Editing Circular definition (section)

===Lexicographic===
From a lexicographic point of view, the simplest form of circular definition in a dictionary is in terms of synonyms, and the number of steps for closing the definition chain into a circle is known as the ''depth'' of the circular definition: the circular definition "object: a thing" → "thing: an object" is a circular definition with a depth of two. The circular definition "object: a thing" → "thing: an entity" → "entity: an object" has a depth of three.

[[File:EulerDiagram.svg|thumb|"Four legs" is a simple example of differentia specifica.]]
The classic "genus-difference" dictionary definition is in terms of nearest kind (''genus proximum'') and specific differences (''differentia specifica''). This genus-difference description may be involved in producing circular definitions of part and kind relationships, for example: "rake: an implement with three or more tines" → "tine: a part of a rake". However, if more specific differences are added, then the effect of circularity may disappear: "rake: a gardening implement with a long handle with three or more tines arranged on crossbar at 90° to the handle and the tines at 90° to both crossbar and handle"; in this case, "tine" is most usefully defined with reference to "rake", but with additional differences providing points of comparison, e.g.: "tine: a sharp spike at the end of a rake". In practice, a pragmatic approach is often taken in considering the effects of circularity in dictionary definitions.<ref>Atkins, B. and M. Rundell. ''The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography''. Oxford University Press: 2008.</ref>

====Circular lexicographic (dictionary) definitions====
{{+rs|date=March 2016}}
Dictionary entries are often given as examples of apparent circular definitions. Dictionary production, as a project in [[lexicography]], should not be confused with a [[mathematical]] or [[logical]] activity, where giving a definition for a word is similar to providing an [[explanans]] for an [[explanandum]] in a context where practitioners are expected to use a [[deductive system]].<ref>Michael Silverstein (2006). "[http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123327?journalCode=anthro Old Wine, New Ethnographic Lexicography]". ''Annual Review of Anthropology'', 35:486-7.</ref><ref name=Seargeant/> While, from a [[linguistic prescriptivist]] perspective, any [[dictionary]] might be believed to dictate correct usage, the [[linguistic descriptivist]] perspective recognizes that looking up words in dictionaries is not itself a rule-following practice independent of the give-and-take of using words in context.<ref name=Seargeant>Philip Seargeant, "Lexicography as a Philosophy of Language". ''Language Sciences'', 33:1-10 (2011).</ref> Thus, the example of a definition of oak given above (something that has catkins and grows from acorns) is not completely useless, even if "acorn" and "catkin" are defined in terms of "oak", in that it supplies additional concepts (e.g., the concept of catkin) in the definition. {{citation needed|date=March 2016}}

While a dictionary might produce a "circle" among the terms, "oak", "catkin", and "acorn", each of these is used in different {{clarify|reason="definition"or "context"?|text=contexts|date=March 2016}} (e.g., those related to plants, trees, flowers, and seeds) that generate ever-branching networks of usages. In another case it might produce a true circle. Taken as a whole, dictionaries are circular because each and every word is defined in terms of words that are also contained within the dictionary. ({{clarify|text=A person could not pick up a (foreign) dictionary and make any sense of it unless they already know the meaning of a minimal subset of a number of words without having the need to refer to the dictionary for said meaning.|date=March 2016}})

{{clarify|reason=needs elaboration; the concept of "circularity" is not evident in this sentence|text=A circular definition crept into the classic definition of death that was once "the permanent cessation of the flow of vital bodily fluids", which raised the question "what makes a fluid vital?"<ref>Tulloch, Gail (2005). ''Euthanasia, Choice and Death'', p.8. Edinburgh University. {{ISBN|9780748618811}}.<!--Quotes or paraphrases [[Peter Singer]].--></ref>|date=March 2016}}

Definitions in lexicography can be broadly or narrowly circular. Narrowly circular definitions simply define one word in terms of another. A broadly circular definition has a larger circle of words. For example, the definition of the primary word is defined using two other words, which are defined with two other words, etc., creating a definitional chain. This can continue until the primary word is used to define one of the words used in the chain, closing the wide circle of terms. If all definitions rely on the definitions of other words in a very large, but finite chain, then all text-based definitions are ultimately circular. [[Extension (semantics)]] to the actual things that referring terms like nouns stand for, provided that agreement on reference is accomplished, is one method of breaking this circularity, but this is outside the capacity of a text-based definition.{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}

====Examples of narrowly circular definitions in dictionaries====
The 2007 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary defines a "hill" and a "mountain" this way:

: hill - "1: a usually rounded natural elevation of land '''lower than a mountain'''"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hill "hill"]. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 17, 2013.</ref>
: mountain - "1a: a landmass that projects conspicuously above its surroundings and is '''higher than a hill'''"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/mountain "mountain"]. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 17, 2013.</ref>

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary provides another example of a circular definition with the words "condescending" and "patronizing:"

: Main Entry: condescending<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescending "condescending"]. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 17, 2013.</ref>
: Function: adjective
: 1 : showing or characterized by condescension: patronizing

From "condescension":

: Main Entry: condescension<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescension "condescension"]. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 17, 2013.</ref>
: Function: noun
: 1 : voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior
: 2 : '''patronizing attitude''' or behavior

To "patronize":

: Main Entry: patronize<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patronizing "patronizing"]. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 17, 2013.</ref>
: Function: transitive verb
: 1 : to act as patron of: provide aid or support for
: 2 : '''to adopt an air of condescension toward''': treat haughtily or coolly
From the Oxford Dictionary of English: 

* Punishment – "a ''penalty'' inflicted as ''retribution'' for an offence".
* ''Penalty'' – "a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract".
* ''Retribution'' – "punishment inflicted on someone as '''vengeance''' for a wrong or criminal act".
* '''Vengeance''' – "punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong".

Therefore, a punishment means "a ''punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract'' inflicted as ''punishment inflicted on someone as'' '''punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong''' ''for a wrong or criminal act'' for an offence". Obviously, this is not the final result of substitution as this would result in an endlessly long sentence.