Disputes over Individual Words

Chapter 2 describes four regular challenges for lexicographers when they are composing their semantic definitions for individual words, and it shows how each of these challenges has led to disputed meanings in lawsuits. First, just about every word of English has more than one basic sense and disputes can center around which meaning is intended. An example is given from a patent for a dental prosthesis involving SUBSTANTIALLY. It can have a “booster” meaning or a “downtoner” meaning, and which one is selected determines whether there is patent infringement or not. Second, there is the issue of the precise extent of the meaning of a word and its permitted “vagueness.” What exactly does APPROXIMATELY (300 acres) cover in a real-estate contract? And how broadly or narrowly is the word DISEASE understood in a medical insurance contract? Third, words can be used with nonliteral and extended meanings, as in metaphors. Some lawsuits are described involving FIGHTING, CHEATING, and MURDER, where the dispute centered on whether the intended meaning was literal or extended. Fourth, how are dictionary definitions impacted by the changing technological world around us? The word TANGIBLE is discussed from a movie contract fifty years ago when the objects referred to where in plastic or paper form. Are they still TANGIBLE today when they exist on a computer screen?