A Random Thought on Definitions (In Response to Swales & Feak pp.33-55).

A definition? “All birds can fly”. Not a true definition! This sentence is untrue since even if only one bird in the entire universe were unable to fly (as can be illustrated rather easily), the reality is that not all birds can fly. Thus, the property "can fly" cannot form a part of the definition of a bird. The lesson to be learned is that definitions must always aim for universality. They must apply to all the members / elements of a defined set, such as the set of "all birds" used in the previous example. Therefore, constructing a definition becomes more than using words to briefly describe something – it’s a matter concerned with recognizing and isolating similarities (or common-denominators). The skeptical nature of my personal feelings relating to fixed categories and “absolute” definitions aside, we (as humans) do require a certain degree of definition in order to speak about things . . . in order to both understand and be understood. A better definition of a bird therefore may be “An animal with feathered wings”. However, the challenge here is for the reader not to infer and equate wings with flight since this would extend the definition beyond the range of what was originally intended. Of course, inference is inevitable since reader and writer seldom, if ever, have contact (and inference is a necessary means of meaning construction). Ultimately, definitions are themselves vulnerable to semantic dynamics, and this often necessitates a more-detailed definition of the initial definition (especially as far as the context of the original wording is concerned).