How Meaning Is Stabilized: Definitions Across Law, Philosophy, and Linguistics

Introduction

Across disciplines such as law, philosophy, and the sciences, definitions play a decisive role. They shape understanding, limit ambiguity, and make shared reasoning possible. This article examines how definitions function in legal texts, how philosophical traditions have questioned stable meaning, and how Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistic framework helps clarify what is at stake when language becomes opaque rather than precise.

Instead of opposing rigor to complexity, the aim here is to show that conceptual depth does not require obscurity, and that even critical or destabilizing thought depends on some degree of shared linguistic ground.

Definitions in Legal Texts: Ensuring Precision and Consistency

In legal writing, the inclusion of a dedicated section for “definitions” or “interpretation” serves to clarify and fix the meanings of key terms employed throughout a statute. The primary objective of this practice is to reduce ambiguity and minimize the risk of divergent interpretations during the application of the law.

For example, the Environmental Protection Act explicitly defines terms such as “Pollutant,” “Emission Source,” “Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA),” and “Conservation Area.” These formulations establish a stable semantic reference point, ensuring that such expressions are understood consistently across the entire legal framework and applied uniformly in practice.

Although the use of definition sections is not universally mandatory, many legal systems acknowledge the necessity of linguistic precision to prevent confusion or misapplication. By specifying the scope and meaning of crucial terms, definitional clauses contribute to clarity in drafting and facilitate both compliance and enforcement.

Definitions in Philosophy and the Sciences

In philosophy and the sciences, the use of explicit definitions varies considerably depending on the author, discipline, and conceptual aims of a given work. While not always obligatory, the articulation of key terms is often advisable for several reasons.

• Precision and Clarity: Carefully formulated definitions ensure that an author’s intended meaning is grasped accurately, which is particularly important in fields where conceptual distinctions carry significant theoretical weight.
• Avoiding Ambiguity: Clearly delimited terms reduce misunderstandings and promote coherence in reasoning, serving a function analogous to that of definitions in legal texts.
• Establishing Common Ground: Explicit clarification helps create shared conceptual reference points, especially in interdisciplinary contexts where terminological assumptions may differ.
• Philosophical Rigor: In philosophical inquiry, attention to linguistic exactness is traditionally associated with methodological precision. Defining central concepts in advance strengthens argumentative clarity.

Even when authors choose not to provide formal definitions, their inclusion generally enhances the quality of philosophical and scientific discourse by fostering conceptual discipline and interpretive stability.

Poststructuralist Philosophy

Poststructuralist thinkers, influenced by figures such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Roland Barthes, challenged the notion of fixed or transcendental meaning. From their perspective, meaning is never fully stabilized but remains subject to constant movement, differentiation, and deferral.

This approach offers notable advantages, including heightened sensitivity to complexity, sustained critique of power relations, and an openness to plural interpretations. At the same time, it introduces significant difficulties, particularly with respect to communicative effectiveness, the risk of relativism, and skepticism toward universal ethical frameworks. If meaning is perpetually unstable, the possibility of shared understanding becomes increasingly fragile.

At this juncture, Saussure’s paired concepts of synchronic and diachronic identity provide a useful counterpoint. He argues that during periods of relative stability (synchronic states) linguistic elements are defined by the positions they occupy within a specific system. While Saussure would likely acknowledge the fluidity emphasized by poststructuralist thought, he would also insist that language passes through phases in which the value of signs is sufficiently stabilized to function as a shared structure. For members of a linguistic community, these values are as real as they can be under given historical conditions. 

The contrast is instructive, whereas poststructuralism emphasizes continuous instability, Saussure allows for both movement and temporary fixation. The tension between these views underscores the complexity of linguistic systems and the difficulty of reconciling change with communicability.

The Case of Saussure: Implicit Meanings in Philosophical Works

Even in the absence of an explicit glossary, philosophical texts frequently establish implicit meanings through systematic usage. Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics provides a clear illustration of this process, introducing carefully articulated conceptual pairs such as “signifier” and “signified,” as well as “synchronic linguistics” and “diachronic linguistics.”

Although Saussure did not compile a formal list of definitions, attentive readers can reconstruct the conceptual architecture of his theory by tracing the relations among its central terms. This is particularly evident in the two passages cited below, in which he explicitly addresses terminological inadequacies and proposes alternative formulations (emphasis added):

“In our terminology a sign is the combination of a concept and a sound pattern. But in current usage the term sign generally refers to the sound pattern alone, e.g. the word form. 

The ambiguity would be removed if the three notions in question were designated by terms which are related but contrast. We propose to keep the term sign to designate the whole, but to replace concept and sound pattern respectively by signified and signifier”. [CGL] [99]

A similar concern with conceptual precision appears when he introduces the distinction between synchronic and diachronic approaches:

… “we must distinguish two branches of linguistics. What should they be called? The terms available are not all equally appropriate to indicate the distinction in question. ‘History’ and ‘historical linguistics’ cannot be used, for the ideas associated with them are too vague.

The terms evolution and evolutionary linguistics are more exact, and we shall make frequent use of these terms. By contrast, one may speak of the science of linguistic states, or static linguistics. But in order to mark this contrast more effectively, and the intersection of two orders of phenomena relating to the same object of study, we shall speak for preference of synchronic linguistics and diachronic linguistics”. [CGL] [117]

These passages illustrate how Saussure’s implicit definitions, rather than functioning as rigid stipulations, emerge from a network of relations that gradually clarifies the conceptual field.

Conclusion

Whether in legal discourse, philosophy, or the sciences, definitions exert their power by delimiting meaning, reducing ambiguity, and enabling effective communication. At the same time, this task is never fully straightforward. Everyday linguistic practice reminds us that meaning is often contested, context-dependent, and open to reinterpretation.

Despite these difficulties, the ongoing pursuit of clarity within a constrained sign system remains indispensable. Through carefully articulated terms that mutually reinforce one another according to the principle that tout se tient, meaningful discourse becomes possible both synchronically, at a given moment, and diachronically, across time.

Bibliography

• Saussure, Ferdinand de. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Lausanne and Paris: Payot, 1916.
• Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.
• Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.
• Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966.
• Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. Vintage.
• Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. Penguin.
• United Kingdom. Environmental Protection Act 1990. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43