When I use a word . . . .Devising bioscience definitions

Lexicography

The word “lexicography” is first recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as having entered written English in 1680, although in Merriam-Webster the earliest instance is said to be from 1648, but without citation.12 The reference may be to an apparent English usage in a Latin text, Ulyssis Aldrovandi Patricii Bononiensis Musaeum Metallicum by Ulisse Aldrovandi (1648, p. 354): “Quandoquidem scripta invenimus apud Ηesychiú lexicographú haec verba [Greek description of arnica].” Although, since Aldrovandi’s dates were 1522–1605, the usage may be even earlier. However, the word as printed in the text, which search engines generally render as “lexicography,” actually stands for the Latin word “lexicographus,” i.e. “lexicographer,” the reference being to Hesychius of Alexandria, the author of a 5th century Greek lexicon, an “Alphabetic Collection of All Words.” So, the OED is probably right.

The derivative “lexicographer” is given in the OED as first having occurred in print in 1658. But in this case earlier instances can certainly be found, for example in the subtitle of Critica Sacra (1641) by Edward Legh [sic]: “OBSERVATIONS On all the RADICES, or Primitive HEBREW words of the Old TESTAMENT in order Alphabeticall, Wherein both they (and many derivatives also issuing from them) are fully opened out of the best Lexicographers and Scholiasts.”

The etymology of “lexicography” tells us what the word means. It is from two Greek words, λεξικόν [βιβλίον], [a book about] words, and γράϕειν, to write. In other words, the writing of books about words, although the books referred to are usually restricted to dictionaries. And that is how it is defined in the OED: “The writing or compilation of a lexicon or dictionary.”1 In this case, and it is not always so, the meaning corresponds with the etymology.

However, some dictionaries, Merriam-Webster, for example, add a second definition: “the principles and practices of dictionary making.”2 And the single definition in the Oxford Learner's Dictionary also combines the two aspects: “the theory and practice of writing dictionaries.”3

Lexicography should be distinguished from “lexicology,” which the OED defines as “That branch of knowledge which treats of words, their form, history, and meaning.”4 Further confusion arises from the fact that some define “lexicology” as “a branch of linguistics concerned with the signification and application of words.”5

The word “lexicography” was perhaps slow in appearing, given the much earlier emergence of English dictionaries. The first monoglot English dictionary was Robert Cawdrey’s A Table Alphabeticall of 1604, whose full title, in the manner typical of its time, ran to 79 words: “A Table Alphabeticall, contayning and teaching the true writing and understanding of hard usuall English words, borrowed from the Hebrew, Greeke, Latine, or French, &c. With the Interpretation thereof by plaine English words, gathered for the benefit and help of all unskilfull persons. Whereby they may the more easily and better understand many hard English words, which they shall heare or read in Scriptures, Sermons, or else where and also be made able to use the same aptly themselves.”

However, as its long title shows, Cawdrey’s dictionary was not intended to be comprehensive. It was limited, as were other dictionaries that came after it, to what were regarded as “hard words.” On the other hand, “lexicography” came in good time for Samuel Johnson, who in 1755 published, not the first English dictionary, but the first mostly reliable dictionary intended to capture the whole language.

The problem of definition

The difficulty in defining a word or a term is generally underestimated by those who are not professional lexicographers. Many think that scientific terms can be defined by a few experts sitting around a table for a few minutes at the beginning of a meeting, before the serious work begins. However, the history of lexicography shows that lexicographers have struggled to produce clear, unambiguous, and accurate definitions for even the simplest definienda, despite great difficulties,6 and sometimes with highly controversial results.7 Samuel Johnson emphasised the difficulties of both etymology and definition in his definition of “lexicographer”: “A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original and detailing the signification of words.”

Etymology

Before the modern lexicographic era, which started in the second half of the 19th century, definition was regarded as stemming solely from etymology. This approach is still sometimes sufficient to generate useful definitions, as the definition of “lexicography” above shows. Or take “polymyalgia”: it comes from three Greek words meaning pain in many muscles, which is how it is defined in the OED.10 However, even with relatively simple terms like this, it is vital to understand the exact meanings of the words in the original language from which the English words or morphemes are derived. The prefix poly- comes from the Greek word πολυς, which had many different meanings: long (of time), large, wide, or far (of space), much or great (of value or worth), much or mighty (of size), and many or too many (of number). It is this last meaning that creates ambiguity when “poly” is used as a prefix in English words, when it can mean either many or too many. In “polymyalgia” it means many [muscles], but in “polydactyly” it means too many [fingers]. However, there is a word in which it can mean both: polypharmacy—the use of many drugs (appropriately) or the use of too many drugs (inappropriately). Which meaning you choose may affect your view of polypharmacy.11

Usage

By the time James Murray and his colleagues were ready to begin work on the New English Dictionary (later to be called the Oxford English Dictionary) in around 1870, it was recognised that in addition to etymology it was important to take into account the history of the usage of the definiendum, the term to be defined.12 This principle was enshrined in the lexicographic rules that they devised, reflected by Richard Chenevix Trench’s epigrammatic observation that “every word should be made to tell its own story.”13 In doing so, they were observing Aristotle’s dictum that “a definition should refer to what is prior and better known.”14 This approach recognises, as I have previously discussed,15 the philosophical views that “no word has a meaning inseparably attached to it; a word means what the speaker intends by it, and what the hearer understands by it, and that is all,”16 and that “for a large class of cases—though not for all—in which we employ the word ‘meaning’ it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.”17

The importance of taking usage into account can be seen from two simple examples. First, “ban,” which originally meant to speak but now means to prevent from speaking,18 a change in usage that has gradually occurred over about 400 years. Secondly, “rheumatic,” which comes from the Greek ῥεεῖν, to flow, and the related noun ῥεῦμα, a stream or discharge from the body. It originally meant pertaining to rheum, a watery secretion or discharge. In the 16th century it came to mean “having a rheumy defluxion” or “full of watery mucus.” Then, because of contemporary theories about fluxes in the causation of disease, its meaning became “relating to rheumatism,” and in the 18th century “subject to rheumatic pain”; it was later applied to rheumatic fever. Modern usage relates to the later meanings, but they also depend on context. Although the modern meaning has flowed down a long etymological stream, usage has led it far away from its etymological source.

It is also good to remember that a word can mean different things to different people or even in different circumstances. Take the word “parameter.” In mathematics it can mean “An independent variable in terms of which each coordinate of a point of a curve, surface, etc., is expressed, independently of the other coordinates” or “a constant occurring in the equation of a curve or surface”; in statistics it means “a numerical characteristic of a population, as distinguished from a statistic obtained by sampling”; in computing it means “a quantity whose value is specified when a routine is to be performed”; in astronomy it means “each of a set of numerical quantities, typically six, that jointly specify the orbit of a planet, comet, or other body.” A parameter is therefore sometimes a variable and sometimes a constant. And it has other meanings in other disciplines. In other words, it means different things depending on the language game you're playing.15 [All these definitions come from the OED.]

Previous definitions

Attempts are often made by committees to define a technical term. Many such definitions are unsatisfactory and have been handed down as ex cathedra statements, without any indication of the thought processes that have gone into producing them. In addition, as others have pointed out, disagreement within such committees is rife, and consensus in healthcare is often based on compromise, reached only on “bland generalities that represent the lowest common denominator of debate and are embalmed as truths.”19

Nevertheless, such definitions may be useful in formulating new and better ones, since they may contain helpful ideas. The principle is to examine published definitions critically, in light of the five desiderata of a definition20:

1. It should describe all the essential attributes of the thing being defined, i.e. it must encapsulate its true essence.

2. It should avoid circularity; one should not, for example, define, as some have done, a medication error as an error in medication.

3. It should be neither too wide nor too narrow; it should omit nothing of importance, but neither should it include anything to which the defined term does not apply.

4. It should not be obscure; one should, as far as possible, use commonly understood terms with clear meanings, and not terms that themselves need further definition; with technical terms this may be difficult and sometimes impossible, but in that case all the terms that need to be defined in order that the definition can be fully understood should themselves be clearly defined.

5. Wherever possible, it should be couched in positive terms, not negative ones; folly, for example, should not be defined as the absence of wisdom; one should say what something is, not what it is not.

One can then use previous definitions to inform the production of a definition that incorporates what is relevant and omits what is not, adding relevant features that may have previously been missed.

In order to identify the last of these, the next method may be useful.

Definition in practice

On the principle that one should practise what you preach, I have previously published definitions, in collaboration with colleagues, based on some or all of the principles outlined here. The topics covered have included: adherence to medications23; adverse drug reactions and related terms24; artificial intelligence25; bias26; biomarkers27; complex systematic reviews28; drug shortages29; medical devices30; medication errors3132; me-too pharmaceutical products33; nutraceuticals34; pharmacological mechanisms35; the Precautionary Principle36; rapid reviews37; research and translational research3839; rewardable innovation and innovativeness in drug therapy4041; signals in pharmacovigilance42; surveillance of the effects of drug therapy43; unlicensed and off-label uses of medicines.44

Some of these definitions have been adopted internationally.