-
![]()
-
![]()
[4」 。 Ta word's meammng is its dictionary definition, then understanding
this meaning involves understanding the meanings of the words used in the
definitions. But understanding the meanings of these words must involve
understanding the meanings of the words in 妨e7 definitions. And
understanding 7ese definitions must involve understanding the words they
use, which of course would have to involvye understanding even more
definitions. The process is never-ending.
[5] Sometimes the circularity* of a set of dictionary definitions is
apparent by looking up just a few words. For instance, one English dictionary
defines gzozze as being or having the nature of a deity*、 but defines gez/y as
"divinity*. Another defines przde as the quality or state of being proud', but
defines proxd as *feeling or showing pride'、Examples hke these are especially
graphic\。but essentially the same problem holds for any dictionary-style
definition. Dictionaries are written to be of practical aid to people who
already speak the language, not to make theoretical claims about the nature
of meaning. People can and do learn the meanings of some words through
dictionary definitions, so Would be unfair to say that such definitions are
completely unable to characterize the meanings of words, but it should be
clear that dictionary definitions cant be all there is to the meanings of all the
words in a language.
