Introduction
There is a strong connection between meaning and reference, as they both share common similarities and illustrate the way language is used by its speakers. Reference is associated with context. According to Halliday (2008:8) the structure of a sentence is bound by “situational constraints: the field (purpose of interaction), the tenor (roles and relationships between interlocutors) and the mode (channel of interaction). Moreover, Hymes (cited in Sifianou 2001: 62-5, 73) claims that context is shaped by setting, participants, ends (i.e. purposes- outcomes- goals), act sequences, key, instrumentalities (channel, forms of speech), norms (norms of interaction, norms of interpretation) and genres (like poems, myths, news, broadcasts etc.). Finally, Eikmeyer and Rieser (1981: 147) assume that meaning is based both on context and linguistic background.
The Counterparts of Reference
Deixis
According to Huang, the term “deixis” is interrelated with the structure of a language and the context in which the language is used; it encodes universal features that serve for communication (2007:132). Furthermore, Huang (2007: 135) claims that “deixis” is organized in an “egocentric way” and the “deictic centre” or “the deictic origo” is called ground zero because it includes both the person who speaks and the time at which a specific utterance is produced and the place where that utterance is produced. Hence, deixis is divided in three main types: “person deixis”, “spatial deixis” and “temporal deixis”.
Social Deixis and Discourse Meaning
I shall not disregard the role of social deixis in meaning. For Huang (2007: 163) social deixis is “[t]he codification of the social status of the speaker, the addressee, or a third person or entity referred to, as well as the social relationships holding between them”. Social deixis could be further defined as “relational social deixis” and is composed of the following counterparts: a) speaker- referent, b) speaker-addressee, c) speaker- bystander and d) speaker- setting (2007:164-5).
Definite - Indefinite – Generic Reference
According to Cruse (2004: 320), reference is divided in three subcategories: definite, indefinite and generic. Firstly, definite reference considers the identification of the referents of definite expressions, so that the hearer will be able to reconstruct what has been uttered by the speaker. Secondly, indefinite reference “hinges” nothing on the identity of the referent; thirdly, generic reference is the general or overall reference to a class of referents, either something is predicated of the whole class referred to, or something is predicted by each member of the class (2004:320, 3).
Referring and Non- Referring, Constant and Variable Reference
Saeed (1997) distinguishes between referring and non-referring expressions, constant and variable reference. Nouns are referring expressions because they identify an entity; thus, sometimes they are used in order to distinguish between instances (1997:26). Reference is further differentiated from constant to variable; Constant reference is considered with expressions having the same referent across a range of different variables (i.e. the Eiffel Tower, the Pacific Ocean), whereas variable reference includes referent expressions, which are totally context-dependent (1997:26-7).
Speaker Reference
According to Bach (1987:7, 59-50) persons, places and things is what we encounter in perception because when we think and speak about the world around us, we form and express thoughts about them. Speaker reference occurs when we talk about something, without necessarily being referred to it; consequently, refer to something means to identify it verbally.
Reference, Creativity and Mental Models
Zelisky-Wibbelt (2001: 11) claims that mental models explain the way speakers represent meaningful utterances by integrating their referential information, so that they manage to have a coherent representation of the conceived situation. Propositional representations are created and more specialized ones about a particular situation. Consequently, mental models contribute to the “coherent integration of referential information in the representation which is analogous to the conceived situation” (2000:12).
Indexicality
Koutoupi- Kitis argues for the issue of indexicality by supporting that there are certain elements of speech, geographically or socially located, that are considered to be indexes which not only put the speaker in a particular situation, but also witness details concerning speaker’s identity (262). For Rast (2006) indexical reference carries information deriving from extra-linguistic features of the context of the utterance, the general world context and speaker’s inferences and beliefs.
Indexicals & A Priori Truths
A priori truths, as Cappelen (2002: 277) claims, are an essential feature of indexicals as their linguistic meaning can generate certain kinds of universal truths. Universal truths are generated as follows: the linguistic meaning of an expression is identified with its “character, which is a function that delivers the expression’s content at each context” (2002:278).
Definitiness
According to Lyons the notion of definiteness is also known as the familiarity hypothesis, because “the” means that the entity denoted by the NP is familiar to both speaker and hearer, whereas “a” does not signal any familiarity at all (1999:3). Definiteness also means to identify something, so it is associated with identifiability. In other words, the definite article directs the hearer of the referent of the NP by signaling that he is in a position to identify it. Additionally, the opposite notion of definiteness, indefiniteness is also associated with identifiability because “a” is neutral with respect to uniqueness. However, definiteness goes beyond the NP as it occurs rather widely. For instance, the tense-aspect distinction between past historic (i.e. I have read that book) and perfect (i.e. I read that book) could be considered as a further discrimination between definite and indefinite past. (Lyons 1999:5-6, 12, 33, 45-6)
