Where do you get your definitions?

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I have always been very concerned with the problem of precise and concise definitions. I was extremely gratified to learn that a fair proportion of the rest of the population does too.

I guess I differ from the traditional INTP, which apparently is uninterested in authority. I on the other hand am a big fan of authority. If a clear authority does not exist for a particular issue, I will pretend that one does. Prime example being the English language. Anyway, when I want to adopt a definition for something, whether for discussion, writing an essay, personal curiosity, or whatever, I use these sources.

- Oxford English Dictionary. Bitches. I take a relatively prescriptive approach to the English language, and for almost everything I check the OED first.

- Wolfram Mathworld. For most mathematical terms and conventions.

- IUPAC publications, IUPAP publications, the SI brochure, CODATA-recommended values for physical constants, NIST recommendations. For physics, chemistry, science, scientific writing. Srs bsns.

- Catholic Encyclopedia. For religious concepts.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church. Occasionally as supplement to the above.

- Encyclopædia Britannica. For some “concepts” which may be too specialized for the OED. Sometimes I use this for one-sentence biographies.

- Wikipedia. I love wiki, but I only occasionally use this as an authority, because I am at heart an intellectual elitist and uninterested in what the great unwashed think. Wikipedia is far too malleable and democratic for me.

Yes, I know standards change, and most modern standards are not the best possible, or most useful. But dammit I like my standards. And I like to pretend they never change. Occasionally this leads me to speaking in Early Modern English just because it's older.

BTW, I get annoyed as hell with this modern conceit that you get to make up your definitions as you go along. In class just today we were discussing what “our” definitions of American are. That really pisses me off. You don’t get to go around choosing your own, individual definitions. That's just nonsense.

 

[Cogwulf]

For general definitions I just type "define:xxxxxx" into google and read all the results it gives me, or wikipedia for concepts. For definitions as long as I understand the meaning of it that's all I need, any differences in wording don't mean much to me. I use wikipeadia for getting a general idea about things, I either just lookup a small piece of information I've been wondering about, or use it as a stepping stone to get to know the basics before I move on to a textbook or whatever. And sometimes I read through whole articles or subjects on wikipeadia just out of interest and store it in a file in my head labelled "interesting/useful information -Not verified"

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Well, you’re talking about understanding, and for that I follow a similar process. Wikipedia is huge in importance for me in understanding things.

But I’m talking about that primal urge for precision you get when a homework question says “What is entropy?” or something. Or you are asked to determine the “systematic” name for a chemical compound and you are not satisfied with “isopropyl alcohol,” “isopropanol,” or even “2-propanol” (deprecated in 1993, dammit!) You want “propan-2-ol.” Dammit.

And that is honestly just skimming the surface. Know how I learned LaTeX? When I had chemistry homework sophomore year of high school, and I wanted the formulae to be typeset elegantly. Everyone else just hand-wrote it.

Hopefully this is not just me? Roffle.

 

[cheese]

BTW, I get annoyed as hell with this modern conceit that you get to make up your definitions as you go along. In class just today we were discussing what “our” definitions of American are. That really pisses me off. You don’t get to go around choosing your own, individual definitions. That's just nonsense.

Oh, interesting. I agree with the general sentamint ov ur poste.

RE 'American' -
Unfortunately for standards' stability, the world is changing so rapidly at the moment that identity markers such as those are constantly shifting in their reference points. In the days of cultural homogenity 'American' worked fine as a general term covering citizenship, family background and shared values, but that static representation simply doesn't work anymore. Most people don't exist in discrete cultural blocks. I think because this is a period of transition we have to do some linguistic renovation - rearrange, recombine and perhaps introduce completely new concepts.

Language is (at least in part) functional anyway - a tool for communication. Words are mostly transmitted through whatever social context one is in, and their definitions determined by whichever is dominant. I certainly agree that, because it's community-oriented, there should be a common standard, but in the same way the 'community' is in such flux currently that the sort of class exercise you mentioned is necessary to find common ground.

I suspect it probably was prompted by the modern conceit you talked about though - the individual-centred universe, with 6 billion universes wandering around the planet.
The particular problem with cultural definition caught my attention though as I've struggled with it most of my life (I'd simply say it refers to anyone with an american passport, but its use varies greatly according to context).

I know you understand that standards change; there just doesn't seem much point adhering to one that no longer is any sort of marker. Although I feel the same way. Improving though.


I'm curious - what do you think of the idea that everyone's interpretations of art (in the broad sense; inclusive of music) are valid? Or indeed that all self-expression is art? I get a little disturbed when people think interpreting the works of Bach is a happy little exercise in self-indulgence.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Well, I do guide my conceit (and the whole business is very much a conceit) about particular definitions being authoritative by common sense and public consensus.

Using the most appropriate definition (of the several listed) for the context, OED says (paraphrased) that an American is one who was born in the United States or who is a United States citizen. This seems reasonable to me - thus I adopt it. It's also useful, and it matches up with existing usage, if you extend the definition (native or citizen) to any nation around the world. My father was born in Cuba, and is a United States citizen: thus, he is a Cuban, and also an American, and also a Cuban-American. I, being a United States native and citizen of no other country, am an American. I am not a Cuban. (Although I could be considered Cuban - the generalized adjective, not the particularized noun.)

What repels me is the tendency to say, ‘your dad is Cuban (or, American) because he identifies that way.’

And yes, language is functional. I just most of the time like to pretend that it isn’t. It is useful for a society to agree on definitions in a functional manner - but that’s not what the modern movement tries to do. At least not in my experience. For example, in class, the discussions on what certain concepts “mean to us” never end with any attempt at consensus. I always feel left hanging when this happens. We ought to at least attempt consensus. The implication is that it is perfectly all right for everyone to walk around with their own personal definitions. I of course think these sorts of people should be strung up. It's hard enough discussing with people even when you do agree on definitions.

I think that beauty has both objective and subjective components to it. In other words, there are some things that are objectively beautiful - God, and certain other religious things, for example. As for art, and literature, I am of the school which generally holds to the author’s interpretation. I am repelled (though less so than in the previous paragraph) by the idea that the interpretation of art or literature is up to each individual in the audience. “What does it say to you?” Nuh-uh. It's a fair question, but I think it subordinate to, “What did the author intend?”

 

[SEPKA]

I also use OED, Wolfram, EB and Wikipedia. For Philosophy's concept I go to Stanford University website (it's good that there are usually discussion there too, not just definition, or even dispute over definition). For everyday life word that I don't know, I just use google, or Urban Dictionary, but they are not as accurate, and so I usuaully have to make my own judgment.
Formal dictionary sometimes are very slow in updating: I still cannot find "steganography" in any major dictionary, yet the word have been used for decades.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

It’s in the 2d edition OED!

http://www.mediafire.com/?1qnkkm23ink

I heart those guys.

 

[cheese]

Well if you're asking if I'm irrationally attached to language and standards for their own sake then yes, I am. *

I'd say more on art but it'd be pretty off-topic. May as well take the time to gather my thoughts before starting a new thread (I already have two waiting in the wings of the wave function, but whether they collapse in verbally-structured debris or simply go up in smoke is yet to be seentermined*).

 

[Agent Intellect]

Well, I do guide my conceit (and the whole business is very much a conceit) about particular definitions being authoritative by common sense and public consensus.

Common sense is very subjective (different cultures have different forms of 'common sense'), and public consensus changes (memetic evolution).

Using the most appropriate definition (of the several listed) for the context, OED says (paraphrased) that an American is one who was born in the United States or who is a United States citizen.

That's the definition of an American, but it's devoid of meaning. What it means to be an American - which would be our own definition - is different from person to person. Ask a young black person from an impoverished urban neighborhood what it means to be an American, then ask an executive from Goldman Sachs and you'll get very different answers.

This seems reasonable to me - thus I adopt it. It's also useful, and it matches up with existing usage, if you extend the definition (native or citizen) to any nation around the world. My father was born in Cuba, and is a United States citizen: thus, he is a Cuban, and also an American, and also a Cuban-American. I, being a United States native and citizen of no other country, am an American. I am not a Cuban. (Although I could be considered Cuban - the generalized adjective, not the particularized noun.)

I wonder if there can be different 'levels' of being american... perhaps the Native Americans have more of a right to claim to be americans then anyone else? What about illegal immigrants that give birth on american soil? Can cease to be an american, by committing treason or willingly nullifying their citizenship in some other way? Or are you permenantly american once you have been born here, or acheived citizenship? Can anyone be half, or some other fraction, american?

What repels me is the tendency to say, ‘your dad is Cuban (or, American) because he identifies that way.’

Being an american seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. One can identify as a liberal or conservative, or as a christian or a sikh, and the very act of identifying as one makes you one. Isn't being american or not-american just as much of an ideal, as opposed to a physical trait, as any of those other ideologies? Could I be born in america, yet reject having this ideal thrust upon me, in the same way that, say, a Canadian might think of themselves as more of an american than a Canadian?

And yes, language is functional. I just most of the time like to pretend that it isn’t. It is useful for a society to agree on definitions in a functional manner - but that’s not what the modern movement tries to do. At least not in my experience. For example, in class, the discussions on what certain concepts “mean to us” never end with any attempt at consensus. I always feel left hanging when this happens. We ought to at least attempt consensus.

The meaning of things will necessarily be different to different people. I agree that there are certain things that are not a matter of opinion (think the flat earth society) but ideas like religion, politics, nationality, culture, and even in some cases morals are going to be different on an individual basis, and on a cultural/population basis.

And even things that are not up for discussion can have different meanings for people.

The implication is that it is perfectly all right for everyone to walk around with their own personal definitions. I of course think these sorts of people should be strung up. It's hard enough discussing with people even when you do agree on definitions.

This sounds like fascism to me

Definitions are derived from the discussion of various ideas. In biology there is no well defined definition of what a gene actually is, so there is much discussion on the topic. Over time, after more experiments and discussions of the observations, a more precise definition will become clear. There is also no concensus on the definition of what a unit of evolution is, particularly because of the problem with the definition of a gene, but also some biologists think that a cell is the unit of evolution, while others think it's an entire organism etc.

The point is, definitions are fluid and dynamic, and only through discussion of the definitions can precision be acheived.

I think that beauty has both objective and subjective components to it. In other words, there are some things that are objectively beautiful - God, and certain other religious things, for example.

Even the idea of God is not the same across the board - read some of the posts in the religion and philosophy section (or just look at how many different religions and sects within those religions there are). Even if there is an objective concept of God, I find it difficult to believe that anyone knows that that is, and even if someone has it right, that they know they have it right.

As for art, and literature, I am of the school which generally holds to the author’s interpretation. I am repelled (though less so than in the previous paragraph) by the idea that the interpretation of art or literature is up to each individual in the audience. “What does it say to you?” Nuh-uh. It's a fair question, but I think it subordinate to, “What did the author intend?”

Art is too abstract to have a well defined definition. Most art, I would say, is meant to be open to interpretation. Some literature has an unmistakable message in it, and are often written so that the message cannot be misconstrued, but if you read poetry or prose with a lot of symbolism etc they seem to keep themselves open to the readers interpretation. To say that everyone should get the same meaning from them is like saying everyone should feel the same way about a certain movie, or that everyone should enjoy the same foods because some foods are just objectively superior to others.

Also, a lot of literature is full of connotations, using words to get a mood across that's not following the words definition. A lot of literature would make very little sense if we could only ever use precise definitions for words. The relativism of ideas, even if precise definitions are used axiomatically, certainly makes things more interesting and less homogeneous (which I would say is the enemy of progress).

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Common sense is very subjective (different cultures have different forms of 'common sense'), and public consensus changes (memetic evolution).

Yeah, I agree.

That's the definition of an American, but it's devoid of meaning. What it means to be an American - which would be our own definition - is different from person to person. Ask a young black person from an impoverished urban neighborhood what it means to be an American, then ask an executive from Goldman Sachs and you'll get very different answers.

I think it's got plenty of meaning - that's what definitions do. I... question the relevance of "What it means to be an American" in the sense that you use it. I think that's an imprecise way to express your feeling that "you respect someone less if they [do not measure up to my idea of an American]," except I would much prefer if they'd just replace that part in brackets with what they would otherwise say. It think that "What it means to be an American" has not nothing to do with the word 'American' and everything to do with subjective concerns which are best hung where they belong - on the subject, not on the word 'American.'[/i] Sorry, this paragraph is a bit stream-of-consciousness.

I wonder if there can be different 'levels' of being american... perhaps the Native Americans have more of a right to claim to be americans then anyone else? What about illegal immigrants that give birth on american soil? Can cease to be an american, by committing treason or willingly nullifying their citizenship in some other way? Or are you permenantly american once you have been born here, or acheived citizenship? Can anyone be half, or some other fraction, american?

See, I wouldl resolve this by saying that there are multiple definitions to the world 'American.' one refers to the indigenous peoples, the American race; the other is the definition I used above. Don't denotational definitions answer every one of your above questions?

Being an american seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. One can identify as a liberal or conservative, or as a christian or a sikh, and the very act of identifying as one makes you one. Isn't being american or not-american just as much of an ideal, as opposed to a physical trait, as any of those other ideologies? Could I be born in america, yet reject having this ideal thrust upon me, in the same way that, say, a Canadian might think of themselves as more of an american than a Canadian?

The appropriate way to express this would be something like "I have more in common with Americans than Canadians, and am involved in American culture more than Canadian culture." Not, "I am an American, because I have more in common etc." I do recognize that there are connotations attached to the word 'American'... but if you think the denotation applies to you but the connotation does not, the solution is to, when necessary, state how you don't accept the connotation. The solution is not to throw the denotation out with the connotation - you are nevertheless still "an American."

The meaning of things will necessarily be different to different people. I agree that there are certain things that are not a matter of opinion (think the flat earth society) but ideas like religion, politics, nationality, culture, and even in some cases morals are going to be different on an individual basis, and on a cultural/population basis.

And even things that are not up for discussion can have different meanings for people.

Eh... perhaps I could respond to this better if you explained your usage/definition of "meaning."

This sounds like fascism to me

Definitions are derived from the discussion of various ideas. In biology there is no well defined definition of what a gene actually is, so there is much discussion on the topic. Over time, after more experiments and discussions of the observations, a more precise definition will become clear. There is also no concensus on the definition of what a unit of evolution is, particularly because of the problem with the definition of a gene, but also some biologists think that a cell is the unit of evolution, while others think it's an entire organism etc.

The point is, definitions are fluid and dynamic, and only through discussion of the definitions can precision be acheived.

Hahahah. I have in jest referred to myself as a "scientific" or "intellectual fascist." Of course, I don't really think anybody sh- SIEG HEIL! ...uh, should be shot.

Even the idea of God is not the same across the board - read some of the posts in the religion and philosophy section (or just look at how many different religions and sects within those religions there are). Even if there is an objective concept of God, I find it difficult to believe that anyone knows that that is, and even if someone has it right, that they know they have it right.

Fair enough. As long as it is understood that there is one and only one correct interpretation of God, whether we can fully attain it or not.

Art is too abstract to have a well defined definition. Most art, I would say, is meant to be open to interpretation. Some literature has an unmistakable message in it, and are often written so that the message cannot be misconstrued, but if you read poetry or prose with a lot of symbolism etc they seem to keep themselves open to the readers interpretation. To say that everyone should get the same meaning from them is like saying everyone should feel the same way about a certain movie, or that everyone should enjoy the same foods because some foods are just objectively superior to others.

Also, a lot of literature is full of connotations, using words to get a mood across that's not following the words definition. A lot of literature would make very little sense if we could only ever use precise definitions for words. The relativism of ideas, even if precise definitions are used axiomatically, certainly makes things more interesting and less homogeneous (which I would say is the enemy of progress).

If the author intends that the readers choose their own interpretation - fair enough. But you see, I think it the question is fundamentally up to the author. As for film and food - I think they both can be art. However, the question of liking something (inherently very personal) is different from the question of it's significance or meaning.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I think it's got plenty of meaning - that's what definitions do. I... question the relevance of "What it means to be an American" in the sense that you use it. I think that's an imprecise way to express your feeling that "you respect someone less if they [do not measure up to my idea of an American]," except I would much prefer if they'd just replace that part in brackets with what they would otherwise say. It think that "What it means to be an American" has not nothing to do with the word 'American' and everything to do with subjective concerns which are best hung where they belong - on the subject, not on the word 'American.'[/i] Sorry, this paragraph is a bit stream-of-consciousness.

What it means to be an American is derived from consensus, in the same way that money has value and that a politician has power - I found the whole 'debacle' of Obama messing up on the oath meaning he wasn't actually the president humorous for that very fact, because he is president if people think he is president.

By that logic, of course, even if someone had been born in America, but everyone in America truly believed they were not an American, then could they really fall under the definition of being an American? Is it about the actual land mass that someone was birthed (and why not conceived, since that's apparently when one becomes a human?) or is being an American nothing more then an abstract idea that emerges from mutual consensus agreement - in the same way that 'sanity' is defined, since there is no objective analogue for what is 'sane', there is also no objective analogue for what an American is?

See, I wouldl resolve this by saying that there are multiple definitions to the world 'American.' one refers to the indigenous peoples, the American race; the other is the definition I used above. Don't denotational definitions answer every one of your above questions?

Certain definitions will be more salient to different people. And, I'm sure, some people may see other people as being "not American". George Bush Sr said that he does not consider atheists to be Americans, and the KKK does not think that blacks, Jews, and Catholics are Americans, and many conservatives think that small town inhabitants are 'true Americans' - and within their respective microcosms, that would be an accepted definition.

The appropriate way to express this would be something like "I have more in common with Americans than Canadians, and am involved in American culture more than Canadian culture." Not, "I am an American, because I have more in common etc." I do recognize that there are connotations attached to the word 'American'... but if you think the denotation applies to you but the connotation does not, the solution is to, when necessary, state how you don't accept the connotation. The solution is not to throw the denotation out with the connotation - you are nevertheless still "an American."

Well, what if most Americans considered a non-American to be an American? Or what if they fooled everybody - how could anyone know the difference? A denotative definition makes me think that there is something intrinsic about adhering to a specific ideal, when all that is changed is the mindset of people within the population; if people believe a Canadian is an American (whether by deceit or simply because they have adopted said Canadian as a 'true American') then are they not an American (same could be said about any sort of ideal: religion, political affiliation etc).

Eh... perhaps I could respond to this better if you explained your usage/definition of "meaning."

Meaning, I suppose, would be how people view and accept a certain definition on an individual basis. Think about something like abortion - what does it mean for a fetus to be a human being? To some people, it becomes a human at conception, to others there is an arbitrary point (third trimester etc) and to still others it's at birth. While there is an objective analogue - an organism growing within a woman's uterus - what it "means" for it to be human (and therefore deserving of the right to life) is different depending on who one talks to.

Hahahah. I have in jest referred to myself as a "scientific" or "intellectual fascist." Of course, I don't really think anybody sh- SIEG HEIL! ...uh, should be shot.

Well, I think most INTP's are sticklers for precision and semantics. I would certainly agree that scientific accuracy is very important, and just like on the thread about energy, I have absolutely no problem being corrected when I'm mistaken on a certain definition or even on a small facet of correctness.

Fair enough. As long as it is understood that there is one and only one correct interpretation of God, whether we can fully attain it or not.

Well, that depends, too. There are certain religious sects that believe in relativistic concepts of God. If what God knows is what defines everything that can exist, then isn't any conceptual framework of God truth, since it fits within the set of everything (ie God)?

If the author intends that the readers choose their own interpretation - fair enough. But you see, I think it the question is fundamentally up to the author. As for film and food - I think they both can be art. However, the question of liking something (inherently very personal) is different from the question of it's significance or meaning.

How does one know what the author intends unless it's made explicitly clear? The very act of leaving anything ambiguous and/or open to interpretation seems like an invitation to personal construal and subjective elucidation.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

You make some excellent points. Especially that last one - I was kind of hoping you wouldn't bring it up because I don't think I have an answer for it. In practice, I usually assume the author has an intended interpretation, unless they have told the public that they have none. For most books that have even been popular, somebody has gotten published what the author's answer to "so, what does it MEAN?", even if the answer is "whatever you like."

I think that words change in meaning over time, but that this change ought to be, as far as the scientist, linguist, intellectual is concerned, stair-step. In other words, we take a particular definition as standard, and when it becomes sufficiently outmoded, we hop straight to the next definition. But at any particular moment in time, we might as well be prescriptivists. Does that make sense? I think that's how it works.

Thus is my idea of strict definitions moderated by considerations of the public's general idea of a word's meaning. If the older, strict definition is sufficiently close to the public's idea, it should be promoted, but if not, it should be abandoned and reformulated. But the key is that words always have a precise definition, arbitrary or no, even if operational, and only for the purposes of a particular discussion.

However, I do believe in certain objective standards - particularly in an objective, universal, natural moral law. This would address, for example, the question of abortion.

 

[cheese]

I think we were judging the class discussion from different temporal standpoints - you from a possible ideal future, and us from the present. As the world is now, those discussions are necessary to facilitate communication. If your ideal were in place - which it isn't because change has been too fast and largely unregulated - then perhaps your censure would be less jarring.

Of course we almost always make mental judgements against our ideal backdrop, but I think this particular situation called for time-specific evaluation. In other words, the teacher was working with what she had - inherited disorganisation.

Again though, it's highly possible it was simply another display of the cult of individuality. Also, while meanings are continually negotiated, perhaps the discussions and conclusions should not be taking place in a classroom. Sample size is too small for any large-scale use.

 

[Jordan~]

Words don't have definitions, they're just utterances with evoke a certain reaction in others. They can mean any number of things depending on the manner in which they're communicated, and no dictionary is comprehensive enough to capture the nuances of language, nor is any frequently enough updated for it to faithfully reflect the use of language from day to day, hour to hour, or minute to minute. Dictionaries and rigid definitons are useless and futile; they do nothing to halt or reverse the progress of language (and therefore, thought, with which language is codependent); nor should they.

Ultimately, we use our instinctive reactions to words, which derive from our experience of those words in the past, to define them. Everyone has a different definition of every word they've ever heard. To me, "ravioli" carries sinister connotations of illness. I'm quite sure I'm nearly alone in this.

Quitely can subvert grammary rulings we, and not-cloudy meaninged going wordiness of us be.

 

[cheese]

Oh bugger, I meant to mention this earlier but forgot -

You're probably already aware of this, but just in case, you might want to look up constructed languages. They seem to be going in the direction you'd like (increased precision and regulation); I'm rather interested in them myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language

This I thought rather beautiful as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_of_human_thought

Jordan:
Interesting response, that I agree with to an extent; however the 'experience' that shapes our...emotional definitions, if you will, is filtered through the social sieve of understanding - there has to be enough common ground in a community for a word to be adopted as a tool for communication. You cannot escape consensus, even if it's an imperfect sort. Anchoring this to an external standard set in temporary stone goes a good way towards efficient learning and communication. Dogmatic adherence is counter-productive, but I don't think the changes over minutes or days are significant enough to merit baby-chucking.

That chinese emperor dude unifed chinese characters for a reason - it aids the bridging of gaps. It's wobbly but it helps.


*edit
I see this discussion as negotiation (ok, conflict) between Ti and Te. Ti wants to understand the form of the substance (that is rather fluid); Te has understood a form, and wishes to force the substance into it.

I think both are useful. There'll probably always be problems balancing the two though.

 

[Jordan~]

Well, by the definition of a word we mean an essentially subjective phenomenon. The definition of a word is what it means, and meaning, being an extrinsic quality to reality granted only by the biases of the observer, is not sourced from any external and universal node accessible to all. When we use a word, what influences us in using that word is what we have experienced to do with what that word means to us. Words derive their meaning from the way in which they are used, not from the thing to which they are intended to refer. Their meaning is situational, and they are only understandable through their context in time and space and in relation to other words spoken or written. In communal use of language there exists for each individual a set of personal thought relations for each words, and it is the overlapping of the most common of these which grants the speakers of that language the "true" meaning of that word. Were everyone to have a bad experience with ravioli - or at least, enough people that it became a cultural understanding that bad experiences were to be expected with raviolo - then the word would take on the appropriate connotations. An extant example of this phenomenon is Chinese food. Chinese food is notoriously illness-inducing due to the infamous uncleanliness of Chinese take aways. Regardless of whether or not this is based on any objective fact, enough people have experienced illness as a consequence of eating Chinese food that we now associate the two, to an extent, in the right context. If someone says, "I am ill," and another replies, "It must have been the Chinese food you ate," the connection between the two statements is immediately apparent to those with the appropriate cultural background. Thus, Chinese food has gained these connotations, being the intuitive thought relations evoked by the term, through the collective experiences of individuals who have communicated their experiences. These are the kinds of nuances which will not be considered in a dictionary, where Chinese food is merely food from China or in the Chinese style. The definition of a word is first individual, then cultural, and finally we take recourse to dictionaries, which make an effort to provide the essence of a word without its abstractions, when a dispute arises over what a particular word means. Such disputes occur only when there is a clash in personal or cultural experience significant enough to result in a contradictory understanding of the fundamental characteristic of a word, i.e. the physical thing, the entity, which it signifies.