Skip to main content

On definitions

Writers need to use definitions in their work. Today's texts move across international boundaries like never before. It is just too risky for writers to assume that all their words will be understood in the same way across the world.

For instance, I came across a theme-issue by the Economist last week, which focused on Iran. Three articles were in the June 22-28, 2013 issue:
Among these articles, there are many many terms that are deserving of definition. They are deserving of definition because their use across so many writers and so many "brands" has add too many variations to the standard definition. This calls for a discussion on the various definitions in an effort to sensitize the reader on how terms should be understood in respective articles.

Here are a few examples of terms that I think are deserving of definition in the respective articles listed above:


 1. Persian power: Can Iran be stopped?
  • Ayatollah
  • Inflation
  • Sanctions
  • Theocracy
  • Democracy
  • Nuclear capacity
  • Nuclear programme
  • Uranium
  • Centrifuge
  • Enrichment capability
  • Fissile material
  • Implosion device
  • "Client" (of Iran's)
  • Nuclear negotiations
  • Draconian

 2. Iran's nuclear programme: Breakout beckons?
  • Military threats
  • Divert
  • P5+1
  • Comprehensive inspections
  • Enrichment
  • Reactor
  • Medical isotopes
  • IR-1
  • Hexafluoride
  • Engineering capacity
  • Unilateral strike
  • Alliance building
  • Diplomatic ultimatums

 3. Iran's new president: Will he make a difference?#
  • Revolutionary guard
  • Platform of engagement
  • Reformist
  • Islamic system
  • Middle ground
  • Boost (the ruling establishment)
  • Bellicose posturing
  • Party-cum-militia
  • Terrorist outfit
  • Fissiparous (rebel groups)

Sure, some of these words are self explanatory. Sure, others can be defined by reading the sentances they are placed in. And sure, I could look some up in a dictionary. 

But my point here is to call on writers to define their terms as they meant it. Words tend to come loaded with bias. It is this bias all writing needs to make clear to its reader.

I understand this is a semantic issue that, if resolved in-text, could risk losing the attention of the reader. But there are other ways to do this, instead of using in-text definitions. A glossary, for example, would be a nice end-note reference that readers could refer to when they came across a suspiciously-common word or term. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tanzania is not Tasmania

Dear friends: Please let's stop refering to Tanzania as Tasmania. Here is why. Tanzania is located on the coast of East Africa, below Kenya. It is not origin of the the cartoon character from your childhood. Tasmania is an island which is part of Australia. The animal known to exist only on Tasmania is the Tasmanian Devil. Once again, you will see this is not the cartoon character you remember from your childhood. Let's summarize: Tanzania is not Tasmania.
Post a Comment
Read more

Policy Brief 2: Why is Tanzania Poor?

(Policy Brief # 2 Submitted December 6th 2007, for Econ 346 - Economic Development, Lafayette College) Over the course of the 20th century, Tanzania experienced a multitude of social, political and economic changes. It still remains poor today. The WorldBank classifies a ‘low income country’ – such as Tanzania – as one with a Gross National Income per capita of $905 or less (WorldBank Data 2006). As of 1992, Tanzania ’s per capita income was recorded at $110, and average per capita consumption was $0.5 per day (OECD 2000). Several possible factors have been blamed for contributing to current hardships, such as Julius Nyerere’s failed attempts to collectivize agriculture between 1961 and 1975 through his socialist Ujamaa policies as the first president of Tanzania (Pratt 1980). While pre-independence plans “focused on the commercialization of agriculture and the creation of industries that could reduce the need for a variety of imports”, post-independence interventions by the Gov...
4 comments
Read more

Revision rinsed II

When discussing communication for development, we tend to argue against the models based only on diffusion of media technologies. That is, in pursuing a critical approach to development practices, we tend to support participatory approaches to technology use and engagement. Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory. It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse. Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or...
Post a Comment
Read more