Editing Pragmatics (section)

==Referential uses of language==
{{Unreferenced section|date=April 2009}}
The referential uses of language are how [[Sign (semiotics)|signs]] are used to refer to certain items. A sign is the link or relationship between a [[Sign (semiotics)|signified and the signifier]] as defined by [[Ferdinand de Saussure|de Saussure]] and [[Jean-René Huguenin]]. The signified is some entity or concept in the world. The signifier represents the signified. An example would be:

:''Signified: the concept cat''
:''Signifier: the word "cat"''

The relationship between the two gives the sign meaning. The relationship can be explained further by considering what is meant by "meaning." In pragmatics, there are two different types of meaning to consider: '''semantic-referential meaning''' and '''indexical meaning'''.<ref>{{citation |last=Treanor|first=Fergal|title=Pragmatics and Indexicality - A very short overview|url=https://www.academia.edu/20180760|language=en}}</ref> Semantic-referential meaning refers to the aspect of meaning, which describes events in the world that are independent of the circumstance they are uttered in. An example would be propositions such as:

:''"Santa Claus eats cookies."''

In this case, the proposition is describing that Santa Claus eats cookies. The meaning of the proposition does not rely on whether or not Santa Claus is eating cookies at the time of its utterance. Santa Claus could be eating cookies at any time and the meaning of the proposition would remain the same. The meaning is simply describing something that is the case in the world. In contrast, the proposition, "Santa Claus is eating a cookie right now", describes events that are happening at the time the proposition is uttered.

Semantic-referential meaning is also present in meta-semantical statements such as:

:''Tiger: carnivorous, a mammal''

If someone were to say that a tiger is a carnivorous animal in one context and a mammal in another, the definition of tiger would still be the same. The meaning of the sign tiger is describing some animal in the world, which does not change in either circumstance.

[[Indexical]] meaning, on the other hand, is dependent on the context of the utterance and has rules of use. By rules of use, it is meant that indexicals can tell when they are used, but not what they actually mean.

:''Example'': "I"

Whom "I" refers to, depends on the context and the person uttering it.

As mentioned, these meanings are brought about through the relationship between the signified and the signifier. One way to define the relationship is by placing signs in two categories: '''referential indexical signs,''' also called "shifters", and '''pure indexical signs.'''

Referential indexical signs are signs where the meaning shifts depending on the context hence the nickname "shifters." 'I' would be considered a referential indexical sign. The referential aspect of its meaning would be '1st person singular' while the indexical aspect would be the person who is speaking (refer above for definitions of semantic-referential and indexical meaning). Another example would be:

:''"This"''
:''Referential: singular count''
:''Indexical: Close by''

A pure indexical sign does not contribute to the meaning of the propositions at all. It is an example of a "non-referential use of language."

A second way to define the signified and signifier relationship is [[Charles Sanders Peirce|C.S. Peirce]]'s '''Peircean Trichotomy'''. The components of the trichotomy are the following:

:1. '''Icon''': the signified resembles the signifier (signified: a dog's barking noise, signifier: bow-wow)<ref name=":1">{{cite web | url=https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/103/sign.symbol.short.html | last=Port | first=Robert F. | date=September 4, 2000 | title=Icon, Index and Symbol: Types of Signs | website=cs.indiana.edu | access-date=2019-10-01}}</ref>
:2. '''Index''': the signified and signifier are linked by proximity or the signifier has meaning only because it is pointing to the signified<ref name=":1" />
:3. '''Symbol''': the signified and signifier are arbitrarily linked (signified: a cat, signifier: the word cat)<ref name=":1" />

These relationships allow signs to be used to convey intended meaning. If two people were in a room and one of them wanted to refer to a characteristic of a chair in the room he would say "this chair has four legs" instead of "a chair has four legs." The former relies on context (indexical and referential meaning) by referring to a chair specifically in the room at that moment while the latter is independent of the context (semantico-referential meaning), meaning the concept chair.<ref name=":1" />

=== Referential expressions in conversation ===
[[Reference|Referring]] to things and people is a common feature of conversation, and conversants do so [[Collaboration|collaboratively]]. Individuals engaging in [[discourse]] utilize pragmatics.<ref name=":2">{{cite journal | last1=Almor | first1=Amit | last2=Nair | first2=Veena A. | date=2007 | title=The Form of Referential Expressions in Discourse | journal=Language and Linguistics Compass | volume=1 | issue=1–2 | pages=84–99 | issn=1749-818X | doi=10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00009.x | url=https://www.mccauslandcenter.sc.edu/aLab/sites/sc.edu.alab/files/attachments/almor-nair-2007.pdf | archive-date=2021-01-02 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102094644/https://www.mccauslandcenter.sc.edu/aLab/sites/sc.edu.alab/files/attachments/almor-nair-2007.pdf | url-status=dead}}</ref> In addition, individuals within the scope of discourse cannot help but avoid intuitive use of certain utterances or word choices in an effort to create communicative success.<ref name=":2" /> The study of referential language is heavily focused upon [[definite description]]s and referent accessibility. Theories have been presented for why direct referent descriptions occur in discourse.<ref name=":3">{{cite journal | last1=Vonk | first1=Wietske | last2=Hustinx | first2=Lettica G. M. M. | last3=Simons | first3=Wim H. G. | date=1992 | title=The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse | journal=Language and Cognitive Processes | volume=7 | issue=3 | pages=301–333 | issn=0169-0965 | doi=10.1080/01690969208409389 | hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-000E-E736-D | hdl-access=free | url=https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_1695298_1/component/file_1695297/content}}</ref> (In layman's terms: why reiteration of certain names, places, or individuals involved or as a topic of the conversation at hand are repeated more than one would think necessary.) Four factors are widely accepted for the use of referent language including (i) competition with a possible referent, (ii) [[salience (language)|salience]] of the referent in the context of discussion (iii) an effort for unity of the parties involved, and finally, (iv) a blatant presence of distance from the last referent.<ref name=":2" />

Referential expressions are a form of [[Anaphora (linguistics)|anaphora.]]<ref name=":3" /> They are also a means of connecting past and present thoughts together to create context for information at hand. Analyzing the context of a sentence and determining whether or not the use of referent expression is necessary is highly reliant upon the author/speaker's digression- and is correlated strongly with the use of pragmatic competency.<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":2" />