JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  March 2013

PHD-DESIGN March 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Definitions

From:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 1 Mar 2013 06:44:02 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Dear Colleagues,



May I suggest that a serious thread on definitions deserves a new subject header? I’ll probably enter the conversation before long. To start, though, I’d like to be clear about what a definition is – one of the problems in the conversation to date is that many things have been put forward as definitions that are not definitions. These include descriptions of design, evaluations of the function of design, comments on the role design plays in society, and even loose metaphors. These are not definitions. If we seek a definition of design for the purposes of clarity and debate, let’s first be clear on what a definition is.



Merriam-Webster’s defines the word “definition” in this way:



“1: an act of determining; specifically the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma, 2 a: a statement expressing the essential nature of something, b: a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary ∼s>, c: a product of DEFINING<http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=defining>, 3: the action or process of DEFINING<http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=defining>, 4 a: the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making DEFINITE<http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=definite> and clear <the ∼ of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond ∼>, b (1): clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the ∼ of an image>, (2): clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction, c: sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist ∼>.”



For Merriam-Webster, to define is to:



“transitive verb: 1 a: to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of <whatever ∼s us as human>, b: to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word), c: to create on a computer <∼ a window> <∼ a procedure>, 2 a: to fix or mark the limits of: DEMARCATE<http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=demarcate> <rigidly defined property lines>, b: to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline <the issues aren't too well defined>, 3: CHARACTERIZE<http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=characterize>, DISTINGUISH<http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=distinguish> <you ∼ yourself by the choices you make — Denison University Bulletin>. intransitive verb: to make a definition.”



The Oxford English Dictionary defines a definition as:



“†1. The setting of bounds or limits; limitation, restriction. Obs. rare. 2. The action of determining a controversy or question at issue; determination, decision; spec. a formal decision or pronouncement of an ecclesiastical authority. Obs. exc. in specific use. 3. Logic, etc. The action of defining, or stating exactly what a thing is, or what a word means. 4. a. A precise statement of the essential nature of a thing; a statement or form of words by which anything is defined. b. A declaration or formal explanation of the signification of a word or phrase. [Not recognized by Johnson.] c. definition in use: a definition which does not provide an equivalent for the expression to be defined, but instead replaces the whole context in which that expression occurs by an equivalent not containing that expression; a contextual definition (cf. contextual adj. b<http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/40213#eid8443198>). 5. a. The action of making definite; the condition of being made, or of being definite, in visual form or outline; distinctness; spec. the defining power of a lens or optical instrument, i.e. its capacity to render an object or image distinct to the eye. b. gen. Definiteness, precision, exactitude. rare. c. The degree of distinctness of the details in a photograph, film, television picture, etc.; so high-definition, low-definition, used to designate television systems using different numbers of scanning lines.”



In the OED, to define is to:



†1. a. trans. To bring to an end. Also intr. To come to an end. Obs. rare. †b. To bring to an end (a controversy, etc.); to determine, decide, settle. Obs. 2. a. To determine the boundary or spatial extent of; to settle the limits of. Also fig. b. To make definite in outline or form. Also refl. (See also defined adj.<http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/48875#eid7200831>) †3. To set bounds to, to limit, restrict, confine. 4. a. To determine, lay down definitely; to fix, decide; †to decide upon, fix upon. †b. intr. To determine, decide. Obs. †5. a. To state precisely or determinately; to specify. (Const. with obj. clause or simple obj.) Obs. †b. intr. or absol. To make precise statement. 6. a. To state exactly what (a thing) is; to set forth or explain the essential nature of. (In early use: To state the nature or properties of, to describe.)

c1374—1875 b. To set forth or explain what (a word or expression) means; to declare the signification of (a word). [Not recognized by Johnson.] c. intr. or absol. To frame or give a precise description or definition. 7. transf. Of properties: To make (a thing) what it is; to give a character to, characterize; to constitute the definition of. 8. To separate by definition, to distinguish by special marks or characteristics (from). rare.



With this in mind, I’ll offer two apposite comments.



First, a great many statements put forward here as definitions are not definitions. It’s a mistake to see them as definitions, and a mistake, therefore, to critique them. It seems to me a great many people have gone off at odd angles because of this.



Take, for example, Dick Buchanan’s statement. This is a description rather than a definition. Dick neither defines design as a verb nor as a noun, but describes it as a human power: “Design is the human power of conceiving, planning, and making products that serve human beings in the accomplishment of their individual and collective purposes.” I think this is a useful and valuable description, but it is not a definition.



There are many kinds of “design is” statements that are not definitions. “Design is the hottest heels on Chapel Street!” “You bet your Louboutins that we know design!” “Design is knowing how to make a small apartment seem big.” And so on.



The second point has to do with David Sless’s comment on Wittgenstein. David is right: all usages merge from language communities. To me, Terry sometimes seems to lack an ear for language: his approach to definitions suggests a view of language as a kind of engineering in which definitions are a group of numbers that we cantreat as an equation for a firm, final answer to any puzzle. Of course, this is not so. Wittgenstein’s (2009: 236 [n. 327]) somewhat cryptic comment is appropriate here: “If a lion could talk, we wouldn’t be able to understand it.” What a lion would have to say would depend not merely on whether the lion spoke English or some other human language, but on the quality of lion-ness, the embodied and experiential sensibility of what it is to be a lion lodged in a community of lions.



But here, I’d like to suggest that attention to what the word design means – and how it takes meaning – is a different matter than understanding a lion. Dictionaries and dictionary definitions are assembled by human beings precisely on the basisthat would enable us to understand lions if we were lions ourselves: usage exemplars taken from communities of users embedded in the context of talk.



It’s a bit like that moment in The Maltese Falcon where Gutman and Sam Spade meet over whiskey. Gutman says, “Here’s to plain speaking and clear understanding.” He goes on to talk about talking: “Talking’s something you can’t do judiciously unless you keep in practice … Now, sir, we’ll talk if you like, and I’ll tell you right out that I’m a man who likes talking to a man that likes to talk.”



Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary in paper and online and the Oxford English Dictionaryboth take their meanings from a massive set of usage exemplars. These usages reflect the communities of speakers who talk about the ideas and concepts the words represent, writing them in context.



A great deal of what people mistakenly label definitions are usage exemplars, and as exemplars, they are useful. But there is a second level that we require in developing definitions. And that is not a case for physics or the algorithmic attempt to set a secure linguistic foundation under the concept of design for all time. That, rather, requires sensitivity to language and meaning, to “determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of …. to discover and set forth the meaning of … to fix or mark the limits of … to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline …” what we mean (or the several things we mean) when we use the word design.



If members of the list want seriously to work on the issue of definitions, I’m certainly willing to give this some thought. This will take time, and it will probably go on around other threads – that’s another reason I’m giving it its own header.



This is the kind of thing that is serious enough if we are to take it seriously that I would rather not embark on this kind of endeavor if peoplefind it uninteresting or useless.



That said, I’m allergic to wine, so if we do take this up, I’d be hoping for a better prize – perhaps a bottle of good Calvados or, better yet, a bottle of Linie Aquavit.



Is anyone interested in pursuing the issue of definitions as a thread?



Yours,



Ken



Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman



Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China





References





Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2013. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary Online. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Date accessed: 2013 March 1.



Simpson, John, ed. 2013. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. URL: http://www.oed.com/ Date accessed: 2013 March 1.



Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2009. Philosophical Investigations. German text with an English translation by G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker, and Joachim Schulte. Revised 4th Edition by P.M.S. Hacker, and Joachim Schulte. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.





-----------------------------------------------------------------

PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>

Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design

Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager