SECTION 3: REFERENCE AND INFERENCE

1. Cao Thị Mỹ Hạnh - 2167010187

2. Trương Thị Thanh Thúy - 2167010107
3. Vũ Thị Phương Linh - 2167010143
4. Đào Thị Anh Thư - 2167010105
5. Nguyễn Hằng Dương - 2167010181
6. Hoàng Thùy Linh - 2176010084
I. REFERENCE AND INFERENCE
1.1. Reference
1.1.1. The definition of reference
In pragmatics, the concept of "reference" is a significant aspect studied by many linguists
around the world. Below are some definitions from prominent authors:
Reference is an act in which a speaker, or writer, uses linguistic forms (referring
expression) to enable a listener, or reader, to identify something. (George Yule.
''Pragmatics''. Oxford University Press, 1996, p.17)
Reference is a process by which a speaker uses language to identify or specify objects in
a particular communicative context. He argues that reference involves not just the use of
words but also the use of contextual cues and background knowledge to better understand
the meaning of the referring expression. (Stephen C. Levinson, ''Pragmatics''. Cambridge
University Press, 1983, p. 54)
Reference is the relationship between linguistic expressions and the entities they denote
in the real world. Lyons also distinguishes between "reference" and "meaning," with
reference being seen as an action related to specific entities in a communicative context.
(John Lyons. ''Semantics''. Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 174-177)
1.1.2. Reference expression
Reference expression is an important concept in pragmatics, related to how linguistic
expressions are used to designate or refer to objects, people, or entities within a specific
context. Below are definitions from various authors:
George Yule (1996) defines "reference expression" as linguistic expressions. There are 4
categories of referring expressions:
- Proper nouns: 'Shakespeare', 'Cathy Revuelto', 'Hawaii'.
- Defined noun phrases: 'the author', 'the singer', 'the island'.
- Indefinite noun phrases: 'a man', 'a woman', 'a beautiful place'.
- Pronouns: 'he', 'her', 'it', 'them'.
The choice of expression depends on what the speaker assumes the listener already
knows.
Reference is tied to the speaker's goals (for example, to identify something) and the
speaker's beliefs (i.e. can the listener be expected to know that particular something?) in
the use of language.
Stephen C. Levinson (1983) describes "reference expression" as the linguistic expressions
that the speaker uses to locate or identify objects within the communicative space.
Levinson also emphasizes that the success of a reference expression depends on whether
the listener can correctly identify the entity that the speaker intends to refer to.
John Lyons (1977) defines "reference expression" as linguistic units used to link language
with the real world. He distinguishes between definite reference expressions, which can
precisely identify the entity, and indefinite reference expressions, which do not specify a
particular entity, thereby explaining how reference expressions function within
communicative contexts.
1.1.3. Types of reference
In pragmatics, "reference" is categorized in different ways depending on the approach of
various authors.
Geoffrey Leech (1983) divided "reference" into 2 main types: Definite and Indefinite
Reference (Tham chiếu xác định và không xác định)
Definite Reference:
E.g: The dog barked loudly.
"The dog" is a definite reference, referring to a specific dog that both the speaker and
listener are aware of.
Indefinite Reference:
E.g: A dog barked loudly.
"A dog" is an indefinite reference, referring to a non-specific dog, which could be any
dog.
George Yule (1996) divided "reference" into 2 main types: Anaphoric and Cataphoric
Reference (Tham chiếu hồi chỉ và dự chỉ)
Anaphoric Reference:
E.g: Sara lost her book. She is upset about it.
"She" and "it" are anaphoric references, referring back to "Sara" and "book" in the
previous sentence.
Cataphoric Reference:
E.g: Before she could reply, Maria was interrupted.
"She" is a cataphoric reference, referring to "Maria," which is introduced later in the
sentence.
1.2. Inference
1.2.1. The definition of inference
Levinson (1983) discusses "inference" in the context of pragmatics, emphasizing that
inference is the process by which listeners interpret and infer meaning based on pragmatic
cues, beyond the literal content of words.
E.g: When someone says, "Can you pass the salt?" the listener infers that this is a request
rather than a question about ability.
Robyn Carston (2002), in cognitive pragmatics theory, argues that "inference" is a crucial
part of understanding linguistic meaning, where the listener constructs meaning through a
combination of grammatical information, context, and background knowledge.
E.g: When hearing the sentence "John is a snake," the listener infers that this is a
metaphor rather than a biological description.
1.2.2. Role of inference in communication.
By Yule (1996), Inference has some benefits in communication.
- Allow the listener to identify correctly which particular entity the speaker is referring to
- Words themselves don’t refer to anything. People refer.
- Because there is no direct relationship between entities and words, the listener’s task is
to infer which entity the speaker intends to identify by using a particular expression.
E.g:
Lan: “It’s so hot today.”
Minh: “There’s a new bubble tea shop that just opened nearby.”
Literal Meaning:
- Lan mentions that the weather is very hot.
- Minh mentions a new bubble tea shop nearby.
Inference: Minh’s comment is not directly suggesting Lan should get bubble tea, but Lan
might infer that Minh is hinting at the shop as a way to cool off.
Context: Minh’s mention of the bubble tea shop in response to Lan’s comment about the
heat suggests a solution for cooling down.
Outcome: Lan might understand that Minh is suggesting they go to the bubble tea shop to
escape the heat.
This demonstrates how inference helps in interpreting implied suggestions and making
conversations more efficient.
II. Referential and attributive uses
2.1. Referential use
Definition: An expression to identify someone or something when the person or thing is
assumed to be known, is called Referential use.
E.g: "She is looking for a doctor who specializes in sports medicine."
“A doctor who specializes in sports medicine” refers to any doctor with that
specialization. The sentence implies she is interested in finding a specific type of doctor,
not a particular one by name.
+ In definite noun phrase “the” shows that a referent does exist.
E.g: "The book on the table is mine."
“The book on the table” refers to a specific book that is known or identified by its location
on the table. Even if the book's title isn’t mentioned, it’s clear which book is being talked
about.
E.g: "We’d love to meet a person who can talk to animals."
Explanation: “A person who can talk to animals” refers to a type of person who doesn’t
actually exist, as far as we know. The sentence is interested in a specific kind of person,
but this type is fictional or mythical.
 In short, attributive use is using an expression to identify someone or something
without being committed to the existence of an actual person or thing, while
referential use is using an expression to identify someone or something when the
person or thing is assumed to be known.
2.2. Attributive use
Definition: In indefinite noun phrase in which a” can be replaced by “any” is called
Attributive use.
E.g: "She wants to find a job with flexible hours."
“A job with flexible hours” means any job that has flexible hours, not a specific job. The
phrase “with flexible hours” just describes what kind of job she wants.
+ In definite noun phrase in which “the” is assumed to exist, but cannot be ensure yet
Example: "The car in the driveway is mine."
Explanation: “The car in the driveway” refers to a specific car that is already known or
identified by its location. The phrase tells us exactly which car is being talked about, even
if the specific car hasn’t been named before.
+ In definite noun phrase “the” shows that a referent does exist.
Example: "The book on the table is mine."
Explanation: “The book on the table” refers to a specific book that is known or identified
by its location on the table. Even if the book's title isn’t mentioned, it’s clear which book
is being talked about.
Example: "We’d love to meet a person who can talk to animals."
Explanation: “A person who can talk to animals” refers to a type of person who doesn’t
actually exist, as far as we know. The sentence is interested in a specific kind of person,
but this type is fictional or mythical.
 In short, attributive use is using an expression to identify someone or something
without being committed to the existence of an actual person or thing, while
referential use is using an expression to identify someone or something when the
person or thing is assumed to be known.
III. Names and Referents
In linguistic pragmatics, reference refers to the process by which speakers use language
to point to specific entities in the world. The version of reference discussed here
emphasizes a collaborative process, involving two key elements:
Intention-to-Identify: The speaker's goal is to draw attention to a specific object or
concept.
Recognition-of-Intention: The listener interprets and understands this intent to identify
the intended object or concept.
This interaction creates a shared understanding that allows referring expressions to gain
meaning within a social and cultural context. This process operates across all members of
a community who share a common language and conventions, allowing them to interpret
familiar expressions similarly.
3.1. Pragmatic Flexibility in Reference
A truly pragmatic view of reference highlights how names and common nouns can
flexibly identify different types of referents, depending on the context.
E.g:
A student might ask, “Can I borrow your Shakespeare?” Here, "Shakespeare" doesn't
refer to the historical figure but to a book by Shakespeare. The listener infers the correct
meaning based on the surrounding context.
3.2. Referential Conventions and Cultural Associations
Referring expressions often carry specific conventional associations within a culture.
This is especially true for proper nouns related to creators, such as artists or writers.
Consider the following:
 “Shakespeare takes up the whole bottom shelf.” Here, "Shakespeare" refers to
books authored by Shakespeare.
  “We’re going to see Shakespeare in London.” In this case, it may refer to a play
by Shakespeare, not the person.
 “Picasso’s on the far wall.” Here, "Picasso" refers to an artwork created by
Picasso.
Thus, through cultural familiarity, listeners can make expected inferences (e.g., from
"Mozart" to a piece of music or from "Rolling Stones" to a music album). The listener
demonstrates their connection to the same cultural understanding by interpreting the
reference as intended.
3.3. Socio-Cultural Conventions in Contextual Inference
These referential conventions extend to news headlines, where the name of a country
often refers not to the country as a geographic or political entity but to a sports team or
government depending on context:
 “Brazil wins World Cup.” "Brazil" refers to the Brazilian soccer team.
 “Japan wins first round of trade talks.” "Japan" here represents the Japanese
government or trade representatives.
In each case, the social understanding of the referent is central to interpreting the
statement correctly.

IV. The Role of Co-Text and Context

Co-text and context both play crucial roles in determining the intended referents of
linguistic expressions. Each provides different kinds of information to narrow down the
meaning of expressions within specific situations.
4.1. Co-Text: The Linguistic Surrounding of Referring Expressions
Co-text refers to the surrounding linguistic material or words near a referring expression
that influences its interpretation.
E.g: “Brazil wins World Cup”
The phrase “wins World Cup” directs us to understand “Brazil” as a team, not as a
country.
4.2. Contextual Contributions to Interpretation
4.2.1. Disambiguation of Expressions:
Context allows listeners to resolve ambiguities by providing the necessary background
information.
E.g: “The bank is far from here.”
Depending on the context, “bank” could mean a financial institution or the side of a river.
E.g: “This room is very comfortable.”
The specific characteristics of the room, known to the speaker and listener, clarify what
makes it comfortable.
4.2.2. Clarity in Sentence Type and Meaning
Context helps determine not only meaning but also the type of sentence being produced.
E.g: “The long drill is boring.”
In this context, “drill” could mean a physical tool for drilling or a long, repetitive
exercise, clarified by context.
4.2.3. Presuppositions and Inferences
Presuppositions are underlying assumptions that add meaning.
E.g: “Did you see the baby fall from the roof?”
In the context, it presupposes that a baby fell from the roof.
Inferences are logical conclusions based on context.
E.g: “She flipped through the book with little interest; half the pages were torn.”
Here, the condition of the book might suggest its lack of value or her disinterest.
4.3. Interaction of Co-Text and Physical Context
In addition to co-text, the physical environment and social conventions of the speaker
and listener further shape the meaning.
Expressions such as “Your ten-thirty just cancelled” (dentist’s office) or “A couple of
rooms have complained about the heat” (hotel) reveal how professional contexts
impact meaning. Here, specific reference terms (like “ten-thirty” or “rooms”) take on
specialized, context-dependent meanings understood by those familiar with the
environment.

V. Anaphoric Reference
Anaphoric reference, or anaphora, is the technique of using certain expressions to refer
back to previously mentioned entities in a conversation or text. This keeps track of entities
over multiple sentences, helping readers and listeners follow along.
5.1.Types of Anaphoric References
5.1.1. Pronouns
Pronouns often serve as the primary means of maintaining reference.
E.g: “Mary called her mother.”
“Her” refers back to “Mary.”
E.g: “The dog chased its tail.”
“Its” refers back to “the dog.”
5.1.2. Demonstratives
Words like “this”, “that”, “these”, and “those” also serve to maintain reference.
E.g: “This is the book I was talking about.”
“This” points to a specific book known from prior context.
E.g: “Those are the shoes I want to buy.”
“Those” refers to a specific pair of shoes understood from the surrounding context.
5.1.3. Zero Anaphora
Sometimes the referent is omitted entirely, relying on context for interpretation.
E.g: “John likes pizza, and Mary does too.”
Here, the word “pizza” is omitted in the second part but inferred by context.
E.g: “I want a white shirt; my sister prefers a blue one.”
The word “shirt” is omitted but understood to be the referent.
5.2. Relationship to Deixis
While deixis refers directly to specific elements in the physical context (like “next” or
“last”), anaphora connects linguistic references across a broader text.
E.g: “I need a box this big”
The term “this” might be accompanied by a hand gesture indicating size, linking the
referent to a physical object in context.
5.3. Pragmatic Processes in Successful Reference
Ultimately, successful reference doesn’t depend solely on grammatical rules but on the
shared knowledge and collaboration between speaker and listener.
This process reflects:
Social and Cultural Knowledge
E.g: Both parties understanding what “Mozart” means in a given context.
Inference and Recognition: The listener infers meaning based on the speaker’s cues,
building a sense of connection through shared understanding.