REFERENCE AND INFERENCE

IN PRAGMATICS

Compiled by
Rohib Adrianto Sangia
NIM. 137835102
Fikri Agung Wicaksono
NIM. 137835096
Arif Bachtiar
NIM. 137835110

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 reected in the intentions of those who use
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

speaker's 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 ts that description. 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 speaker's general intention and specific intention are
distinct, but he believes they're 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 satiser.
Donnelan also indicates that while a speaker using a description
attributively merely assumes that there is someone or something tting the
description used, and in the referential use the speaker makes a stronger
assumption concerning a particular person or thing, that they are the one tting the
description.

Names and referents

Yule (1996) points out that there is a basic collaboration of intention-toidentify 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 cotext 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 gadogado 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.