommon observation:

More students than ever are turning first to the World Wide Web when conducting
research. As you read their papers you become painfully aware that many do not differentiate
cybertreasures from cyber trash. Students tend to approach online information the same way
they approach the professional literature found in the library: with complete faith. They seem to
chant, “I searched, I found and I used” when questioned about the quality of the Web-based
articles cited in their papers. They can be frighteningly trusting of the information they find and
often fail to critically evaluate online sources before using them.

Evaluating Websites:

A general rule: Don’t be taken in by how visually attractive a website might be. A flashy
design with attractive colors and design features is no substitute for information that is
backed up by references and put forward by people with appropriate
credentials( www.consumerwebwatch.org ).

Guidelines to evaluating the reliability of the information from web sources (Virginia
Montecinio, George Mason University).
1. Is there any evidence that the author of the Web information has some authority in the field
about which she or he is providing information?
2. With what organization or institution is the author associated? Is there a link to the
sponsoring organization, a contact number and/or address or e-mail contact? A link to an
association does not necessarily mean that the organization approved the content.
3. Are there clues that the author/s are biased? For example, is he/she selling or promoting a
product? Is the author taking a personal stand on a social/political issue or is the author
being objective ? Bias is not necessarily "bad," but the connections should be clear.
4. Is the Web information current? If there are a number of out-of-date links that do not work
or old news, what does this say about the credibility of the information?
5. Does the information have a complete list of works cited, which reference credible,
authoritative sources? If the information is not backed up with sources, what is the author's
relationship to the subject to be able to give an "expert" opinion?
6. Can the subject you are researching be fully covered with WWW sources or should print
sources provide balance? Much scholarly research is still only available in traditional print
form. It is safe to assume that if you have limited background in a topic and have a limited
amount of time to do your research, you may not be able to get the most representative
material on the subject. So be careful with making unsupportable conclusions based on a
narrow range of sources.

D. Language and Definition

Another way of assessing credibility of claims and information and clarify what we
mean is to define our words carefully. Any serious attempt to defend a position in a given issue
necessitates a clear understanding of what is at issue. And indeed this is one of the most useful
methods of facilitating communication of claims and informations. But, what is a definition?
How do we define a word? One good way to look at definition is to regard it as an explanation
of how a word is used.

Whenever we say, “What does so and so mean?” we are asking for a definition. If
someone then gives us a definition, he is explaining or describing to us how people use the
word. We can check the explanation ether by gong to the dictionary and looking up the word or
by listening to people and seeing whether they use the word in the way it was described. If our
investigation bear him out, his definition is true; if not, it is false. A definition, therefore, can
be true or false; either the word is used in a certain way or it’s not.

Two technical terms are involved in the structure of definition. The word or group of
words being defined is called the definiendum; the word or group of words being used to
explain the meaning of the definiendum is called the definiens. For example, in the definition
“Bachelor means a man who has not married,” the word “bachelor” is the definiendum, and
everything after the word “means” is the definiens. The definiens is not itself the meaning of
the definiendum; rather, it is the group of words that symbolizes or another symbol or group of
symbols that, according to the definition, has the same meaning as the definiendum.

The principal use of definition in reasoning, as we have seen, is the elimination of

ambiguity; however, definitions can serve different purposes:

• To assign a meaning to a word for the first time. This may involve either coining a new
word or giving a new meaning to a familiar word. This is known as stipulative
definition.
• To explain, illustrate, or disclose important aspects of difficult concepts. This is known
as explanatory definitions.
• To reduce vagueness and eliminate ambiguity. This is known as precising definition.
• To influence the attitudes of the reader. This is known as rhetorical definition.
 However, whatever is the intended purpose of definitions; there are several methods we
can use to clarify the meaning of words or phrases. Two techniques are commonly used to
produce definitions, namely, extensional and intensional.

Extensional Definitions/ Denotative

An extensional definition is one that assigns a meaning to a term by indicating the
members of the class that the definiendum denotes. It gives the denotation (thus, extensional
definitions are sometimes known as denotative definitions) – in the logician’s sense – of the
word; that is, it tells what things the word refers to or denotes. There are three ways in which
the members of a class denote and these, in turn, results to the three kinds of definitions,
namely, demonstrative definition, enumerative definition and definition by class.

A demonstrative definition is made by pointing or by some other gesture to the object

denoted by the term being defined. Instead of naming or describing the objects to be defined,
one may simply point to the object to clarify what one means. Take for example, the color
“blue”. If we point to the sky and say, “That is blue”, we are giving such definition. Or, the
word “table”. One can define it by saying, “The word ‘table’ means this,” accompanied by a
gesture such as pointing a finger in the direction of a table. But this method of definition has its
limitations. Try to define an automobile by pointing to individual things and you will have an
endless job on your hands.

This enumerative definition assigns a meaning to a word by naming the members

(individually) of the class the word denote either by partial or complete enumeration. For
example, “flower” means one of the following: rose, gumamela, daisy or chrysanthemum. Or,
“boxer” means a person such as Manny Pacquiao, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson or Eric
Morales.

A definition by class assigns a meaning to a word by naming the class denoted by the
word. Such definition, too, may be either partial or complete. For example, the word
“cellphone” can be defined as “Nokia, Samsung, Alcatel, Erickson and the like. Or,
“computer” means an electronic device such as IBM, Toshiba, Apple, or Dell.

However, there are certain meaningful words, especially terms for abstractions (e.g.
goodness, justice and beauty) cannot altogether be defined by any of the methods mentioned
above. Either because they do not denote anything at all and therefore cannot be defined
denotatively or extensionally, or it has an ambiguous extension. When we say, for example that
“there is a golden mountain somewhere in Lanao del Sur”, we are asserting that there is a
golden mountain yet, matter of fact, there is none. Such word has an “empty” extension.
However, although it denotes nothing, it cannot be said that the word “golden mountain” is
meaningless. Since we understand fully the meaning of the word “golden mountain”, it tell us
something about the word, and to it we turn.

Intensional Definitions/ Connotative

 An intensional definition assigns a meaning to a word by indicating the attributes that
the word connotes (thus, sometimes known as connotative definition). This type of making a
definition does not have the limitations that characterize the types of extensional definitions.
The word or object is defined in terms of the significant qualities that it must have in order to
be a member of a certain class. There are at least four kinds of intensional definitions:
definition by synonym, operational definition, theoretical definition and analytic
definition.

To define by giving other words and phrases having roughly the same meaning is to
give a synonymous definition. A definition by synonym supplies a word which we can use
interchangeably with the word defined. Many of the definition in the dictionary are of this sort,
thus, this is sometimes known as lexical definition. For example, one dictionary defines
“comrade” as a “companion”. These are synonyms, and in any contexts we can use either
word. Another example is “physician” which is synonymous with “doctor”.

An operational definition “assigns a meaning to a word by specifying certain

experimental procedure that determines whether or not the word applies to a certain thing”.
Unless it specifies such an operation, a definition cannot be an operational definition. For
example, “One is a ‘student of Logic’ if and only if one is enrolled in Philosophy 2”. What
makes one a student of Logic is if one is ‘enrolled’ in Philosophy 2; otherwise he is not. Being
‘enrolled’ prescribes an operation to be performed or to be accomplished. Another example: ‘A
person is a “moron” if and only if he gets a score of 25 on an IQ test’. The IQ test is the
operation, which will determine whether one is a moron, or not. On the other hand, this
definition “A book is obsolete if and only if it is archived” is not an example of an operational
definition because it prescribes no operation.

A theoretical definition of a word is a “definition that attempts to formulate a

theoretically adequate or scientifically useful description of the objects to which the term
applies”. This definition merely assigns a meaning to a word using or adapting relevant
theories to the word being defined. By using such theory, our understanding of the word may
be enhanced. For example, one may define the meaning of “good” by adapting the definition of
Aristotle that “good” is the highest virtue. Or, one may use the theory of relativity by Einstein
to explain the meaning of “time”.

To give an analytic definition (definition by genus and difference) is to specify

conditions for the use of a word or phrase. These conditions will set forth characteristics for
membership in the group referred to by the word or phrase being defined. In other words, it is
setting the differences between the things that the word applies to and other things of the same
type. The class called “man” may be used as an example. What qualities must an object have
before we call it man? It must be an animal, and it must be capable of reasoning. We call the
first of these qualities, the larger class to which man belongs, the genus. The second, that which
tells how man is different from all other animals, is the difference. Some examples of a
definition by genus and difference:

Species Difference Genus

 “Daughter” means a female offspring
“Husband” means a married man
“Triangle” means a three-sided closed figure
“Scholar” means a highly educated person
“Mother” means a female parent

A precising definition is a definition that extends the lexical definition of a term for a
specific purpose by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the
definition; it is intended to make a vague word more precise so that the words meaning not left
to the interpretation of the reader or listener. For example, a dictionary may define the term
“student” as, “1) Anyone attends an educational institution of any type”, or “2) Anyone who
studies something.” However, a movie theater may propose a precising definition for the word
“student” for “any person under the age of 18 enrolled in a local school” in order to determine
who is eligible to receive discounted tickets.

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently-existing

term is given a specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context.
When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the
dictionary (lexical) definition of the term. Because of this, a stipulative definition cannot be
“correct” or “incorrect”, it can only differ from other definitions, but it can be useful for its
intended purpose.

Constructing Acceptable Definitions

A definition is a good one if it provides a clear account of how a word or phrase is

being used. Here are some rules of thumb governing the construction of good definitions.

1. Our definition should give the genus and the difference; it should give the class to which a thing
belongs, and then it should show how this particular thing is different from other things in the
same class.
2. Our definition should not contain any words, which are synonyms of the word we are defining
or derivatives of that word. To define a beautiful woman, as one who is unusually attractive
does not help very much since it immediately raises the question, “What is attractiveness?”
3. Our definition should not contain words, which are ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. Use
words that are as clear and as simple as possible. Often cited as an example of what to avoid is
the like of this definition of a net as “any reticulated fabric, decussated at regular intervals,
with interstices at the intersections”.
4. Our definition should use the parts of speech as the word we are defining. If the word is a noun,
use a noun as the main word in the definition. Avoid the use of “is when” or “is where” in the
definition.

Our definition should be positive, not negative. To say “A wolf is not a member of the
cat family,” is true but not very helpful. To complete such definition we would have to list
practically everything in the universe. In the interest of clarity, economy and precision, we
should use positive definitions whenever possible.