If you mean you need a definition so that you can have personal experiences, I think you might be deluded.
The language of experience and definitions are more or less identical.
IOW you can't have one without the other ... unless you have amnesia or something
And, have you considered what not to speak, or not talking about personal experiences?
if that "not talking" etc arises from not having recourse to a definition, its probably a good indication that there was no experience either. IOW an experience without recourse to definition means one was oblivious to the experience ("I slept through the entire thing") or the memory of it
Well, suppose I say there's this new drink out, and it tastes "amazing", what kind of definition is that?
an experience distinct from "dreadful" or "bland" .... or even in a more general sense, one can talk about the experience of "drinking" which distinguishes itself as an act distinct from many others.
Or the latest Hobbit movie is an audiovisual "feast", really "convincing", brought the book to life; is that something that has any "supporting" definition?
distinct from "dreary" , "hackneyed" etc etc ... and again, the notion of a "movie" indicates a functioning framework of definition ... in fact there are so many supporting definitions in this statement eg "book" "bring to life" ...Actually that entire sentence is one continuous stream of definitions that establish what is experienced and the manner of it in a particular way
Or would I need to suppose you don't go to movies, and need to explain what sitting in an audience, looking at a screen, is like?
In the language of semiotics, which while also posing certain limitations in particular spheres is probably sufficient enough for the time being, they talk of both language (ie the way we define or contextualize an experience) and experience itself being products of re-presentation. IOW the tools of signal (an object/experience/ thing, etc) and signifier (what the said object/experience et al conveys) combine in a certain manner for the seer (ie the person who is having the experience) to manufacture or re-present something in themselves of "reality". This in turn produces many "codes" or language that summarizes experience or ways one has to be in order to understand the experience.
So for instance, the very use of the word "movie" dictates not only the act of it (namely the projection of a film with accompanying sound) but also the behaviour required to "unpack" the experience into a meaningful event (or at least in a meaningful event as anticipated by the producers of the film and the film critics appraisal) ... eg sitting down somewhat quietly and attentively watching the reel unwind in a chronologically sequenced event from beginning to end.
So if a film critic is talking about a film, he takes it for granted that his listeners don't need to be briefed on all these codes that surround it. And persons reading the experience expect the codes that surround film making to be present if they proceed to have the experience
So as a comparison, if a group of 16th century tribes people watched the hobbit, they would probably have difficulty appreciating the critics words.
Or if the same tribe accidentally go to a Chinese restaurant next door to the theater, one can understand by hearing their experience that they never actually went to the movie theater in teh first place