REFERENCE AND INFERENCE IN PRAGMATICS

Compiled by Rohib Adrianto Sangia

NIM. 137835102 Fikri Agung Wicaksono

NIM. 137835096 Arif Bachtiar

NIM. 137835 110

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI SURABAYA PROGRAM PASCA SARJANA

S-2 PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS 2014

Introduction

Pragmatics is the study of how we use language to communicate, and to do

the other things we use language to do. Pragmatics involves the formation of

intentions on the part of speakers and the discovery of intentions on the part of

listeners. The distinction between semantics and pragmatics as one to be made

within the context of the speakers intentions, having to do with the tools he

intends to use to accomplish his goals as the reference and the reference becomes

the main issue in this discussion.

The issue of reference was intensely investigated by philosophers during

the twentieth century, and lively interest in the topic continues. The inquiry is

usually regarded as a matter of semantics, the theory of meaning and truth. The

key question is usually taken to be what contribution referring expressions make

to the truth-conditions of the statements of which they are a part, and not how they

t into the speakers plan to convey implicatures and perform speech acts (Korta

and Perry, 2011). In a conversation there is an assumption that the use of words to

refer to people and things is relatively straightforward matter. It is easy for people

to do but difficult to explain how they do it.

We are interested in how the differences among the ways we have of

referring to things connect to the different effects that such utterances have on

those who hear them, and how this is reHFWHGLQWKHLQWHQWLRQVRIWKRVHZKRXVH

them. Whatever intrinsic interest the topic may have is extended by the central

role of reference played in the philosophy of language throughout the twentieth

century, and continues to play. If we understand the reference, we should be able

to explain its pragmatics.

It is clear that people use linguistic expressions to identify entities they are

talking about. Since we are talking about the use of language here, we are talking

about reference as a pragmatic phenomenon. In the next part of this paper, we will

discuss more about the reference in pragmatics.

Discussion

Reference

Semantically, reference is a relationship between a particular object in the

world and an expression used in an utterance to pick that object out (Hurford,

Heasley, and Smith, 2007). Pragmatically, it is defined as an act in which a

speaker, or writer, uses linguistic forms to enable a listener, reader, to identify

something (Yule, 1996). In the context of language, Abbott (2010) indicates

reference has something to do with the way linguistic expressions are related to

whatever it is that we use them to talk and write about.

The linguistic forms of reference are referring expression. A referring

expression is any expression used in an utterance to refer to something or

someone (or a clearly delimited collection of things or people), i.e. used with a

particular referent in mind (Hurford et al., 2007). The referring expression can be

proper nouns (such as Barrack Obama, Indonesia, and Merapi), definite noun

phrases (for instance: the presidents, the nation, and the mountain) or

indefinite (like a president, a nation, and a mountain), and pronouns (for

example: He, His, Her, and it). The choice of one type of referring

expression is based on what the speaker assumes the listener already knows. Look

at the examples below!

1. Take this!

2. Look at her!

Those examples above are in visual contexts which the pronouns that

function as deictic expression may be sufficient for successful reference, but

where identification seems harder, more elaborate noun phrases may be used. For

instance: A: Look at her!

B: Excuse me, what do you mean by her?

A: Look at the young beautiful girl with the blue dress!

B: Oh, I see

The dialogue above shows that more rigorous noun phrase used because the

listener is hard to identify the word her. According to the listener (B), the word

her that is uttered by the speaker (A) needs more specific or detail explanation to

be understood.

Reference is also tied to the speakers goals and beliefs (Yule, 1996). In

the use of language, speakers goal is like to identifying something while

speakers belief deals with how the listener can be expected to know that

particular something. There is no direct relationship between entity and words but

the listeners duty is to infer correctly which entity the speaker intends to identify

by using a particular referring expression. If there is no exactly which name

would be the best word to use, a vague expression can be used relying on the

listeners ability to infer what referent we have in mind. For example when there

is one man whose real name does not know well, but whose identity can be

inferred:

Mister orange-cloth brings the letter.

The example above may illustrate that reference is not based on an objectively

correct naming, but on locally successful choice expression. The successful

reference as assumed by Yule (1996) is the collaboration between the speaker and

the listener having a role in thinking about what the other has in mind.

Referential and attributive uses

We should know that not all referring expression have identifiable

physical referents, but indefinite noun phrase can be used as the referential and the

attributive. See these examples:

1. There is a girl looking for you

2. He wants to marry a young beautiful rich woman

3. Wed love to find a five-head football player

The indefinite noun phrase in (1) used to identify a physically present entity. In

(2) it is used to describe entities that are assumed to exist, but are unknown. The

example (3) it is used to describe entities that, as far we know, dont exist in the

world.

An indefinite noun phrase is as an attributive use if it determines

whoever/ whatever fits the description (Yule, 1996). The word a in (2) could

be replaced by any in this case. Meanwhile, an indefinite noun phrase is as a

referential use if it refers to a specific person or thing but the speaker chooses the

expression as in (2), probably because the speaker thinks the hearer is more

interested in hearing that this woman is young, beautiful, and rich than that she

has a name. This is the pragmatic purpose of the speaker. Yule also assume the

expression themselves cannot be treated as having reference, but are, or are not,

invested with referential function in a context by a speaker or writer. But speaker

often invite us to assume that we can identify what they are talking about via

attributive uses even the entity or individual described may not exist, as in (3).

Now, see this utterance:

4. There was no sign of the killer

An attributive use of a definite description is just a use in a case where the

speakers general intention and specific intention are the same. Like in (4), the

speaker may say that words without knowing for sure if there is a person who

could be the referent of the definite expression of the killer (whoever did the

killing). Donnelan in Abbott (2010:141) argues that in this case the speaker does

not have a particular individual in mind. The content of the description forms an

integral part of the question, and the speaker desires identifying information about

whoever WVWKDWGHVFULSWLRQ For the attributive use, the speaker is concerned with

whoever or whatever should happen to satisfy the description used.

In case (4), if a particular individual had been identified as having done the

killing and had been chased into somewhere, but escaped, thus based on the

speakers knowledge that referent is exist and then uttering the sentence in (4)

about that individual is a referential use of a definite description (Yule, 1996). It is

just a use in a case where the speakers general intention and specific intention are

distinct, but he believes theyre directed toward the same object. He may or may

not be mistaken. Thus for the referential use they are concerned instead with that

entity her-, him-, or itself, and not as description satisHU

Donnelan also indicates that while a speaker using a description

attributively merely assumes that there is someone or something WWLQJ WKH

description used, and in the referential use the speaker makes a stronger

assumption concerning a particular person or thing, that they are the one WWLQJWKH

description.

Names and referents

Yule (1996) points out that there is a basic collaboration of intention-to-

identify and recognition-of-intention at work. This collaboration process needs

not only work between one speaker and one listener but also in terms of

convention all members of a community who share a common language and

culture. A certain referring expression will be used to identify certain entity on a

regular basis. The successful operation of this convention may cause us to assume

that referring expression can only designate very specific entities. If we think that

a proper noun like Rolling Stone or Michael Jackson can only be used to

identify one specific person, and an expression containing a common noun such

as the potato can only be used to identify a specific thing, thus this belief is

mistaken.

A pragmatic view of reference allows us to see how a person can be

identified via the potato and a thing can be identified through the name,

Michael Jackson. It will not be strange for us to ask our friend by using

utterance like this one:

5. A: Can I borrow your Michael Jackson?

B: Of course, its in my bag.

Or in the classroom, a student may have a conversation with his classmate like

this:

6. C: Where does the potato buy this book?

D: He buys it in the bookstore.

Please pay attention to the context of those dialogues. In example (5), the intended

referent and the inferred referent would not be a person, but perhaps a book or a

cassette. Remember (B) uses the pronoun it to refer to Michael Jackson.

Meanwhile, in dialogue (6), by using pronoun he, the referent being identified is

not a thing, but a person. The Michael Jackson example in (5) suggests that there

is a conventional set of entities that can be identified by the use of a writers name

(Yule, 1996).

Now take a look at the examples below:

7. Spain wins World Cup Championship.

8. Indonesia wins first round of trade talks.

The nature of reference interpretation just described in (7) is also what

allows readers to make sense of newspaper or magazine headlines using name of

countries where the referent, in this case is Spain, is to be understood as a football

team who wins the competition, not as a government. Meanwhile, in example (8),

Indonesia is understood as a government who wins the trade talks, not a football

team.

The role of co-text

In understanding the intended referents in a discourse, we need ability to

identify which is depended on more than our understanding of the referring

expressions. In a discourse, there should be aided linguistic materials which is

used in accompanying the referring expresses as Yule (1996) called as co-text.

While looking at examples (7), it clear that the headline Spain was a referring

expression and wins world cup was a part of co-text. In this case the role of co-

text is clear that it limits the range of possible interpretation which the hearer or

the reader understands. It means that we cannot only understand by identifying

referents with the referring expressions since they have numbers of possible

referents (Yule, 1996). Furthermore, in avoiding the misleading of some range of

reference, again we need to know the co-text, as provides in examples below.

9. Gado-gado is made from several vegetables with peanuts sauce

10. Gado-gado is waiting for a half hour.

In interpreting the term gado-gado we need to use different treatment by

attention to the attribute as the co-text in here. The term is included a range of

referents, as an adjective, a food, or a personal who eat, make, or even buy this

thing. So in here, we need to identify the co-text by recognizing the physical

environment or context that has dominant influence on how referring expression

can be understood. In example (9) and (10) it is clear that the context for both

sentence can we find in the cafeterias which provide Javanese food. But when we

see deeper, the term gado-gado itself is explained with different referents by

identifying the co-text. In interpreting example (9) it is clear that term gado-

gado means food by looking the explanation. Meanwhile in (10) it is impossible

to assume gado-gado as food, when we analyze the verb. As consequently

proper referents for it should be person that can be limited as the maker, eater,

or buyer. Now let us take a look at the examples below:

11. The heart-attack mustnt be moved.

12. Your ten-thirty just cancelled.

13. A couple of rooms have complained about the heat.

It is useful to know the context from the examples above. In (11), the hospital

context gives as clear propriety understanding for term the heart-attack. In this

context it means that a term to substitute the name of the patient that the nurse

cannot recognize be presenting the illness that he or she had. For the example

(12), the context of dentists office give the understanding of the term ten-thirty

represents the patient who has made the appointment at ten-thirty to the dentist

before. And also term a couple of rooms is not representing the rooms itself, but

in the hotel context, it is simply refers to the guess who stay at those rooms.

It is clear co-text, physical environment or context, and local knowledge

are useful to support the clear understanding of referents. Yule (1996) concluded

that reference is a social act which is the speaker accepts that word or phrase

chosen to identify an object or person will be interpreted as the speaker intended.

It is not only about the association between the meaning of a word or phrase with

an object or person in the reality.

Anaphoric reference

In doing speaking or writing activities, it needs many sentences at a time.

It needs keep track of who or what we are talking or writing about. After

introducing some entity in the introduction, speaker will maintain reference by

using various expressions, as in the example below:

14. 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.

Yule (1996) commented that in English, introductory mentions the initial

reference often indefinite, from example below a man, a women, a cat. The

definite nouns (the man, the woman:, the cat) and the pronouns (it, he,

her, they) are examples as subsequent reference as generally known as

anaphoric reference. Crystal (2008) defines anaphoric reference as a method of

patterning the identity between what is being expressed and what has already been

expressed. Yule (1996) describe the technical terms for initial reference as the

antecedent and the subsequent as the anaphor.

Look at the sentences below:

15. Peel and slice six potatoes. Put them in cold salted water.

Example (15) shows the opening part of a recipe. It is clear that initial reference

goes to six potatoes or we can say the antecedent. In the next line, the term six

potatoes is not used by speaker anymore, but substitute with them. The

substitute expression in here is called as anaphor. It can be concluded that

antecedent is showed in first, then followed by anaphor. It is about the formative

positions. In the concept of formative position, logically, it should be other

configuration of reference that can give the chance to anaphor is mentioned in first

and followed by antecedent. It can be seen in the followed example:

16. I turned the corner and almost stepped on it. There was a large snake in

the middle of the path.

Term it is found in the first and it is difficult to be interpreted until the complete

noun phrase is presented in the next sentence. In this case, Yule (1996) explains

that technically is called as cataphora which is less common than anaphora. As

consequence, the complete noun phrase (a large snake) is changed as

postcedent.

In English, the most typical forms which use in anaphoric reference are

pronouns, for example it, but in the some occasion, noun phrases are also used

(Yule, 1996). Take a look at sentences below.

17. Peel an onion and slice it.

18. Drop the slices into hot oil.

19. Cook for three minutes.

In example (19), it gives no linguistics expression to identify an entity of term

cook this kind of case is called zero anaphora or ellipsis. The speaker does not

mention or maintain the reference since he or she has created clear expectation to

the listener that they can able to infer what the speaker intends to identify.

In the broader discourse, sometime the listener is expected to understand

specific types of inference when the anaphoric expressions is not recognized

linguistic connected to their antecedents. This case can be represented by the

followed example:

20. I just rented the house. The kitchen is really big.

21. We had Chardonnay with dinner. The wine was the best part.

22. The bus came on time, but he didnt stop.

In example (20), we need make sense as the anaphoric connection between house

as the antecedent and kitchen as anaphor. It is almost same in example (21), but

the listener is expected to understand the term chardonnay as a kind of wine to

make intended meaning. Example (22) shows that the inference can be identified

automatically for some speakers without considering grammatical agreement, by

using he as anaphor for the antecedent the bus with assuming the connection

between bus and the driver. The pragmatics process is the key to making sense of

inference. The process whereby the speaker select linguistics expressions with the

intention of identifying certain entities and the assumption that listener will

collaborate and interpret those expressions as the speaker intended (Yule, 1996).

Inference

The discussion of reference is closely related to the discussion of

inference. Reference deals with the speakers goals and beliefs (Yule, 1996),

while inference deals with the ability of the listener to infer what the speaker

refers to. Simply we can say that inferring is connecting prior knowledge to text

based information to create meaning beyond what is directly stated. The role of

inference in communication is to allow the listener to identify correctly which

particular entity the speaker is referring to. We can even use vague expressions

relying on the listeners ability to infer what the referent is that we have in mind.

Example

John : Mr. Perfect has just looked for you.

Diana : Really?

In the example above, Diana must have understood who Mr. Perfect is. It

is not the real name of someone; however, there is an agreement of understanding

toward the name between John and Diana. Listeners make inferences about what

is said in order to arrive at an interpretation of the speakers intended meaning.

The choice of one type of referring expression rather than another seems to be

based on what the speaker assumes the listener already knows. Words themselves

do not refer to anything, but people refer. Because there is no relationship

between entities and words, the listeners task is to infer which entity the speaker

intends to identify by using a particular expression.

Conclusion

Pragmatics involves the formation of intentions on the part of speakers and

the discovery of intentions on the part of listeners. The linguistic forms of

reference are referring expression. A referring expression is any expression used

in an utterance to refer to something or someone. A certain referring expression

will be used to identify certain entity on a regular basis. The successful operation

of this convention may cause us to assume that referring expression can only

designate very specific entities.

Reference is a social act which is the speaker accepts that word or phrase

chosen to identify an object or person will be interpreted as the speaker intended.

It is not only about the association between the meaning of a word or phrase with

an object or person in the reality. The pragmatics process is the key to making

sense of inference. The process whereby the speaker select linguistics expressions

with the intention of identifying certain entities and the assumption that listener

will collaborate and interpret those expressions as the speaker intended.

The role of inference in communication is to allow the listener to identify

correctly which particular entity the speaker is referring to. We can even use

vague expressions relying on the listeners ability to infer what the referent is that

we have in mind

References

Abbott, Barbara. 2010. Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crystal, David. 2008. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). Malden,

MA ; Oxford: Blackwell Pub.

Hurford, James R., Heasley, Brendan, and Smith, Michael B. 2007. Semantics : a

coursebook (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Korta, Kepa, and Perry, John. 2011. Critical pragmatics an inquiry into reference

and communication. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.