Intensional definitions

Georg Löckinger, Hendrik J. KockaertGerhard Budin
Table of contents

In communication between humans, for instance by means of spoken, written and signed language, we describe objects and concepts by using appropriate designations. When designations are not clear enough at first sight or when somebody lacks the necessary background knowledge, more precise descriptions of concepts are needed. While there are various other options to describe concepts such as concept descriptions, encyclopaedic descriptions or defining contexts (ISO 704 2009, 29ff.), definitions are generally the preferred linguistic tool to do so.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Ackrill, John L
1994Aristotle – Categories and De Interpretatione. Reprint. from corr. sheets of the 1th ed., 12th print. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Aiken, Peter
2002Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th ed. Redmond: Microsoft Press.Google Scholar
Arntz, Reiner, Heribert Picht, and Felix Mayer
2002Einführung in die Terminologiearbeit. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Auger, Pierre, Anne-Marie Baudoin, Bruno de Bessé, Jean-Marie Fortin, and Bernard Salvail
1972Guide de travail en terminologie. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.Google Scholar
Auger, Pierre and Louis-Jean Rousseau
1990Méthodologie de la recherche terminologique, 3rd ed. Quebec: l’Éditeur officiel du Québec.Google Scholar
Bunnin, Nicholas and Jiyuan Yu
(editor) 2004The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy. Accessed July 29, 2013. http://​www​.blackwellreference​.com​/public​/book​.html​?id​=g9781405106795​_9781405106795.Google Scholar
Cabré Castellví, M. Teresa
1999Terminology. Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambridge University Press
2013Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus. Accessed August 2, 2013. http://​dictionary​.cambridge​.org/.Google Scholar
Conference of Translation Services of European States (COTSOES)
2002. Recommendations for Terminology Work. Berne: Federal Chancellery. Accessed July 18, 2014. http://​www​.bk​.admin​.ch​/dokumentation​/sprachen​/05078​/index​.html​?lang​=en.Google Scholar
Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen
2009Introduction to Logic, 13th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cornea, Andrei
2009“Umberto Eco’s Encyclopedia vs. Porphyry’s Tree.” Laval théologique et philosophique 65(2):301–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DIN 2330
2013Begriffe und Benennungen – Allgemeine Grundsätze. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung.Google Scholar
DIN 2342
2011Begriffe der Terminologielehre. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung.Google Scholar
Dubuc, Robert
2002Manuel pratique de terminologie, 4th ed. Montréal: Linguatech éditeur.Google Scholar
Dybkær, René
2009An Ontology on Property for Physical, Chemical, and Biological Systems. Copenhagen: Copenhagen University Hospital. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ettre, Leslie S
1997“Nomenclature for Chromatography (IUPAC Recommendations 1993).” Pure and Applied Chemistry 65(4):819–872. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felber, Helmut
1984Terminology Manual. Paris: Unesco.Google Scholar
Freeman, Chas W
1997The Diplomat’s Dictionary, rev. ed. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
Gouadec, Daniel
1990Terminologie. Constitution des données. Paris: AFNOR.Google Scholar
Hebenstreit, Gernot
2013“Terminological annotation. New perspectives for corpus-based endeavours?” Paper read at the 19th European Symposium on Languages for Special Purposes, Vienna, July 8–10, 2013.
Hohnhold, Ingo
1990Übersetzungsorientierte Terminologiearbeit. Eine Grundlegung für Praktiker. Stuttgart: InTra.Google Scholar
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company
2013American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. Accessed August 2, 2013. http://​dictionary​.cambridge​.org/.Google Scholar
ISO 704
2009Terminology work – Principles and methods. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 860
2007Terminology work – Harmonization of concepts and terms. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
ISO 1087-1
2000Terminology work – Vocabulary – Part 1: Theory and application. Geneva: International Standards Organization.Google Scholar
ISO 10241-1
2011Terminological entries in standards – Part 1: General requirements and examples of presentation. Geneva: International Standards Organization.Google Scholar
ISO 10241-2
2012Terminological entries in standards – Part 2: Adoption of standardized terminological entries. Geneva: International Standards Organization.Google Scholar
ISO 25964-1
2011Information and documentation – Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies – Part 1. Geneva: International Standards Organization.Google Scholar
ISO/FDIS 24156-1
2013Graphic notations for concept modelling in terminology work – Part 1: Guidelines for using UML notation in terminology work. Geneva: International Standards Organization.Google Scholar
ISO/TR 24156
2008Guidelines for using UML notation in terminology work. Geneva: International Standards Organization.Google Scholar
Kockaert, Hendrik J., Frieda Steurs, and Bassey E. Antia
2010“Filling the Gaps Between the Object-Oriented UML Modeling and Concept-Oriented Terminological Modeling in ISO Standards. Application of ISO/DIS 704 and ISO 1087-1 in ISO/TR 24156 on the basis of UML in terminological concept modeling.” In TKE 2010: Presenting Terminology and Knowledge Engineering Resources Online: Models and Challenges, edited by Úna Bhreathnach and Fionnuala de Barra Cusack, 435–456. Fiontar: Dublin City University.Google Scholar
Kop, Christian
2008“Conceptual modelling tool for novice designers.” International Journal of Metadata, Semantics and Ontologies 3(2):151–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Machuga, Ric S
2010Common Sense Logic. Oroville: Butte College.Google Scholar
Mihatsch, Wiltrud
2006Kognitive Grundlagen lexikalischer Hierarchien. Untersucht am Beispiel des Französischen und Spanischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ndi-Kimbi, Augustin
1994“Guidelines for terminological definitions: The adherence to and deviation from existing rules in BS/ISO 2382: Data Processing and Information Technology Vocabulary”. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication 1(2):327–350. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Olesen, Henrik, Kenny Desmond, René Dykbær, Inge Ibsen, Ivan Bruunshuus, Xavier Fuentes-Arderiu, Gilbert Hill, Pedro Soares de Araujo, and Clem McDonald
1997“Properties and Units in the Clinical Laboratory Sciences. Part XI. Coding systems – structure and guidelines.” Pure and Applied Chemistry 69(12):2607-2620. Accessed August 2, 2013. http://​www​.iupac​.org​/publications​/pac​/69​/12​/2607/.Google Scholar
ÖNORM 2704
1990Terminologie. Allgemeine Grundsätze für Begriffe und Bezeichnungen. Vienna: Austrian Standards Institute.Google Scholar
Pavel, Silvia and Diane Nolet
2001Handbook of Terminology. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada.Google Scholar
Smith, Robin
2012“Aristotle’s Logic.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2012 ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: Stanford University. Accessed August 2, 2013. http://​plato​.stanford​.edu​/entries​/aristotle​-logic​/index​.html.Google Scholar
Suonuuti, Heidi
1997Guide to terminology, Nordterm 8. Helsinki: Tekniikan Sanastokeskus.Google Scholar
Warren, Edward W
1975Isagoge. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
Witt, Graham C
2011Writing Effective Business Rules. A Practical Method. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Wüster, Eugen
1991Einführung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und terminologische Lexikographie, 3rd ed. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag.Google Scholar