Three questions help test every restrictive phrase in a definition:
1. Purpose: which invalid case is the phrase meant to exclude?
2. Necessity: was that case already excluded by other terms?
3. Consequence: does the phrase accidentally exclude a valid case?
The dispute about “without interpretation,” “in actuality,” and “under the discourse convention” is intelligible through these tests. Adding more conditions does not automatically improve a definition; each must have a clear role and fit the others coherently.
Analyzing “I saw a lion giving a sermon” by separating assigned sense, intended referent, contextual clue, and rhetorical claim makes their respective functions apparent.