Reference and Inference

CHAPTER 03 05 Goals
In this lesson, you will learn:
Definitions
Referential and Attributive Uses
Names and Referents
The Role of Co-Text
Anaphoric Reference

OBJECTIVES 5 Goals
Definitions

PART 1
 ASSUMPTION

 The use of words to refer to people and things is a

relatively straightforward matter.

 straightforward = easy to understand

 PROBLEM

 It is fairly easy for people to do so.

 It is rather difficult to explain how they do it.

Why?
→ Words don’t refer to anything.
→ People do.
 REFERENCE

 An act in which a speaker, or writer, uses linguistic forms to

enable a listener, or reader, to identify something.

 reference = the act of making a connection between subjects

 linguistic forms = referring expressions
 REFERRING EXPRESSIONS

1. Proper Pronouns: Shakespeare

2. Definite Noun Phrase: the author, the singer
3. Indefinite Noun Phrase: a man, a woman
4. Pronoun: he, her
→ The choice of one type of referring expression rather
than another seems to be based on what the speaker assumes
the listener already knows.
 CASE 1
 In shared visual contexts, pronouns functioning as
deictic expressions may be sufficient for successful
reference.
1. Take this.
2. Look at him
→ We can see and we know what the speaker refers to.
 CASE 2

 In the case where identification seems more difficult,

more elaborate noun phrases may be used.
3. Remember the old foreign guy with the funny hat?
→ We need some more features for the listener to get the
idea.

 elaborate = containing many detailed parts

 NOTE

 Reference tied to the speaker’s goal.

→ To identify something.

 Reference tied to the speaker’s beliefs in the use of language.

→ Can the listener be expected to know that particular
something?
 INFERENCE
 There is no direct relationship between entities and words.
→ The listener has to infer correctly which entity the speaker
intends to identify by using a particular referring expression.
→ We have to recognize the role of inference for successful
reference to occur.

 infer = guess based on available information or facts

 inference = a guess
 ONE TYPE
 People refer to some entity or person without knowing
exactly which name would be the best word to use.
 People can even use vague expressions, relying on the
listener’s ability to infer what referent we have in mind.
1. the blue thing
2. that sticky stuff

 referent = person or thing a word, phrase, or object refers to

 ONE TYPE
 Some speakers even invent names, meaning that reference is
not based on an objectively correct naming, but on some
locally successful choice of expression.
1. Mister Aftershave is late today.

 objectively = in a fair way that is not influenced by personal

feelings or beliefs
 ONE TYPE
 Successful reference is necessarily collaborative, with both
the speaker and the listener having a role in thinking about
what the other has in mind.
1. Mister Aftershave is late today.

 collaborative = involving two or more people working

Referential and Attributive Uses

PART 2
 PHYSICAL REFERENTS

 Yule recognizes that not all referring expressions have

identifiable physical referents.
 INDEFINITE NOUN PHRASES

 There’s a man waiting for you.

→ used to identify a physically present entity
INDEFINITE NOUN PHRASE

 He wants to marry a woman with lots of money.

→ used to describe entities that are assumed to exist, but
are unknown
 INDEFINITE NOUN PHRASE

 We’d love to find a nine-foot-tall basketball player.

→ used to describe entities that don’t exist
 ATTRIBUTIVE USE

 a woman with lots of money

→ designates an entity that is known to the speaker only in
terms of its descriptive properties
→ replaces a by any
→ attributive use = whoever/ whatever fits the description
 REFERENTIAL USE

 referential use = the one in which I have a person in

mind and, instead of using her name or some other
description, I choose a woman with lots of money
→ a woman with lots of money > her name
 SIMILAR DISTINCTION

 There was no sign of the killer.

→ Is there a person who could be the referent of the
definite expression the killer?
→ the killer = whoever did the killing (attributive use)
→ based on an assumption that a referent must exist
 SIMILAR DISTINCTION

 There was no sign of the killer.

→ If a particular individual had been identified as
having done the killing and had been chased into a
building, but escaped.
→ There was no sign of the killer. (referential use)
→ based on the speaker’s knowledge that a referent
exits
 CONCLUSION

 Expressions cannot be treated as having reference.

 Expressions are invested with referential function in
a context by a speaker or writer.
→ Speakers often invite us to assume that we can
identify what they’re talking about through attributive
use (even when the entity or individual described may
not exist).
Names and Referents

PART 3
 REFERENCE

 intention to identify
 recognition of intention
→ a basic collaboration that works between
1. a speaker and a listener
2. all members of a community
CUSTOM

 Certain referring expressions will be used to identify

certain entities on a regular basis.
 Why?
→ Our daily experience of the successful operation of this
convention causes us to think that referring expressions
can only designate very specific entities.
 BELIEF

 Shakespeare
→ used to identify one specific person

 the cheese sandwich

→ used to identify a specific thing
 BELIEF IS MISTAKEN
 Can I borrow your Shakespeare?
 Yeah, it’s over there on the table.
→ a thing can be identified
1. intended referent = a book
2. inferred referent = a book
 BELIEF IS MISTAKEN
 Where’s the cheese sandwich sitting?
 He’s over there by the window.
→ a person can be identified
1. intended referent = a food (uttered by a waiter)
2. inferred referent = a food (understood by another)
 HOW REFERENCE WORKS

 There is a conventional set of entities that can be

identified by the use of a writer’s name.
1. Shakespeare takes up the whole bottom shelf.
2. We’re going to see Shakespeare in London.
3. I hated Shakespeare at school.
→ Shakespeare = things the writer produced
 HOW REFERENCE WORKS

 This convention applies to writers, artists, and so on.

1. Picasso’s on the far wall.
2. The new Mozart is better value than the Bach.
3. My Rolling Stones is missing.
→ all producers of objects
 PRAGMATIC CONNECTION

 A pragmatic connection between proper names and

objects (that are conventionally associated with those
names, within a socio-culturally defined community).
→ Using a proper name referentially to identify any such
object invites the listener to make the expected inference.
→ By doing so, it helps prove that the listener is a
member of the same community with the speaker.
 PRAGMATIC CONNECTION

 name of writer
 book of writer
→ More is being communicated than is said.
 NEWSPAPER HEADLINES

 The nature of reference interpretation in the previous

slide is what allows readers to make sense of
newspaper headlines using names of countries.
→ Referents can be understood as a soccer team, not as a
government and vice versa.
 NEWSPAPER HEADLINES

 Brazil wins World Cup.

 Japan wins first round of trade talks.
The Role of Co-Text

PART 4
 FURTHER UNDERSTANDING NEEDED

 Our ability to identify intended referents depends on

more than our understanding of the referring expression.
→ We need linguistic material = co-text, which
accompanies the referring expression.
 EXAMPLE

 Brazil wins World Cup.

→ Brazil = referring expression
→ the national football team of Brazil = referent
→ wins World Cup = part of the co-text

→ the rest of the newspaper = more co-text

 FUNCTION OF CO-TEXT

 Co-text limits the range of possible interpretations we

the listeners might have for the word Brazil.
 Reference cannot be understood only in terms of our
ability to identify referents (via referring expression).
 The referring expressions provide a wide range of
reference or, in other words, a number of referents.
EXAMPLE

 The cheese sandwich is made with white bread.

→ the cheese sandwich = food

 The cheese sandwich left without paying.

→ the cheese sandwich = person
ENVIRONMENT

 Referring expressions are used in one environment:

1. co-text = linguistic environment
2. context = physical environment
 CONTEXT
 This physical environment is recognized as having an
impact on how referring expressions should be interpret.
→ a restaurant
→ the speech conventions of those who work there
→ The cheese sandwich (= a person) left without paying.
 MORE EXAMPLES

 The heart-attack mustn’t be moved.

→ a hospital
 Your ten-thirty just cancelled.
→ a dentist’s office
 A couple of rooms have complained about the heat.
→ a hotel reception
 MORE EXAMPLES

 These examples provide support for an analysis of

reference that depends on local context and the local
knowledge of the participants.
 FAMILIARITY

 Familiarity with the local socio-cultural conventions

as the basic for inference.
→ A patient can be identified by the illness he has (by
any nurse in the hospital where the patient is now in).
 PROBLEM

 These conventions differ substantially from one social

group to another.
 These conventions are marked differently from one
language to another.
 CONCLUSION

 Reference is not simply a relationship between the

meaning of a word or phrase and an object or person in
the world.
 Reference is a social act, in which the speaker assumes
that the word or phrase chosen to identify an object or
person will be interpreted as the speaker wanted.
Anaphoric Reference

PART 5
 MULTIPLE AND SINGLE

 Only single acts of reference are studied in the previous

parts.
→ In a talk or writing, we have to keep track of who or what we
are talking about for more than one sentence at a time.
 MULTIPLE AND SINGLE

 In the film, a man and a woman were trying to wash a

cat. The man was holding the cat while the woman
poured water on it. He said something to her and they
started laughing.
→ The first sentence introduces some entities.
→ The next sentences help maintain reference.
 INITIAL REFERENCE

 initial reference = introductory mention = a man

→ indefinite
 SUBSEQUENT REFERENCE

 definite noun phrase = the man

 pronoun = he
→ subsequent reference to already introduced referents
→ known as anaphoric reference or anaphora
 IN TECHNICAL TERMS

 initial expression = antecedent

 second or subsequent expression = anaphor
 SUMP UP

 Anaphoric reference can be considered a process of

continuing to identify exactly the same entity as
denoted by the antecedent.
 NOTES

 For some, anaphoric reference must be interpreted

differently.

 Peel and slice six potatoes. Put them in cold salted water.
→ six potatoes as the initial referring expression is not the
same as the anaphoric pronoun them.
→ them = six peeled and sliced potatoes
 CATAPHORA

 There is a reversal of the antecedent-anaphor pattern.

 I turned the corner and almost stepped on it. There was a

large snake in the middle of the path.
→ it comes before a large snake
→ This pattern is called cataphora, which is less common.
 EXAMPLES

 Peel an onion and slice it.

 Drop the slices into hot oil.
 Cook for three minutes.
 TYPICAL FORMS

 pronoun = it
 noun phrase = the slices
 ellipsis = zero anaphora = Ø
→ More being communicated than is said.
 THE LISTENER

 The listener has to make more specific types of inference

when the anaphoric expressions don’t seem to be
linguistically connected to their antecedents.

 I just rented a house. The kitchen is really big.

 We had Chardonnay with dinner. The wine was the best
part.
 The bus came on time, but he didn’t stop.
 INFERENCE

 IF x is a house, then x has a kitchen. (assumed knowledge)

 Chardonnay is a kind of wine. (same, but much more
specific)
 A bus has a driver. (jump to a pronoun for anaphoric
reference)
 EXPLANATION FOR CASE 3

 antecedent = the bus

 anaphor = he
→ They are not in grammatical agreement.
→ Successful reference does not depend on some strictly
literal, or grammar correct, relationships between the
properties of the referent and the referring expression
chosen.
 KEY
 Pragmatic process helps make sense of reference.
→ speakers select linguistic expressions
1. with the intention of identifying certain entities
2. with the assumption that listeners will collaborate
and interpret those expressions as the speaker
intended
 NOTE
 The social dimension of reference is tied to the effect
of collaboration.
→ The immediate recognition of an intended referent
represents something shared or in common, and hence
social closeness.
→ Successful reference means that an intention was
recognized, via inference, indicating a kind of shared
knowledge and hence social connection.