Humpty Dumpty and the Meaning of Words

One way to avoid fuzzy reasoning and miscommunication is to make sure we have the definitions of words nailed down. First, that ensures that we’re using them consistently ourselves. Second, when we argue with other people, it reminds us to check whether we’re using words in different ways than they are. That’s more common than people realize, and it causes trouble. Many heated quarrels happen unnecessarily because the people arguing don’t realize they’re using the same word in different ways.

An example I’ve seen many times recently is the word “racist”. Imagine that two people named Maria and Mike are talking. Maria says, “I wish you wouldn’t wear that sombrero on Cinco de Mayo. I think that’s racist.” Then Mike says, “How dare you call me racist! I think all human beings are equal.” Maria may see a distinction between calling an action racist and saying that a person is a racist. She may think a non-racist person can do racist things without meaning to, or having any animosity toward the other race. So she’s not saying Mike is a racist person. Mike, meanwhile, hears the word “racist” and assumes it means “a person who dislikes other races or thinks they are inferior”. That’s a pretty grave accusation, so it’s not surprising that Mike is offended. But he’s misunderstanding what Maria was trying to say. Now, I’m not about to weigh in on whether Mike or Maria’s definitions are correct. My point is that they could avoid a lot of hurt feelings by realizing they’re defining the same word in different ways.

Some people will scoff at you if you ask them how they’re using a word, because for some reason they think words have one single definition that’s set in stone forever. Often they will pull out a dictionary to prove that a word should mean a particular thing (this is called the appeal to definition fallacy, or, more tongue-in-cheek, “argumentum ad dictionarium”). But that’s not how language or dictionaries work. Languages evolve, and that’s why dictionaries have to be updated. Words shift meaning and take on new meanings all the time, and all attempts to stop that process have failed. Samuel Johnson, who wrote one of the most influential dictionaries of all time, wrote in the preface that, “academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride.” Of course, we spell the word “subtle” differently these days, and don’t use so many commas. And Johnson wouldn’t be surprised, because he knew that language evolves.

The definitions in dictionaries are just one type of definition, called a lexical definition, which simply reports how a word is being used at a particular point in history. In Lewis Carroll’s book Through the Looking Glass, Alice meets Humpty Dumpty, and they have the following conversation:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Was Humpty right? If dictionaries just report how people use words, can I just use a word to mean anything I want it to? No, because the whole point of words is communication, so words have to be used in a way that people will understand. You can’t say “cat” and expect them to know you use that word to mean “walrus”. And you can’t define a word in a way that’s clearly at odds with reality. If a dictionary defined a walrus as a kind of cat, that would be a bad definition. Dictionaries can say how a word is used, but they can’t necessarily say how they should be used. At one time, people thought mushrooms were plants (they’re actually more closely related to animals), so many dictionaries probably defined them as plants. But that doesn’t mean they are.

This stuff about definitions might sound trivial, but many controversies in the culture wars turn on how words should be defined. Conservatives may say that marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman. They believe this definition refers to an objective fact in the world, like the fact that walruses aren’t cats. But liberals don’t think the definition of marriage is fixed in this way, because they believe marriage is an evolving social construct like, for example, a language. I won’t make a judgment here, but one thing that’s clear is that you can’t resolve the issue by grabbing a dictionary. If a dictionary says a walrus is a cat, all that proves is that you have a crappy dictionary.

Another way definitions get swept up in culture wars is when people try to define words in particular ways that match their worldview. The most obvious example is the word “abortion”. Many pro-lifers want to define abortion as “the murder of an unborn baby”, while pro-choice people want to define it as “the ending of an unwanted pregnancy”. In both cases, these are persuasive definitions, used to get the upper hand in controversies by defining words in certain ways. But persuasive definitions are fallacious as arguments , because they’re circular--the definition assumes what needs to be proven. Whether abortion is murder or the justified termination of a pregnancy is precisely what’s controversial. To prove one side or the other requires arguments that don’t presuppose the conclusion. To say, “Abortion is murder, because the definition of abortion is the murder of an unborn child” is to argue in a circle. And so is saying “Abortion is not murder because abortion is just the termination of an unwanted pregnancy.”

If we want definitions to help clarify arguments, persuasive definitions are useless. They’re tools of rhetoric, not reason. A lexical definition from a dictionary may be useful, but it isn’t, well...definitive. The kind of definition we really need (and I promise this is that last I’ll mention) is a precising definition. As the name suggests, that’s a definition given to clarify exactly how we’re using a particular word. The definitions I’ve given in this book for the words “argument” and “critical” are precising definitions, because they’re intended to clarify the exact sense in which I’m using them. That’s necessary because almost all words can mean more than one thing. But they can’t mean whatever we want them to, whatever Humpty Dumpty says.