Chapter in:
Reference: From conventions to pragmatics
Edited by Laure Gardelle, Laurence Vincent-Durroux and Hélène Vinckel-Roisin
[Studies in Language Companion Series 228] 2023
► pp. 269–285

Who creates reference?

Reference as an interactive procedure in discourse

| Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

This contribution sketches the role of hearers in the long history of reference research. Canonical approaches from semantics and (early) pragmatics as well as cognitive approaches are discussed with respect to the increasing role that hearers play in these various notions of reference. In the framework of Text-world model theory, reference objects are considered to be mental concepts that can vary as discourse progresses, as a result of a negotiation between speakers and hearers. Examples from German oral conversation corpora show that reference should be described as a collaborative, interactive procedure in order to get a notion of reference that is compatible with and useful for the analysis of conversation phenomena.

Keywords: hearer, discourse, conversation, interaction, collaboration
Article outline
  • 1.Reference and discourse
  • 2.Notions of reference
    • 2.1From static to discourse orientated notions of reference
    • 2.2Speaker reference and hearer reference
  • 3.Reference as a product of discourse
  • 4.Exemplary analysis of conversation data
    • 4.1Fluent change of concept features
    • 4.2Inconclusive attempts at instantiating a referring expression
    • 4.3Talking overtly about disparate concepts
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.228.14con
References
Asher, Nicholas
1993 Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter
1981 Zur indexikalitätsmarkierenden Funktion der demonstrativen Artikelform in deutschen Konversationen. In Sprache = Verstehen und Handeln, Götz Hindelang & Werner Zillig (eds), 301–310. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent & Strawson, Peter
2008 On referring and not referring. In Reference: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Jeanette Gundel & Nancy Hedberg (eds), 13–58. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik
2009 Referentielle und nicht-referentielle Gebrauchsweisen von Nominalgruppen im Deutschen. Akten der internationalen Linguistenkonferenz Karpacz 10.-12.09.2007 [Beihefte zum Orbis Linguarum 77], 25–41. Dresden: Neisse.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert & Marshall, Catherine
1981 Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Elements of Discourse Understanding, Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber & Ivan Sag (eds), 10–63. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert & Sengul, Carol
1979 In search of referents for nouns and pronouns. Memory & Cognition 7: 35–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert, Schreuder, Robert & Buttrik, Samuel
1983 Common ground and the understanding of definite reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22: 245–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert & Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna
1986 Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22(1): 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Consten, Manfred
2003 Towards a unified model of domain-bound reference. In Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person, [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 112]. Friedrich Lenz (ed.), 223–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Anaphorisch oder Deiktisch? Zu einem Integrativen Modell Domänengebundener Referenz. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Consten, Manfred & Averintseva-Klisch, Maria
2012 Tentative reference acts? “Recognitional demonstratives” as means of suggesting mutual knowledge – or overriding a lack of it. Research in Language 10 ( 3 ): 257–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger
1999 Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. [Typological Studies in Language 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, Keith
1966 Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75 : 281–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1978 Speaker’s reference, description and anaphora. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol 9: Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 47–68. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J. & Stivers, Tanya
2007 Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural, and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Thompson, Sandra A., Ford, Cecilia & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2013 Conversation analysis in linguistics. In Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds), 726–740. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
1892 Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
Gutfleisch-Rieck, Ingeborg, Klein, Wolfgang, Speck, Agnes & Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas
1989 Transkriptionsvereinbarungen für den Sonderforschungsbereich 245 “Sprechen und Sprachverstehen im sozialen Kontext”. Reports des Sonderforschungsbereichs 245. Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg. https://​www​.psychologie​.uni​-heidelberg​.de​/institutsberichte​/SFB245​/sfbberichte​.html (14 August 2022).
Haugh, Michael
2010 Co-constructing what is said in interaction. In The Role of Data at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface, Enikö Németh & Karóly Bibok (eds), 349–380. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John
1978 Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1983 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip N.
1983 Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Linsky, Leonard
1969 Referring. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics (Vol. 1–2). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Molnár, Krisztina
2010 Anamnestische Verwendung der Demonstrativa im Deutschen und im Ungarischen. Deutsche Sprache 4(10): 326–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen
2020 Referenz [Kegli 22]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James
2005 A Survey of Dot Objects. Technical report, Brandeis University. https://​citeseerx​.ist​.psu​.edu​/viewdoc​/download​?doi​=10​.1​.1​.208​.7525​&rep​=rep1​&type​=pdf (14 August 2022).
Russell, Bertrand
1905 On denoting. Mind 30: 479–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanford, Anthony & Garrod, Simon
1981 Understanding Written Language. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Monika
2000 Indirekte Anaphern in Texten. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, Monika & Consten, Manfred
2011 Reference and anaphora. In Foundations of Pragmatics [Handbooks of Pragmatics 1], Wolfram Bublitz & Neal Norrick (eds), 347–372. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John
1969 Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter
1950 On referring. Mind 59: 320–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek, Beatrice
2000 Functional aspects of collaborative productions in English conversation. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt) 21. http://​www​.inlist​.uni​-bayreuth​.de​/issues​/21​/inlist21​.pdf (14 August 2022)
van Dijk, Teun & Kintsch, Walter
1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Veldre-Gerner, Georgia
2007 Demonstrativa im Text. Eine Vergleichende Untersuchung zum Französischen und Italienischen [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie] Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, Christiane
1997 Einige Prinzipien des Textaufbaus. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar