Connotation and Denotation

Connotation without denotation: empty terms. "A married bachelor" has a connotation, which is why we can see at once that nothing satisfies it, and denotes nothing. In law, "an agreement with a minor which is enforceable against him" is such a term.

This asymmetry matters for legal drafting. A definition which is perfectly clear may nevertheless describe an empty class, and a schedule of names may pick out a class no definition captures. Statutes use both devices, and the choice between them is a choice between defining by connotation and defining by denotation.

The kinds of connotation

Some textbooks divide connotation three ways and examiners occasionally ask for it. The division belongs to the psychology of meaning rather than to logic proper, but it is short.

Subjective connotation is the set of attributes a particular person associates with the term. It varies from person to person and is what makes people talk past one another.

Objective connotation is the whole set of attributes actually common to everything the term denotes. It may include attributes nobody has yet noticed.

Conventional connotation is the set of attributes the term is agreed in a language to imply, which is what a dictionary records and what logic works with. When "connotation" is used without qualification, this is what is meant.

Where the law fixes the one and the other

This is the practically useful part, and it is why the chapter is here.

A definition clause fixes the conventional connotation of a term for one Act. Section 2 of almost any statute is a list of attributes attached to words.

A schedule or a list fixes a denotation. Where an Act applies to the establishments named in a Schedule, the class is fixed by enumeration, not by meaning, and nothing outside the list is in however similar it may be.

Illustrations and examples show denotation. The illustrations to a section do not define the term; they display members of its class, so that the reader can work out where the boundary runs.

Inclusive definitions do something in between. A definition saying that a word "includes" certain things is not stating the full connotation; it is adding named members to the denotation while leaving the ordinary meaning otherwise intact. That is why an inclusive definition enlarges a term and an exhaustive one confines it, which is one of the most heavily litigated points in statutory construction.

A worked example

An Act applies to any "factory", defined as "any premises where ten or more workers are working and where a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power".

Read the connotation off the definition. Four attributes: premises; ten or more workers; a manufacturing process being carried on; the aid of power. Every one must be satisfied, because the attributes are joined by "and".

Predict the litigation. Since each attribute is necessary, an occupier who wants to be outside the Act needs to defeat only one of them, and the argument will be about whichever is easiest to defeat on the facts. That is a direct consequence of the connotation being a conjunction of four attributes, and it can be predicted before any case arises.

Now apply the law of inverse variation. Suppose the legislature deletes "with the aid of power". The connotation loses an attribute, so the denotation grows: premises using no power now fall inside, and the Act covers more establishments. Suppose instead it adds "and where the process is carried on for twelve months in the year". The connotation gains an attribute, so the denotation shrinks and seasonal establishments drop out.

A drafter can therefore widen or narrow the reach of an Act by adding or removing a single word in the definition, and the direction of the change is settled in advance by the law of inverse variation. That is not a metaphor; it is how amendment of definition clauses actually works.

Distinctions that carry marks

What this does not mean

Connotation here is not the ordinary English "connotation". In everyday use the word means an overtone or an association, as when "cheap" is said to have negative connotations. In logic it means the defining attributes and nothing else. This is a false friend and it catches students every year.

Inverse variation is not a formula. It states a direction, not a ratio, and it fails where a term already denotes one thing or none.

A term with no denotation is not meaningless. It is meaningful precisely because it has a connotation; that is how we know nothing satisfies it.

Quick revision

Connotation, or intension: the attributes a thing must have to be called by the term. Denotation, or extension: the things that have them.

Law of inverse variation: more connotation, less denotation. A direction, not a ratio, and it fails at the ends.

Proper names: denotation without connotation, on Mill's view.

Empty terms: connotation without denotation, such as "an enforceable agreement with a minor".

Three kinds of connotation: subjective, objective, conventional. Logic works with the conventional.

In statutes: a definition clause fixes connotation; a schedule or list fixes denotation; illustrations display denotation; "includes" enlarges and "means" confines.

Forward link: a definition states a connotation and a division sorts a denotation, which is the whole of Module IV in one line.

Test yourself

1. Define connotation and denotation, and give an example of each for one term.

The connotation, or intension, of a term is the set of attributes a thing must possess to be called by it; the denotation, or extension, is the set of things that possess them. For "contract", the connotation is agreement, competent parties, free consent, lawful consideration, lawful object and not being expressly declared void; the denotation is every actual contract, this lease and that sale deed among them.

2. State the law of inverse variation and give its two limits.

As the connotation of a term increases the denotation decreases, and as the connotation decreases the denotation increases. Its first limit is that the relation is one of direction and not of proportion: there is no ratio between the number of attributes and the number of objects. Its second is that it breaks down at the ends, since a term denoting a single thing cannot denote fewer without denoting none, and a term may have a full connotation and an empty denotation.

3. Can a term have denotation without connotation, or connotation without denotation?

Both, on the traditional account. A proper name such as "Ravi" denotes an individual and, on Mill's view, connotes nothing, being a mark rather than a description. An empty term such as "an agreement with a minor enforceable against him" has a clear connotation and denotes nothing at all, and it is precisely because the connotation is clear that we can see the class is empty.

4. How does a statute fix the connotation of a term, and how does it fix the denotation?

It fixes connotation by a definition clause, which attaches a list of attributes to the word for the purposes of that Act. It fixes denotation by enumeration, in a schedule or a list of establishments, persons or articles to which the Act applies. Illustrations to a section display members of the denotation without defining the term, which is why they guide but do not control construction.

5. What is the difference between a definition that says "means" and one that says "includes"?

A definition that says "means" is exhaustive: it states the whole connotation and the term bears that meaning and no other within the Act, which confines it. A definition that says "includes" is inclusive: it leaves the ordinary meaning standing and adds named members to the denotation, which enlarges the term. The distinction is heavily litigated, since a great deal can turn on whether a class is closed or open.

6. An Act defines "factory" as premises where ten or more workers work and a manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of power. What happens to its reach if "with the aid of power" is deleted?

The connotation loses one attribute, so by the law of inverse variation the denotation grows: premises using no power now satisfy the remaining three attributes and fall within the Act. The reach of the statute is widened, and it is widened by deleting words rather than by adding them, which is a direct and predictable consequence of the relation between connotation and denotation.