Learn English – Explicit vs Specific

differencesmeaning

Recently I asked on the personal productivity Stack Exchange

Is there specifically a reason why there isn't an ADHD tag?

The context here, being that people with ADHD have issues with productivity, and that the ADHD tag didn't exist on the site. Searching the meta didn't show any reasons for this. I thought it might be possible that dealing with ADHD might not be on topic on the site.

Then afterwards I was considering whether explicit would have been a more appropriate word to use here.

Explicit (when not being used to denote adult content) is usually used as a contrast to implicit, making it clear that the thing was said out loud or put in writing.

eg.

I gave you explicit instructions not to engage.

The manual explicitly states not to turn the computer off at this stage.

Merriam-Webster gives this definition:

very clear and complete : leaving no doubt about the meaning

openly shown

Dictionary.reference gives a better definition:

fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:

Specific on the other hand, tends to denote detailing, or to distingush one item from another.

eg.

She told me to specifically press the red button, then the green button.

The boss told us that he wanted us specifically to work on the project. (Implying that he didn't want other teams working on the project).

Which word would have been more appropriate for my question, and what's the difference?

Best Answer

To put this as concisely as possible:

Explicit means 'clear.'

Specific means 'narrowed down' or 'unique.'

A better way to word this would be

 Is there A SPECIFIC reason... ?

One cannot technically 'be' or 'say' specifically - unlike explicitly, it isn't a very good adverb. Instead, one is a specific (something).

Related Solutions

Learn English – the “explicit”‘s equivalent of “imply”

While I agree with MrHen in the general case, I do feel that this particular question has merit. The answer comes down to the order in which these words evolved, and the nature of their Latin roots. Language is not an exact science (far, far from it).

The short answer is that the word exply (or, rather, the meaning that it would convey) already exists in the word explain.

The "im" words in your list -- imply, implicate and implicit -- all evolved from the Latin implicare (im- + plicare) which means "to in-fold" or "involve". The word explicit has similar roots: it is based on the Latin explicitus (meaning "disentangled" or "easy"), past participle of explicare (ex- + plicare) which means "to out-fold or "unfold", making it the reverse of implicare.

The word explain, however, has its roots in the Latin explanare (ex- + planare), which means "to flatten out", or "make level".

Based on these origins, there was really only one choice for the concept of implicate, since it literally meant to fold in on itself. For the opposing concept, there were two choices: explicate (to unfold), or explain (to make flat). Note that these words are still valid synonyms in English. From this position it seems obvious why the word exply never appeared: at the time when imply was evolving from its Latin origins in implicate, the word explain already existed.

To summarize, picture the words evolving in parallel (from left to right) as follows:

plicare + in -> implicare -> implicate -> imply
        + ex -> explicare -> explicate
planare + ex -> explanare -> explain

Given that exply would have the same meaning as explain, there was simply no need for it to enter into the language.

Edit (in response to the modified question, and some comments):

Is explain the equivalent? It has the same Latin root, but doesn't have the full connotation of intentionally making something explicit.

I would argue that the word explain does imply a direct intention to make something explicit. A person seldom (if ever) explains something without intending to make it very clear to their audience. Also, it does have a different Latin root. See above!

Learn English – Does a claim have to be explicit

According to this paper, both explicit and implicit claims exist:

We argue that in selling a product or service or purchasing inputs, companies issue both explicit and implicit claims. The former refers to the contractual basis on which goods and services are sold or purchased by companies whereas the latter relates to company promises to stakeholders (employees, customers, suppliers, etc.) that are either too vague or too costly to specify in writing.

The paper is in the area of corporate reputation, but the concept of claims that are stated and claims that are implied holds for other subjects as well.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Learn English – the “explicit”‘s equivalent of “imply”

Learn English – Does a claim have to be explicit

Related Topic