Adapted from: Semantics: A Coursebook by JAMES R. HURFORD, RENDAN HEASLEY, MICHAEL B. SMITH

2. 1. Develop the notion of reference  by
considering the range of expressions that
speakers may use to refer to some object or
person in the world.
Referring
expression

3.  Some expressions:
1. can only be used as referring expressions
2. can never be used as referring expressions
3. can be used to refer or not, depending on
the kind of sentence they occur in.
4. Introduce the notion (equative sentence)
which is closely bound up with the idea of
referring expressions.

4.  A REFERRING EXPRESSION is any expression
used in an utterance to refer to something
or someone (or a clearly delimited
collection of things or people), i.e. used
with a particular referent in mind.

5.  A REFERRING EXPRESSION is any expression
used in an utterance to refer to something or
someone (or a clearly delimited collection of
things or people), i.e. used with a particular
referent in mind.
 ‘Fred hit me’ 
 the speaker has a particular person in mind 
‘Fred’ is a referring expression.
 ‘There’s no Fred at this address’ 
 the speaker would not have a particular
person in mind  ‘Fred’ is not a referring
expression 37

6.  The same expression
 can be a referring expression or not
= may or may not have a ‘referring
interpretation’
 depending on the context.
 This is true of indefinite noun phrases.
37

7.  The linguistic context  often gives a
vital clue  as to whether the indefinite
noun phrase  was a referring
expression or not.
 The linguistic context  does not always
give a clear indication.
38

8. 38
How can one resolve the ambiguities in these
examples ??
 by the use of the word certain immediately
following the indefinite article a
 Indefinite noun phrases can be referring
expressions.
 Whether an expression is a referring
expression is heavily dependent on linguistic
context and on circumstances of utterance.

9. come in various kinds: 39
 proper names (e.g. John)
 personal pronouns (e.g. he, it)
 Longer descriptive expressions (e.g. The
man who unified the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia)
 can all be used as referring expressions
 most frequently are used as referring
expressions.
 But there are examples in which they are
not (or not clearly) referring expressions.

10.  The notion ‘referring expression’ is not
always easy to apply.
 Part of the difficulty encountered stems
from the fact that it is not clear what we
mean when we say that a speaker must
have a particular individual in mind in order
to refer.
 But note that in the case of definite noun
phrases also, the question of whether they
are used as referring expressions is very
much dependent on the context and
circumstances of use.

11.  Definiteness is a condition of the referring
expression. Yes/No
 Indefiniteness indicates that a language
expression is not a referring expression. Yes/No
 ‘The boy is honest’
 ‘The boy may get sick as the girl’
 ‘Look there! I see a boy climbing the tree’
 ‘A boy must have broken the window’

12.  ‘Definite’ and ’indefinite’ are grammatical
terms not directly parallel to the semantic
terms ‘referring expression' and ‘non-referring
expression.
 Definite & indefinite noun phrases can be used
as referring expressions depending on the
context and circumstances of use. Yes/No

13.  A referring expression can be one word or
more.
 ‘Paris’
 ‘The boy under the tree’

15.  Not all language expressions are referring expressions. T/F
 Every referring expression is a language expression. T / F
 The cat in ‘The cat looks like the tiger’ is a referring
expression. T / F
 The cat in ‘Have you seen the cat?’ is a referring
expression. T / F
 The tree in ‘The tree may be evergreen or not’ is a
referring expression. T / F
 The referring expression has one word only. T / F

16. A different topic:
 starting with consideration of definite noun
phrases & eventually indefinite noun
phrases.
 Introduce the notions (opaque context) &
(equative sentence) which are closely
bound up with the idea of referring
expressions.
39

17.  Normally, one expects that utterances which differ
only in that they use different expressions referring to
the same thing (or person) will have the same
meaning.
 ‘John looks as if he’s about to faint’
 ‘The person in the corner looks as if he’s about to
faint’
 But there is a class of exceptions to this
generalization. This is the class of examples involving
opaque contexts.

18.  An OPAQUE CONTEXT is a part of a sentence which
could be made into a complete sentence by the
addition of a referring expression, but where the
addition of different referring expressions, even
though they refer to the same thing or person, in a
given situation, will yield sentences with DIFFERENT
meanings when uttered in a given situation.
 OC is a linguistic context in which it is not always
possible to substitute "co-referential" expressions
(expressions referring to the same object) without
altering the truth of sentences. So, substitution of co-
referential expressions into an opaque context does
not always preserve truth. (Wikipedia)

19. Part of Referring
Sentence
sentence expression
Uttered in a given situation
Opaque Same Different
context referent meaning
Part of Referring
Sentence
sentence expression

20. "Lois
Lois
Uttered in a given situation
believes
believes X Superman
Superman
is a hero
is a hero"
Opaque Same Different
context referent meaning
"Lois
Lois
believes
believes X Clark Kent
Clark Kent
is a hero
is a hero"

21. Q: 1,2,3,
P: 40
‘Dick
Dick believes
believes
that . . . killed John
that John
Smith
Uttered in a given situation
killed Smith’
Opaque Same Different
context referent meaning
the ‘Dick believes
Dick believes
person in that the person
that . . . killed
the in the corner
Smith
corner killed Smith’

22.  ‘Opaque’ is especially appropriate because
these contexts seem to ‘block our view’ through
them to the referential interpretations (referents)
of referring expressions.
 Opaque contexts typically involve a certain kind
of verb, like want, believe, think, and wonder
about.
 Note that it was often in the context of such
opacity-creating verbs that indefinite noun
phrases could be ambiguous between a referring
and a non-referring interpretation, as in ‘Nancy
wants to marry a Norwegian’.

23.  An EQUATIVE SENTENCE is one which is used to assert
the identity of the referents of two referring
expressions, i.e. to assert that two referring expressions
have the same referent.
 Tony Blair is the Prime Minister  TB = PM
 That woman over there is my daughter’s teacher
Tony Blair

{ } 
the Prime
Minister

24.  A feature of many equative sentences is that the
order of the two referring expressions can be
reversed without loss of acceptability.
 The Prime Minister is Tony Blair.  equative 
reversible + acceptable
 However, the ‘reversal test’/ ‘inversion test’ is not a
perfect diagnostic for equative sentences.
 What I need is a pint of Guinness  reversible +
not a referring expression  has no particular
referent in mind  not equative
 That is the man who kidnapped my boss 
equative + not reversible  unacceptable.

25. • Semantics: A Coursebook by JAMES R. HURFORD ,
RENDAN HEASLEY, MICHAEL B. SMITH
• Opaque context – Wikipedia
•Opaque context, equative sentence and predicator