Names and referents

The version of reference being presented here is one in which there is basic ‘intention-to-identify’ and a ‘recognition-of-intention’ collaboration at work. This process need not only work between one speaker and one listener; it appears to work, in terms of convention, between all members of a community who share a common language and culture.That is, there is a convention that certain referring expressions will be used to identify certain entities on a regular basis.It is our daily experience of the successful opperation of this convention that may cause us to assume that referring expressions can only designate very specific entities.This assumption may lead us to think that a name or proper noun like ‘Shakespeare’ can only be used to identify one specific person, and an expression containing a common noun, such as ‘the cheesesandwich’, can only be used to identify a specific thing. This belief is mistaken.A truly pragmatic view of reference alliws us to see how a person can be identified via the expression, ‘the chees sandwich’, and a thing can be identified via the name, ‘Shakespeare’.

For example, it would not be strange fir one student to ask another the question in [4a.] and receive the reply in[4b.].

[4] a. Can I borrow your Shakespeare?

b. Yeah, it’s over there on thetable.

Given the context just created, the intended referent and the inferred referent would not be a person, but probably a book (notice the pronoun ‘it’).

In a restaurant, one waiter brings out an order of food for another waiter and asks him[5a.] and hears[5b.] in reply.

[5] a.Where’s the cheese sandwich sitting?

b. He’s over there by the window.

Given the context, the referent being identified is not a thing, but a person(notice the pronoun ‘he’).

The examples in[4] and[5] may allow us to see mire clearly how reference actually works. The Shakespeare example in[4] suggests that there is a conventional(and potentially culturespecific) set of entities that can be identified by the use of writer’s name.Let us call them ‘things the writer produced’.This would allow us to make sense of the sentences in[6].

[6] a. Shakespeare takes up the whole bottom shelf.

b. We’re going to see Shakespeare in London.

c. I hated Shakespeare at school.

Obviously, this convention does not only apply to writers, but also to artists[7a.], composers[7b.],musicians[7c.], and many other producers of objects.

[7] a. Picasso’s on the far wall.

b. The new Mozart is better value than the Bach.

c. My Rolling Stones is missing.

There appears to be a pragmatic connection between proper names and objects that will be conventionally associated, whithin a socioculturally defined community, with those names.Using a proper name referentially to identify any such object invites the listener to make the expected inference(for example, from name of writer to book by writer) and thereby show himself or herself to be a member of the same community as the speaker.In such cases, it is rather obvious that more is being communicated than is said.

The nature of reference interpretation just described is also what allows readers to make sense of newspaper headlines using names of countries, as exemplified in [8a.] where the referent is to be understood as a soccer team, not as a government, and in[8b.] where it is to be understood as a government, not as a soccer team.

[8] a. Brazil wins World Cup.

b. Japan wins first round of trade talks.

how a person can be identified via the expression, 'the cheese sandwich', and a thing can be identified via the name, 'Shakespeare'.

For example, it would not be strange for one student to ask another the question in [4a.] and receive the reply in [4b.].

[4] a. Can I borrow your Shakespeare?

b. Yeah, it's over there on the table.

Given the context just created, the intended referent and the inferred referent would not be a person, but probably a book (notice the pronoun 'it').

In a restaurant, one waiter brings out an order of food for another waiter and asks him [5a.] and hears [5b.] in reply.

[5] a. Where's the cheese sandwich sitting?

b. He's over there by the window.

Given the context, the referent being identified is not a thing, but a person (notice the pronoun 'he').

The examples in [4] and [5] may allow us to see more clearly how reference actually works. The Shakespeare example in [4] suggests that there is a conventional (and potentially culture-specific) set of entities that can be identifed by the use of a writer's name. Let us call them 'things the writer produced'. This would allow us to make sense of the sentences in [6].

[6] a. Shakespeare takes up the whole bottom shelf.

b. We're going to see Shakespeare in London.

c. I hated Shakespeare at school.

Obviously, this convention does not only apply to writers, but also to artists [7a.], composers [7b.], musicians [7c.], and many other producers of objects.

[7] a. Picasso's on the far wall.

b. The new Mozart is better value than the Bach,

c. My Rolling Stones is missing.

There appears to be a pragmatic connection between proper names and objects that will be conventionally associated, within a socio-culturally defined community, with those names. Using a proper name referentially to identify any such object invites the listener to make the expected inference (for example, from name of writer to book by writer) and thereby show himself or herself be a member of the same community as the speaker. In such cases, it is rather obvious that more is being communicated than is said.

The nature of reference interpretation just described is also what allows readers to make sense of newspaper headlines using names of countries, as exemplified in [8a.] where the referent is to be understood as a soccer team, not as a government, and in [8b.] were it is to be understood as a government, not as a soccer team.

[8] a. Brazil wins World Cup.

b. Japan wins first round of trade talks.

Date: 2016-01-03; view: 1266