ENGLISH TERMINOLOGY 3 Analysis of Definitions in Text

Definitions occur frequently in many types of scientific writing because it is often necessary to define certain operations, substances, objects or machines.

(Swales 1971:66) 1 Introduction We examine some of the research which has been carried out into the expression or realization of definitions in text. The objective is to ascertain whether and how definitions are formulated in text. Given the widespread interest in teaching languages for special purposes, we had anticipated that this was an area which would already have been widely explored previously. In fact, research has focused on teaching non-native students, of English primarily, how to formulate definitions when writing scientific prose rather than on examining authentic texts to ascertain whether and how subject specialists formulate definitions when writing. Consequently, the emphasis tends to be on what these researchers consider to be 'typical' definition formulae rather than on what the text actually tells them. There are a few exceptions, namely Selinker, Trimble and Trimble (1976) and Flowerdew (1992). While this appeared at first to be a serious drawback from our point of view, we later found that we were able to use some of the findings as a basis for our analysis. 2 Swales In Swales' work on definition, he is concerned primarily with discovering how to teach students to formulate definitions; he opts for a subject specific rather than a broad based academic approach for this purpose. He argues in favour of a subject specific approach on the basis that the purpose of definitions will vary from one subject to another. For example, while definitions in legal textbooks will frequently have the same form and function as definitions in science textbooks because, as Swales (1981: 109) states "they provide terminological explanations designed to sharpen up a layman's appreciation of the meaning of the terms being defined", such definitions tend to be more complete in legal textbooks than in science textbooks, as legal writers will endeavour to cover all contingencies. Besides the formal type of definition discussed below, Swales argues that there is another category of definitions in legal texts which has a very different function; this category constitutes the law itself, and, as such, cannot be rewritten or rephrased for purposes of clarity or simplicity. Swales cites this category as the reason for his objections to the broad based approach to the teaching of academic language. It is interesting that, although he prefers a subject-specific approach, (in this case, science), many of his examples are not drawn from science; this leads one to wonder about the justification for his claim that different subject fields express definitions differently. Swales concentrates on the formulation of what Trimble later describes as formal definitions, whereby:
the thing to be defined should be described first in terms of its general class then in terms of its particular properties, qualities, uses, or origins. This could be expressed as

T=G + (da,+db,+dc dn) where T equals the thing to be defined where =equals be 1

where G equals a general class word. where da,+db etc. are the properties which distinguish T from the other members of the general class. (Swales 1971:66) He suggests that the most common definition formula is:
An {x,y} is a/an general class word + wh- word where x is a countable noun, where y is an uncountable noun. (1971:67)

According to Swales, definitions always commence with the indefinite article; they will not commence with the definite article because definitions are general statements. We would argue, however, that while it is true that definitions will not commence with the definite article, it is not true to conclude that all definitions commence with the indefinite article. In the case of definitions of uncountable nouns, for example, the use of the indefinite article would not be grammatically acceptable, unless the reference was to a particular type of that uncountable (e.g. an aluminium, a cement) in which case it would no longer be an uncountable. With regard to verbs used in the expression of definitions, Swales suggests that the most common verb is is although he acknowledges that the phrase can be defined is sometimes used. It is important to note that he does not draw on any authentic data to support this argument; this leaves it open to debate. With regard to the way the remainder of the defining statement is expressed, Swales proposes and exemplifies a number of ways in which this can be done. i) It can be completed with either active or passive clauses. He provides the following examples: 1) "A dentist is a person who takes care of people's teeth" (1971:68), and 2) "A knife is an instrument which is used for cutting things" (1971:69). These are rather surprising examples if it is being suggested that they are representative of what one finds in scientific prose. They are much closer to the type of definition which we have come to expect in the Cobuild Dictionary, i.e. written in simple language. While it is possible that Swales may have deliberately chosen examples from general language in order to state his case more clearly, the examples cited in (ii) below would suggest that he is not always consistent in doing so. ii) The definition may also be completed by what Swales terms reduced relative clauses. For example, "Aluminium is a metal produced from bauxite" (1971:70) and "A tangent is a straight line touching a curve at one point" (1971:72). Note the absence of an article before Aluminium which confirms that there are indeed situations where the indefinite article would be out of place. In the above examples, the past participle or a verb +ing are used instead of a wh- word. According to Swales, the verb +ing is particularly prevalent with the verbs contain and consist of the inclusion of consist of and contain as main verbs in the defining statement comes as a surprise as Swales states at the start of the article "Other forms of be are not common. Other main verbs are also uncommon" (1971:68). Perhaps he is suggesting that the verbs contain and consist of are only used in the +ing form? As he provides no authentic textual evidence to support this, readers are once again left in doubt as to the validity of the statement. Swales then goes on to say that definitions may be reduced further but only in the context of used for:
A knife is an instrument which is used for cutting. A knife is an instrument used for cutting. A knife is an instrument for cutting. (1971:71)

whereby the first is an example of the full form, the second is an example of the reduced form and the third is an example of further reduction. iii) The wh- word may be preceded by a preposition "when the subjects of the two parts of the definition statement are not the same" (1971:73). For example, "Acoustics is a branch of physics in which the properties of sounds are studied" (1971:73). iv) Swales cites two methods of writing scientific definitions which do not Use the relative clause: 1) "A triangle is a plane figure with three sides. Tungsten is a metal with the property of retaining hardness at red-heat" (1971:74). He summarizes these methods of formulating definitions as follows: which is verb + ed verb + ed for verb + ing wh- word + s An x/y is class word verb + ing preposition wh- word with noun phrase with the property of verb -ing (1971:74) He makes a questionable distinction between general and specific definitions. In general definitions, "the thing to be defined has usually been a single noun unaccompanied by other nouns or adjectives specifying it" (1971:75). He cites the following example: "A saw is an instrument used for cutting wood" (1971:75). A specific definition is one where a specific type of thing is defined rather than something in general, e.g. "A key-hole saw is a saw with a narrow blade, used for cutting holes in wood" (1971:75). We would suggest that there is no reason to make this type of general/specific distinction. It is always preferable for words and terms to be defined in terms of their immediate superordinate and if the immediate superordinate is a general class word, then so be it. Thus, one might describe a knife as an instrument but, in the logical order of things, it is more logical to describe a carving knife as a knife, thereby allowing it to inherit the characteristics of knife rather than simply to describe it as an instrument; this would necessitate repetition of the characteristics of knife as well as the characteristic which distinguishes the carving knife from knife. As a consequence of his distinction between general and specific definitions, Swales offers the following revised formula: T +t ={t or G) + da + db ... dn (1971 :75) Swales notes that definitions are not necessarily confined to one sentence and may be expanded over two or more sentences; examples of expanded definitions are as follows: Common examples are a, b, c and d Typical examples are a, b, c and d Main types are a, b, c and d such as a, b, c and d Definition formulae + Therefore, it is used As a result, one of its main uses is It consists of main parts: Its main components are... (1971:80)

whereby the general statement is made in one sentence and exemplification or further information is provided in the following sentence. 2.1 Summary Swales, as he states, is interested in teaching students of science how to formulate definitions because he believes definitions to be an integral part of scientific prose. Consequently, students need to be able to define. Yet, in 1981, he suggests that definitions are in fact rare in reported research articles but very common in science textbooks. The reason why definitions are rare in reported research articles is because the function of definitions is "more to furnish explanations of terms than to establish axioms which form part of a logical system of postulates and theorems" (Swales 1981:107). One wonders then why he chose to teach students something which they were unlikely to use in a productive sense. Had Swales been interested in teaching comprehension, one might understand the emphasis but he explicitly states that:
It is a writing course... . We decided therefore that we could best help them (the students) by concentrating on the productive skills; by teaching, discussing and correcting writing we could improve an aspect of our students' performance that they found particularly difficult to do for themselves. (1985:72)

In spite of these quibbles, his motivations for teaching this particular skill are, in fact, of little concern to us and we are far more interested in establishing whether We can use any of the formulae which he proposes. Although Swales appears to make use of constructed examples throughout his Work, he provides some useful information on the manner in which definitions are expressed. The notion of generic reference is one which this author had already noted through examination of authentic data and it is a valid one. The argument that definition statements generally make use of is as the main verb is more contentious, and even Swales accepts that consist of and contain are also used. The use of reduced clauses to introduce the distinguishing characteristic is one which, as we shall see, is actually used. It has also been our experience that definitions are not necessarily confined to one sentence. While much of what Swales says appears to be simply what has occurred to him and is therefore not presented in a very systematic manner, it does provide a starting point for more systematic work based on authentic data. 3 Widdowson Widdowson's interest in science language arose out of his involvement in "the teaching of English to students who need to know the language in order to pursue their studies of science and technology in higher education" (1979:21). His aim was "to prepare them (students) for their encounter with scientific communication in English such as they will find in their textbooks" (1979:28). While Widdowson provides definition exercises in the English in Focus series of textbooks which he co-authored with L.P.B. Allen, (cf. English in Physical Science 1974:4), and also cites examples of two common forms of definition in scientific discourse, (a) A is/are J may be defined as B which C.

is/are called (b)B which C is/are known as

A. (1985:81)

he does not appear to have been concerned with further documenting and explaining how definitions are expressed, opting instead to allow the exercises to speak for themselves. Widdowson does tell us how the exercises were constructed, and it is really quite alarming to realize that someone who is an applied linguist and should therefore be sensitive to the pitfalls of language should so blithely assume that he is capable of writing science. He states that, as students need a course which develops "a knowledge of how sentences are used in the performance of different communicative acts," (1985:74):
We do this by composing passages on common topics in basic science and presenting them in such a way as to develop in the student an awareness of the ways in which the language system is used to express scientific facts and concepts. The passages are composed rather than derived directly from existing textbooks for two reasons. Firstly, we are able to avoid syntactic complexity and idiosyncratic features of style which would be likely to confuse students.... Our intention is to make linguistic forms as unobtrusive as possible. At the same time, we wish to make their communicative function as obvious as possible, and this is the second reason for composing passages: we are able to 'foreground' features of language which have particular communicative value. (1985:75)

While one can understand that it may be important to "foreground" certain aspects of scientific communication, it is still very difficult to understand why Widdowson did not simply choose, for example, to use authentic data or to consult with science writers for assistance. If it is indeed true that syntactic complexity and stylistic idiosyncrasies are a feature of scientific text, then this is even more reason for using authentic texts. Widdowson acknowledges that all of his examples are constructed. When objections are raised, Widdowson simply replies that the passages "are representative of what we conceive to be certain basic communication processes which underlie, and are variously realized in, individual pieces of scientific writing" (1985:75). It is such a pity that so much time was lost by linguists such as Widdowson in their failure to appreciate the importance of consulting authentic data. 4 Larry Selinker, R.M.Todd Trimble, Louis Trimble
One of the most important and frequently employed rhetorical functions is that of 'definition'; this function is basic to the scientific thinking and reporting processes. (Selinker, Trimble, Trimble 1976:39)

These authors appear to have based their research on authentic texts because they say that on examining "paragraphs in naturally occurring EST discourse" (1976:39) and "after looking at large amounts of EST discourse" (1976:40), they found that a discrepancy exists between EST (English for Science and Technology) textbook exercises and EST in reality. "We do not find, in fact, many specimens of the 'pure' examples that we have typically given EST students to practice on" (1976:40). They recognize that the 'pure' examples which have been offered to students in the past do not exist in authentic data. These authors recognize the general importance of definition in scientific thinking and reporting. They write of the explicitly stated definition where the reader is given:

1) the term being defined, 2) the class of which the term is a member, and 3) a statement of the essential characteristics or differences which distinguish the term from the other members of the class. (1976:39) This is what Trimble later calls a formal definition; it is not as common as Swales would have had us believe. What is of particular interest in the article by Selinker et al. is their acknowledgement of this fact and their suggestion that defining information is more likely to be provided implicitly rather than explicitly. The defining information is likely to be 'buried' in what they term the 'supporting information' of a paragraph rather than in the core generalization. Moreover, it is not only buried in paragraphs with a defining function (i.e. which begin with a core generalization) but may be buried in paragraphs whose "primary rhetorical purposes are 'Description', 'Explanation', or 'Classification' or 'Presenting Information on Experimental Procedures" (1976:40). They cite a number of examples to demonstrate this, showing where the information is buried. Definitions can be constructed by extracting, combining and reordering information buried in the non-core sentences. This is the only article we have found which gives any real consideration to the existence of implicit defining information. While the article is largely anecdotal, focusing on a selection of examples, and does not therefore allow for easy generalization, it demonstrates that definitions in text may be expressed differently from the defining formulae found in the textbooks written by Swales and Allen and Widdowson and provides a useful basis for further investigation. 5 Darian Darian focuses on the role of definitions in scientific and technical writing and describes defining as follows:
Defining is best understood as a series of interlocking systems dominated by the semantic system, which interacts with the subordinate syntactic, lexical and typographic systems to produce a broad range of definition formulas. (Darian 1981:43)

Of interest is his assertion that there is a broad range of definition formulae. He distinguishes initially between the concepts of preliminary and formal definitions. When providing a preliminary definition of a term, the author provides a brief explanation that clarifies the meaning of the term in the particular context, if s/he is not "ready to examine it in depth" (Darian 1981:42). He cites the following example:
Further reactions occur when solar radiation encounters the gaseous envelope that surrounds the Earth, THE ATMOSPHERE. (1981:42)

Here, the reader is given what Flowerdew subsequently termed a definition by substitution, i.e. a paraphrase or synonym (cf. Section 4.7.2). A formal definition (DEF), on the other hand, contains a term (T), a genus or class word (CW), and one or more differentiae or limiting features (LF): T =(LF 1) +CW (+LF2+LF3 +LFn) (Darian, 1981:45). As there is general consensus among all of the researchers about the essential components of a formal definition, we do not intend to reiterate what has already been said regarding the above but prefer to focus on what is innovative in Darian's work. Darian makes a distinction between the use of general and generic class words in defining statements. General class words include words such as

substance, method, device, process while generic class words include words such as metal, machine, animal, container. He suggests that the difference lies in the fact that it is difficult to visualize general class words but, to this reader, a more likely distinction is that one group consists of abstract nouns and the other, concrete nouns. Darian, like Swales, distinguishes between definition types, namely general and specific definitions; in the former, the class word is likely to be fairly general, whereas in the latter, the class word is likely to be the term which is immediately superordinate to the term being defined, and the term is frequently repeated in the definition. Again, we are not sure how useful this distinction is because it is not in fact the term which is repeated but its immediate superordinate which happens to be the same word as one of the words in the term being defined (e.g. a cocker spaniel is a spaniel which...). Darian has devised a very detailed list of semantic features used "in framing definitions" but points out that they are suggestive, not definitive. They are: 1) classification/category, 2) limiting feature 1 -usually an adjective before the class word, 3) limiting feature 2-usually a phrase after the class word, 4) level 1example (species), 5) level 2 example (subspecies), 6) level 3 example (i.e. Sheba in a classification of dogs), 7) coordinate classification, 8) synonym, 9) paraphrase or restatement, 10)antonym/contrast, 11) collocation, 12) connotations, 13)semantic modes. While Darian makes some useful observations, his discussion on the whole is not sufficiently focused or supported to serve as a model for the expression of definition statements in text. No verifiable distinction is made between formal and other definitions. He cites examples for many of his features but there is no evidence to suggest that these examples were not invented. The semantic features which he proposes are simply too vague, and it is hard to imagine how one might apply them in any systematic fashion. He also makes other distinctions which appear to be unnecessary (general/generic, general/specific). 6. Trimble's definition types While Trimble's methodology for teaching definition was already discussed, this section explores, in greater detail, a later publication by Trimble where he distinguishes between different definition types. He has been singled out for discussion because the definition types investigated in chapters eight and nine are based on his classification of definitions. Trimble (1985) distinguishes between simple and complex definitions whereby a simple definition is one which is expressed within a single sentence and a complex definition is expressed in more than one sentence. Trimble proposes three types of simple definition: the formal definition, the semi-formal definition and the nonformal definition.

6.1 Trimble's formal definition The formal definition "is, of course, the well-known equation-like 'Species = Genus + Differentia', usually called 'formal' because of its rigidity of form" (Trimble 1985:75-76). A formal definition gives the reader three kinds of information: the name of the term being defined, the class to which the term belongs and the difference(s) between the term and all other members of the class. The difference(s) constitute(s) the essential characteristics of the term. Formal definitions define words in terms of their physical description, function, use or purpose. Trimble provides the following example of a formal definition, developed by function description: "An anemometer is a meteorological instrument that registers the speed of wind on a dial or gage" (1985:80). This definition does indeed follow the pattern: A genus is a species which + distinguishing characteristic (function). However, Trimble does not indicate how common this and the other types of formal definition are. Nor does he discuss whether there are other ways of expressing the genus-species relation (e.g. apposition). As he suggests that this type of definition got its name from the rigidity of its structure, one might have expected some more information about the structures, their format, tense, mood, classes of information presentation. 6.2 Trimble's semi-formal definition
By definition, a semi-formal definition contains only two of the three basic defining elements: the term being defined and the statement of differences. (Trimble 1985:77)

A semi-formal definition gives the reader two kinds of information: the name of the term being defined and the difference(s) between the term and the other members of the class. The class is not stated, and Trimble suggests that this is because it is often assumed by the writer either to be obvious or to be of no relevance to the discussion. He provides the following example of a semi-formal definition: "An anemometer registers the speed of the wind on a dial or gage" (1985:80). Here, the genus is indeed absent and the term is defined in terms of its function alone. This is the type of statement which was previously (cf. Section 4.4) described as an implicit defining statement because it is unlikely to be the core statement in a paragraph. Trimble makes no comment about other words which might be used to link the term and its distinguishing characteristic, whether verbs which introduce function are always function verbs, as in this example, or whether other link words or phrases associated with certain types of characteristics (e.g. used to to introduce function) can be used. 6.3 Trimble's non-formal definition
The function of a non-formal definition is to define in a general sense so that a reader can see the familiar element in whatever the new term may be . Most non-formal definitions are found in the form of synonyms. (Trimble 1985:78)

A non-formal definition gives the reader two kinds of information: the name of the term being defined and another word or phrase having the approximate meaning of the term, or giving an outstanding characteristic of the term, e.g. "An arachnid is a spider" (1985:80). As with the previous examples, some discussion of other means of expressing non-formal definitions might be useful. Trimble makes no reference to the use of the conjunction 'or' or other structures such as 'known as', 'called' which, as we shall see in chapter seven, are often used to introduce non-formal definitions. However, he may not

consider these to be the preferred method of expressing non-formal definitions, which would explain, but not necessarily justify, the oversight. 6.4 Trimble's complex definitions Complex definitions are expanded versions of the simple definition and, "characteristically, most expanded definitions are developed in paragraph units and have, as a rule, a simple definition-formal or semi-formal-for their core statement" (Trimble 1985:81). They include "definition 1. by stipulation, 2. by operation, and 3. by explication" (Trimble 1985:81). Definition by stipulation is generally used when the author wishes to set a limit, either "in time, in place, in field, in meaning" (1985:81) and involves the use of hedges such as mostly, as used in this clause, in information theory. Trimble's operational definition "tells the reader what to do in order to experiencephysically and/or mentally-whatever is being defined" (Trimble 1985:82). Below is an example of an operational definition:
The sound [f] is a voiceless, labio-dental fricative, formed by placing the lower lip lightly against the upper teeth, closing the upper vellum, and forcing the breath out through the spaces between the teeth or between the teeth and the upper lip. (Trimble 1985:82)

The purpose of Trimble' s definition by explication "is to give the reader new information about the key terms in the original definition" (1985:82). This may consist of explaining terms which are used in a definition in a previous sentence. 6.5 Summary Trimble has devised his classification of definitions using the criteria of completeness of the information provided (formal, semi-formal and non-formal), the type of information provided (physical description, function, purpose), and the manner in which the information is provided (stipulation, explication, operation). He focuses on genus-species relations and makes no reference to part-whole relations. Most of his examples appear either to have been invented by him or to have been taken from students' work (i.e. from work carried out by non-native speakers of English) or to have been taken from textbooks which teach the art of technical writing; the examples taken from these textbooks also appear to have been invented, for the purpose of illustration. The only authentic examples which he provides are examples of complex definitions, i.e. definitions which are expressed in more than one sentence. If he is in a position to cite examples of complex definitions, one wonders why he has not done the same for his simple definitions. It is not that difficult to speculate about how a simple, formal definition might be expressed in text, and Trimble does this very well but it is likely to be far more difficult to locate many actual instances of this or other simple definition types in text.

7 Flowerdew Flowerdew (1992a:2l5) adopts Trimble's three main types of definition (formal, semi-formal and substitution) and proposes one minor type (ostension). Unlike Trimble, who appears to have sourced his examples either by intuition or by consulting ESP textbooks, Flowerdew bases his classification on a series of lectures in biology and chemistry given by native English speakers to non-native speakers. By comparing how lecturers defined in lectures and how the language of definition was presented in ESP textbooks, Flowerdew discovered that there was a 'great discrepancy' between the two media.
Whilst definitions in lectures, as this study will show, are subject to much variation, the typical ESP course book presentation of definitions tends to be very prescriptive, presenting a formulaic pattern for students to imitate. (l992a:203)

In defence of ESP textbook authors who are concerned with written discourse, it is hardly surprising that spoken discourse should be quite different. We believe, however, that Flowerdew's observation is warranted in the sense that Trimble, and indeed others, appear to be more concerned with teaching formulaic patterns than with taking usage into account. The most important feature of Flowerdew' s work is that it is corpus-based, and authentic data always seem to reveal more interesting facts than mere conjecture. In his study, Flowerdew examined 329 definitions of 314 terms which had been extracted from a series of science lectures. He documented the way in which each of the definition types was expressed. 7.1 Flowerdew's formal and semi-formal definitions Flowerdew found that the formal and semi-formal definitions in his corpus could be further sub-classified, into the following subcategories, according to the semantic content of the specifying characteristic: a) behaviour/process/function, b) composition/structure, c) location/occurrence, d) attribute/property. He also noted that, contrary to what is suggested by Trimble, the term to be defined does not always come first in the sentence. It may appear at the end of the sentence, e.g.: "now a photo that we take through a microscope we call a micrograph" (l992a:210). 7.2 Flowerdew's definition by substitution In a substitution, a word, word-part, phrase, or phrases, with a similar meaning, is substituted for the newly introduced term. There are three types of substitution: synonym, paraphrase and derivation (1992a:21l). Flowerdew's definition by substitution is the same as Trimble's non-formal definition except that Flowerdew illustrates the many ways in which non-formal definitions are expressed.

10

7.3 Structure of definitions in the Flowerdew corpus Flowerdew (1992b) provides examples of each of the definition types. He suggests that:
formal and semi-formal definitions are most commonly used where the information conveyed by the definition is the main focus of the discourse and substitutions are used most commonly where the definition is not the main focus of the discourse. (1992b: 170)

The typical syntactic structure for the formal definition is: NP + copula + NP (including relative clause or other pre- or postmodifier). He provides the following example of a formal definition: " an element is a substance which cannot be broken down into simpler substances" (1992b:167). Flowerdew does not specify whether the relative clauses or other pre- or postmodifiers are marked in any way which makes them easily identifiable. The typical syntactic structure for the semi-formal definition is: NP + copula + NP (without relative clause). Flowerdew provides the following example of a semi-formal definition: " the circulatory system concerns the movement of blood in all animals..." (1992b:168). The definition by substitution may have the same syntactic structure as the semiformal definition but
where this occurs, the second noun phrase is usually less complex. Often, however, instead of the two noun phrases being linked by a copula verb, they are placed in apposition, either explicitly marked, usually by or . . . or marked only by intonation. (l992b: 171)

He provides the following examples of definition by substitution: " it increases its girth or fatness", " prey is also captured by the cnidoblasts, the stinging cells of hydra" (1992b:171). The term in formal and semi-formal definitions does not necessarily appear at the beginning of the definition and, when it does, Flowerdew suggests that this is because the term has already been introduced in the discourse. According to the principle of end focus, the semantic element with most emphasis (i.e. the most salient) is likely to come at the end of a sentence or clause. This means that the distinguishing characteristic is the most salient of the three elements in a formal definition and the term the least salient, if it comes in initial position. While one would normally expect the term to be the most salient of the three elements in a definition,
where the structure of term, class, characteristic is employed, the term has very often already been introduced into the discourse and is thus given (as opposed to new) information in the definition itself. (l992b:168)

If the term has not been previously introduced, left dislocation (e.g. "ending zeros / these are numbers which have." 1992b:168) may be used to establish the term as given or:
where the term has not been previously established, the semantic ordering of the definition is reversed, with the term coming at the end, in so-called nominal definition, e.g. 'on the ventral surface of the earthworm there are small projections which are known as the chaetae. .. (1992b:168)

11

7.4 Linguistic signaling of definitions in Flowerdew corpus The presence of definitions can be signaled either by syntactic or lexical devices. The copula is the most common syntactic device in the Flowerdew corpus. Unfortunately, Flowerdew does not provide any classification of the types of copula found in his corpus. Approximately half of the definitions in the Flowerdew corpus are signaled lexically by means of expressions such as we call / is called / are called / called. Other phrases such as or, known as also occur, but much less frequently. He distinguishes between internal and external devices. Internal lexical devices can be further subdivided into boosters and downtoners. Boosters are linguistic items "that signal clearly the illocutionary force of a speech act" (1992b:172). Examples are the expressions cited above, i.e. we call etc., Downtoners can downgrade the force of a definition. Frequently used downtoners are adverbials (e.g. just), modal "can", and non-factive predicators (e.g. one way of defining a ... is). These are similar to the hedges cited by Trimble (1985). In addition to the internal devices which signal the presence and mark the salience of definitions, external devices, which Flowerdew calls grounders, may be used.
A grounder is a statement which precedes and prepares the way for a definition Grounders familiarize hearers with the term to be defined in anticipation of the definition itself. (1992b:173)

An example of a grounder (grounder in italics) is: " today we're going to start on Chapter 6 / alkenes / alkenes are (+ definition)" (1992b:173). 7.5 Summary Flowerdew's classification and illustration of definition types provides a very useful starting point for our work. He appears to have restricted his analysis to statements which were clearly marked as definitions. While he does consider the impact of the use of modals and adverbs on a definition's general applicability, he does not appear to have considered the relevance of the presence or absence of the definite article with the term, which is surprising, because, as Swales suggests, it is generally a useful indicator of the scope of a definition.

12