1. If you’re a communicator, this one’s for you.
It’s to help you sharpen your speaking tools. As communicators, how often do we use the tools of language such as words, concepts, and definitions without ever taking the time to turn the tools over and give them a closer look?
What is a “word”? I’m not asking the formal definition. I’m asking:
-“What is a word used for?”
-“How does one go about using a word?”
-“What does it mean for something to be a word?”
A word is a unit of spoken sounds or written letters that stands for something in reality.
Something exists or is thought to exist (be it an object, a group of objects, or a relationship, quality, or aspect of objects) and people “call it” some word.
Though it seems basic, note something of great significance:
A word is what something “is called.”
Everything we need to know about the right and wrong way to treat words is hinted at or implied in the above sentence.
Let me draw out some implications:
Say you are a 10-year-old, and you hear a new word. For instance, “acceleration.” You don’t know exactly what the word means. You ask an adult. They tell you, “When something starts moving faster, that *is called* acceleration.”
Some important observations:
To tell a child what a word means, the adult told the him *how the word is used by adults. To know a word’s meaning is to know how that word is *commonly and *correctly used by other people. I say both *commonly and *correctly because both must hold true.
Say the adult were to tell a child that excelling in school is called “acceleration.” (The adult is confused by the similar sound of the words!) That adult would be wrong. And it would not matter if he and his family and 100 other people made the same mistake and made it consistently. It would still not be the case that “excelling in school” is *commonly and *correctly called “acceleration.”
“Common” and “correct” are not always the same. How do we know whether a usage is common and whether it is correct? We can measure “common.” Just listen to how the majority of people use a word. Take a poll if needed.
That tells us what is common. But is that sufficient for establishing what is correct? No, because it is possible for a majority of people to be mistaken. If the majority of people call Christianity a myth, that doesn’t mean it is a myth. So we must also ask about the *correct usage.
But how does one determine the correct usage of a word? The dictionary is not always sufficient for this task. We can know a word’s correct usage only by attending to the actual facts of how that word came into being and how it is used by those most closely associated with its use.
If we want to know the difference between a beakhead and a bulkhead, we should ask a sailor. The words arose out of the necessity of use. We must ask those to whom the correct use matters most!
The same goes for finding the difference between inerrant and infallible. Ask a theologian, not a sailor.
What is the difference between a definition and a concept? Ask a philosopher, not a theologian.
And what if the dictionary does not agree with the weathered sailor, the trained theologian, or the accomplished philosopher? How does an honest inquirer discover a word’s proper use?
The matter is not simple, but in essence here is the process: one must trace back the steps that led to the word’s original formation. What was the fact about the way things actually are in reality that led some people to make some differentiation?
Words are useful because of their differentiating function; but they are only useful inasmuch as they differentiate in accordance with actual differences. I have heard a philosopher refer to this as, “cutting the chicken at the joints.”
It is not enough merely to know *that the experts say “this is X, and this is Y.” The honest inquirer needs to know *how the experts in the field came to their system of differentiations.
In this search, we may discover some important fact that the original experts overlooked. When this happens, we may even conclude that an earlier set of differentiations was invalid or incomplete.
Therefore, it is clear that (aside from divine interference) there is on earth no “source” for definitions, except reality itself. And reality must be judged by the individual. He is not alone. He should ask what the best minds in a given field have concluded. But he must also ask why.
The conclusions of “experts” are only as good as their fidelity to reality. The same is true for the conclusions of the authors of dictionaries. The dictionary can be, and will be, revised; and not only for the sake of the shifting nature of language. Sometimes it must be revised for the sake of an advance in human understanding.
Looking back to our opening example, the case of a 10-year-old asking what “acceleration” means, we see that,
“When something starts moving faster, that *is called* acceleration.”
The majority of people—or those most knowledgeable—have found it useful to call such and such observed phenomena by such and such name.
When we speak of what acceleration “means,” we are speaking about what something in reality “is called” by the majority of people (what is common) or by those most knowledgable (what is correct).
Who is most knowledgable? That is for the individual to determine. There is no standard but reality.
Application?
When discussing definitions with others, recognize the following:
-There is an objective standard for which definitions are right and wrong; but it is not easy. It is reality itself. As our grasp of reality develops, sometimes we recast our definitions.
-Nevertheless, we must account for how people commonly use words; and we must especially account for how experts traditionally use those words. We must account for why they chose to use them in that particular way.
-The dictionary can be wrong.
-A word’s common usage can be so wrong as to merit that we would take the word and fight to redefine it.