Towards a theory of definition

Abstract

A brief theoretical statement on definition is advanced, followed by a study of the development of definition in children aged 5;o-10 ;o. The empirical findings suggest that the emergence of superordinate terms in definition cannot be adequately accounted for simply by appeal to changes in underlying knowledge, or to selectional restrictions on the structure of the definiens. Rather, the development of definition can best be characterized as the gradual articulation of a conventional definitional form out of the more general forms of ordinary oral discourse. It is suggested that definitions are expressions of word meaning that reflect the unique requirements of a literate register, and that the increasing dominance of superordinate terms in definitions reflects in part the adoption of this conventional form of expression.

On the Linguistic Origin of Superordinate Categorization

“…According to Wehren ct al. [1981] and Watson [1985], learning to make complete, i.c., truly infor mative definitions requires not only knowl edge of the to-be-defined object but also knowledge of what a definition is. Their data show that, as a function of age, children's definitions progressively accomplish the main standard criteria of verbal definitions.…”

Literate discourse and cognitive organization: Some relations between parents' talk and 3-year-olds' thought

“…Paradigmatic organization also figures importantly in the expression of meaning. For example, children's use of superordinate category terms in expressions of word meaning increases with development (Anglin, 1977;Watson, 1985), and category terms are also historically and theoretically central in expressions of conceptual knowledge (Robinson, 1950;Smith & Medin, 1981). Categorical organization has also long been argued to be affected by cultural practices, such as literacy and schooling (Bruner, Olver, & Greenfield, 1966;Luria, 1976;Scribner & Cole, 1981;Sharp, Cole, & Lave, 1979).…”

The Relationships among Verbal Skills of Primary School Students with Specific Learning Disabilities and a Typically Developing Comparison Group

“…They have to rely on a word-based system, and, accordingly, relate words to other words and not directly to objects (Toomela, 2003;Vygotsky, 1934Vygotsky, /1997. Superordinate terms in definitions and classifications based on taxonomic principles are preferred (Kikas, 2003;Snow et al, 1989;Watson, 1985;Wertsch, 1991). Students have to guess and understand new words both from oral discourse and written texts, the content and structure of which become more complicated with years of schooling (Carlisle, Fleming, & Gudbrandsen, 2000;Fukkink, 2005).…”

“…Children's word-defining skills have received much attention in developmental studies (e.g., Al-Issa, 1969;Benelli, 1988;Johnson & Anglin, 1995;Kurland & Snow, 1997;Litowitz, 1977;Marinelle & Johnson, 2004;Nippold, Hegel, & Sohlberg, 1999;Skwarchuk & Anglin, 1997;Snow, 1990;Snow et al, 1989;Storck & Looft, 1973;Watson, 1985). Assessment of these skills has also been included in classical intelligence tests (e.g., Wechsler, 2005).…”

“…However, such definitions are considered immature and are not highly valued in school. Instead, preference is given to definitions in which a word is related to a wider semantic (superordinate) category, the most highly valued of which is classical Aristotelian definitions (Skwarchuk & Anglin, 1997;Snow, 1990;Snow et al, 1989;Watson, 1985); for example, an apple is a fruit. As a decontextualised language task, word defining requires a child to reflect on the word's structure and to state explicitly what is known implicitly (Snow et al, 1989;Watson, 1985).…”