This chapter examines typical uses of referring expressions in spontaneous discourse by building on the concept of context of situation and considering how parameters of register establish a framework for reference variation. We formulate a way to capture distinctions between what we can claim about typical referring expressions which approximate spontaneous production as compared to typical referring expressions when more planning and revising are involved. Focussing specifically on mode of production, our account of spontaneous reference is first situated by contextual parameters, and then described using evidence from examples attested in spontaneous discourse. This spontaneous vs planned distinction is useful for the study of reference, but we argue against a strict division. Typical reference in spontaneous discourse is shown to rely on highly accessible and in focus referents, which makes it easier for acts of reference to be successful and which reduces the cognitive load of the speaker and addressee.

This chapter unpacks the complex stitching that makes up the reference tapestry by reviewing theories of indefiniteness and definiteness and by examining the complex issues of in-/definiteness. The chapter argues that definiteness is a speaker-centred concept, including whether the speaker expects the addressee able to share a sufficiently similar conceptualisation of the referent and that the entire discourse event contributes to the establishment of an entity as definite or not. For this reason, we argue for the separation of reference (function) from the expression (form). An indefinite expression (form) can be used for definite reference (function) and a definite expression (form) can be used for indefinite reference (function). There is no one-to-one relationship between the lexicogrammatical realisation of the expression and its function in an act of reference. The chapter includes discussion of various types of referential choice including lexical expressions, pronouns, and proper names.

This chapter examines reference used by and with children and explores creative and playful uses of reference. Following an overview of how uses of reference develop as children’s language skills develop, we discuss the significance of the tendency for children to underspecify their intended referent in the use of referring expressions as compared to adults who do not do this, but who will sometimes overspecify the referent. Drawing on a broad range of examples, we examine evidence of how children quickly get to a stage where they can exploit reference for their own purposes or just to have fun. The atypical use of referring expressions in children’s literature is discussed and we examine the reasons for the authors’ deliberate exploitations of known conventions in relation to reference.

This chapter provides a cognitive-functional description of the lexicogrammar of referring expressions and explains the grammatical realisation of referring, including the functional elements of the noun phrase and the structures that serve to realise them. Perspectives from cognitive grammar are prioritised, since referring expressions are first and foremost cognitive in nature. Given that they are also designed to serve a social purpose, the grammatical description presented in this chapter draws on various functional frameworks to reflect how its use also meets the needs of the addressee. This chapter serves as a basis for the linguistic terms relevant to lexical referring expressions, thereby providing a vocabulary for talking about various aspects of these expressions.

This chapter introduces the broad and multidisciplinary field of referring and reference, including perspectives from philosophy, psychology, linguistics, and computer science. In this chapter we review some of the key contributions from these disciplines to explain the main background of influences that are still relevant to our understanding of reference and acts of referring. We then discuss traditional approaches to reference from the perspectives of text and discourse, focussing on the concepts of coreference and anaphor, and how these accounts have helped shape but also, to some extent, have limited text-based reference. Contributions from cognitive perspectives, including the role of shared information and the concept of givenness is shown to enrich our understanding of reference. The chapter establishes the reasons why reference must be viewed as addressee orientated, collaborative, and context-dependent. In doing so, we set out the reasons why an integrated approach to reference is needed.

This chapter explores and develops the concept of typicality and atypicality both generally and specifically in terms of reference. Existing literature on reference established our core understanding of referring, forming the basis for how we view reference. However, evidence has largely been experimental, computational, philosophical, and/or based on small excerpts. This chapter then sets out the distinction we would like to make on the division between typical and atypical uses. We argue for a view of typicality as conventionalised language use, which can be said to fall within the norms of a given register. Atypicality, conversely includes instances of language which can be said to be infrequent and unconventionalised for a given register. The chapter focusses on existing models of reference which provide an excellent grounding in typical uses of reference through which we can explore the (in)stability of identifiability and view atypical reference as an exploitation of conventionalised norms.

This chapter explores referential metonymy as an atypical use of reference. After reviewing relevant literature on referential metonymy, we consider the extent to which it is inherently atypical. Using examples of metonymy from medical discourse contexts, including nurse handover discourse and medical students self-reflections, we situate metonymy as a type of reference, that is, metonymic reference, and examine features which establish its use as atypical reference. We show that typical or atypical uses of metonymic reference depend on a variety of factors. While metonymic reference is essential in some contexts for safe and efficient reference, we also show that in some cases its use can signal stigmatisation of patients and/or difficulties of medical professions in maintaining moral. In these cases, referential choice becomes especially significant.

This chapter introduces the unique parts of speech of measure words (classifiers) in Chinese, with a focus on the grammatical usages of measure words to count nouns. The various functions of different types of measure words in sentences are discussed.