We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter presents a view on context as understood within functional models of language, specifically the theoretical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). Amongst the functional approaches to language, SFL is recognized as a framework which has maintained an account of context that has prioritized its relationship with lexicogrammar, allowing it to make a causal connection between culture and language. The aim of this chapter is to highlight and explain the principal ways in which context works within the SFL framework and explore the main themes and parameters which situate context within an integrated theory of language as a semiotic resource. As no theory emerges in a vacuum, the first part of the chapter will consider the historical development of context as a concept within SFL theory with reference to how context is situated in other related functional grammars. Following this, we examine two areas of challenge related to the approach to context outlined in the chapter. Finally, the chapter concludes with closing remarks and key directions for future research in this area.
Referential expressions include terms such as determiners, proper names, noun phrases, pronouns, and all other expressions that we use to make reference to things, beings, or events. The first of its kind, this book presents a detailed, integrated account of typical and atypical uses of referential expressions, combining insights from discourse, cognitive, and psycholinguistic literature within a functional model of language. It first establishes a foundation for reference, including an overview of key influences in the study of reference, the debates surrounding (in)definiteness, and a functional description of referring expressions. It then draws on a variety of approaches to provide a comprehensive explanation of atypical uses, including referring in an uncollaborative context, indefinite expressions used for definite reference, reference by and for children, and finally metonymic reference with a special focus on metonymy in medical contexts. Comprehensive in scope, it is essential reading for academic researchers in syntax, discourse analysis, and cognitive linguistics.
This chapter examines reference in a non-collaborative context. Despite the collaborative nature of referring, there are times when referring become problematic. Focussing specifically on problems in referring, we explore some of the reasons for problematic reference, including how the problems get resolved. The main focus of the chapter is on uses of reference in contexts which are discursively non-collaborative, despite shared common ground. This chapter makes a significant contribution by detailing how referring works when the speaker and addressee do not share goals and have no invested interest in a shared conceptualisation of the referent. We look at various examples from primarily legal contexts to extend our understanding of reference in these contexts. We show that collaboration is indeed needed even when the social relationship is adversarial but that the strategies for ratifying an expression differ depending on whether or not speaker and addressee share the same discourse goals.
This chapter examines reference in planned, deliberated language production. Using evidence from examples of institutional writing (writing text in academic, professional, and social settings), the effects of the written mode of production on referential choice, including evidence from keystroke logging methods which give us insight into revisions during the writing process. In comparison with spontaneous discourse, we demonstrate how the relatively low frequency of pronominal reference that is typical of spontaneous discourse is replaced with more complex referential expressions. We also consider whether referential choice is a feature of genre as we examine the referential profiles of different text types. The chapter concludes that referring expressions in prepared discourse tend to be more frequently information rich and consequently, the modification and qualification zones of the noun phrase are more active in this type of discourse.
We have indeed come to the end of our work. In preparing this volume, we hoped to address the need for an integrated approach to referring, one that brings together functional grammar and cognitive linguistics within a model of context and one that is informed by empirical evidence. We wanted to offer our perspective on building bridges between the traditional literature on reference and more usage-based functional approaches to language. Most of all, we felt there was a need to provide an account of atypical uses of reference given that most literature on reference concentrates on typical reference, frequently using isolated expressions or experimental tasks. What we hope we have shown throughout the volume is that referring expressions matter.
This chapter provides a detailed account of the atypical use of a certain type of indefinite referring expression. Contrary to the established view that indefinite expressions cannot be used for uniquely identifiable reference, we show that this is not always the case. Using written texts from opinion writing in newspaper discourse, we detail how writers can create an adequately definite shared space with their readers to allow an indefinite expression to be understood as referring to an established entity. The cotextual and contextual scaffolding put in place by the writer is sufficient for the indefinite expression to be understood as identifiable. The chapter also discusses the reasons why a writer would want to override normal accessibility considerations. Writers use these atypical expressions to ensure the association to an old, identifiable referent remains explicit by exploiting contextually and co-textually established information which is tied to the context or ongoing discourse.
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.