36.1074, Reviews: (Non)referentiality in Conversation: Chepinchikj (2025)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-1074. Fri Mar 28 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.1074, Reviews: (Non)referentiality in Conversation: Chepinchikj (2025)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Justin Fuller
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Steven Franks, Joel Jenkins, Daniel Swanson, Erin Steitz
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Joel Jenkins <joel at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 27-Mar-2025
From: Neda Chepinchikj [neda.cepincic at gmail.com]
Subject: Pragmatics: (Non)referentiality in Conversation: Chepinchikj (2025)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/35-2437

Title: (Non)referentiality in Conversation
Series Title: Pragmatics & Beyond New Series   344
Publication Year: 2024

Publisher: John Benjamins
           http://www.benjamins.com/
Book URL: https://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns.344

Editor(s): Michael C. Ewing, Ritva Laury

Reviewer: Neda Chepinchikj

SUMMARY
(Non)referentiality in Conversation is a useful compendium of some of
the latest studies in interactional linguistics and (multimodal)
conversation analysis on referentiality in everyday conversations.
Referentiality (or the lack thereof) is a concept that refers to the
use of grammatical resources (nouns, pronouns, etc.) to indicate the
specificity, generality or indefiniteness of what these resources
denote. This volume investigates how conversationalists use various
grammatical resources to co-construct referentiality in spoken
interactions. Eight research studies are included in the edited book
and they examine referentiality in a range of languages: Japanese,
Finnish, French, Mandarin and English.
The first chapter serves as an introduction to the topic of
referentiality, which is defined as “the relationship between language
and reality” (p. 1). A historical overview of the topic is outlined
starting from the 19th century logicians, such as Frege (1892) and
Russell (1905), and their contribution to referentiality, but with the
caveat that they did not investigate this concept from a
social-interactional standpoint. As reference can only exist in
context, the editors assert that only people can make meaning – not
expressions isolated from context. Therefore, this chapter directs the
reader’s attention to reference in discourse and cites work in the
field that is speaker-centred and offers a multidimensional approach
to referentiality (e.g. Chafe, 1994; Du Bois & Thompson, 1991).
Interaction, as part of discourse, is, thus, an appropriate domain of
investigating referentiality, i.e. how speakers shape reference by
negotiating meanings in conversations and how they use various
expressions for that purpose. Despite the large volume of research
conducted in this area (e.g. in conversation analysis), there are
still unexplored domains, such as how and if referencing distinctions
are interactionally relevant to interlocutors from their own
perspectives. The latter is the central topic in this volume, which is
organised around four themes, which are intertwined in most of the
studies. The first theme is about fluidity, dynamics and
indeterminateness of reference. The second one is the argument that
referential indeterminacy is not a major issue for interlocutors. The
third theme regards reference shifts during conversations and their
relation to social goals, while the fourth one treats reference as
dialogical and emerging through interaction and the participants’
contributions. The latter theme is what all the studies in this volume
have in common.
What the research in these studies shows is that speakers usually need
not use clearly articulated referents to maintain a conversation. In
English, for instance, this is done by using pronouns without explicit
antecedents. It is shown that reference is achieved through
interaction for the purposes of the participants and from their own
perspective. Reference is also not only accomplished through verbal
means but also multimodally, by using gestures, gaze and body
language.
Chapter 2 is a study of reference use in colloquial Indonesian
conversations. The author addresses the question of whether
referentiality matters to speakers and arrives at the answer that it
generally does not, unless it indicates a shift in footing. Ewing
takes reference as a social phenomenon, which emerges through
interaction and the wider context, too. He uses a multidimensional
approach, applying the theory of reference in an information flow of
multidimensionality, as per Du Bois and Thompson (1991) with five
dimensions (givenness, identifiability, identifiability pathway,
generality and discourse referentiality). The author explores
connections between reference, indeterminacy and social action in two
types of reference practices: allusive and explicit. Allusive
reference is defined as ellipsis of referential terms in conversations
(p. 12). In both cases, reference most often proves to be fluid or
elusive. In spoken Indonesian, pronouns and noun phrases are rarely
used and verbs are not marked for person. However, interlocutors share
some common knowledge, which can be actual or ‘fictive’ (i.e. “assumed
and accepted in the moment of interaction” (p. 16)). Reference is not
simply gleaned from context, but rather it presupposes shared work by
interlocutors to construct it. This is what is referred to as allusive
reference and is considered as default in colloquial Indonesian. It is
particular but indeterminate regarding the specific referent.
Referential shifts from particular to general occur with a change in
verb form and clause structure. On the other hand, when explicit
reference is used, it may not necessarily be definite as to the
specific referent. Reference can be fluid and indeterminate, but still
interactions continue smoothly with no interruptions. Fluidity is
associated with shifts in reference and its qualities throughout the
interaction, where the broader context and shared knowledge come into
play.
The study in Chapter 3 looks at how first and second person singular
forms are used in Finnish to create non-specific reference (i.e. ‘open
reference’) in interactions. Both these forms can refer to a broader
or impersonal referent and, hence, are less specific. The study also
examines embodied features of reference in addition to the verbal
forms. Since both first and second person forms in Finnish can be used
to refer to somebody other than the addressee and the speaker, it is
the context that determines the specificity of reference. This
includes both immediate context in the conversation as well as the
wider, sequential context. Helasvuo and Suomalainen’s argument is that
the open reference use of these forms impacts the participation
framework and results in changes of footing. Participation framework
here refers to the interactants’ roles, and the changes within this
framework are called changes of footing (as per Goffman, 1981). In the
current study, the changes of footing occur by making the subject more
abstract and general. The data are sourced from an existing corpus of
conversational Finnish; and conversation analysis and interactional
linguistics are used as methods of analysis. The open reference is
investigated in terms of where it occurs in the sequences of
interaction, and the results indicate that these forms are found in
long narrative sequences with actions of “assessments, accounts of
personal experience and descriptions of states of affairs” (p. 41). As
for embodied features, the verbal forms are often accompanied by hand
gestures, enacted voice and represented speech or dialogue. Moreover,
open reference use can cause changes of footing and include new or
multiple voices and perspectives in the conversation. In such cases
the second person form serves to invite the interlocutors to agree or
align with the given perspective.
Chapter 4 is also a study of reference in Finnish, and it examines the
uses of the word raha (money) in conversation as well as how it can
grammatically be made non-referential. The singular form of the noun
is mostly used without reference, while its plural form is used for
referential mentions of money. More precisely, the singular form is
used for general, non-specific purposes, while the plural form is used
for particular, specific and quantifiable reference. This distinction
of usage can accomplish actions in interaction and show stance, whilst
the shifts from singular to plural form can be used to diffuse
delicate situations in a humorous manner or to criticise someone
non-explicitly. The data analysis shows that interactants can switch
the uses of the two forms with their inversed reference meanings and
this is accomplished jointly through interaction. Speakers do this to
create specific effects, such as criticising without mentioning any
referents, as well as expressing different stances. Further instances
of creative usage include use in imaginary scenes, in humour, in
aligning with an interlocutor in giving advice and in being negative
about somebody without directly referencing them. Laury considers
grammar as “a set of practices continually evolving and shifting,
reflexively shaped by and shaping contexts” (p. 57). Therefore,
referentiality is jointly achieved by interactants. Regarding
reference, the author deems that it is not a pre-existing phenomenon,
but it is rather created through discourse. Interactional linguistics
is used as a method of analysis, while the theoretical underpinning
comes from the Theory of Emergent Grammar (Hopper, 1987; Hopper,
2011), according to which grammar emerges from people’s use of
language in everyday conversations and it both shapes and is shaped by
context.
In Chapter 5, the focus is on young children’s use of noun phrases for
referential and non-referential usage in conversations in French. Le
Mené, Salazar Orvig, da Silva-Genest and Marcos apply an
interactionist and dialogic approach (as per Bakhtin, 1979/1986 and
Vygotsky, 1934/1962), arguing that children acquire their pragmatic
and discursive skills through “communicative experience” (p. 81) in
interactions with adults. Thus, reference is something that is built
in discourse and interaction. The study attempts to describe the way
children experience (non)referentiality in dialogue and how these
developments may occur. It examines naturally-occurring conversations
between children and adults focusing on verbal and non-verbal features
of interaction (gaze, gestures, body movements and orientation).
Through interactions with adults, children are exposed to both
referential and non-referential uses of noun phrases from an early
age, but they cannot make distinctions between the various forms. This
is also further complicated by the fact that the same forms can be
used for all types of reference, including indeterminate. Reference,
as the data analysis has shown, has been identified in two different
scenarios. In the first one, the child’s use of noun phrases is shaped
through dialogues and framed by the linguistic and situational context
for both children and adults. Since the adults play a significant role
in framing and steering the interactions, their contributions are
twofold: 1) as responding to children’s turns by either confirming or
selecting a potential interpretation of the referential value of the
noun phrase, and 2) as setting the ground for what comes next, so that
the children can orient to this selection, which aids them in building
their awareness of reference. Lastly, the findings show great
variability of interpretations of use (dubbed as “unstable balance” by
the authors, p. 99), which indicates that reference is co-constructed
in the interactional context both verbally and non-verbally, based on
the activity taking place and previous discourse.
In Chapter 6, Matsumoto presents a study of referentiality in
Japanese, by investigating the reasons for successful conversations
without the use of explicit forms that refer to actors, agents and
other roles. The study seeks to offer a pragmatic and semantic
explanation for this phenomenon, which is called silent reference
(also ‘zero anaphora’ or ‘pro-drop’ (p. 104)), i.e. no use of
pronouns, and one which is non-existent in other languages, including
English. The reference in this case can be either recovered from
context or it can be generic or arbitrary. Matsumoto uses frame
semantics and Grice’s Cooperative Principle (1975) to account for the
intelligibility of this phenomenon in Japanese. Frame semantics is a
theory that emphasises the experience of language users, where the
meaning of linguistic resources are made experientially through the
semantic field and the networks of meaning associated with certain
notions. The way it works is that speakers usually trust the hearers
to understand and follow what is being said. In the opposite case, the
interlocutors can ask for explicit expressions to ensure
understanding, which is relatable to Grice’s maxim of quantity. This
indeterminacy of reference proves to be no impediment to the flow of
conversations, even when the reference switches. The reasons for using
silent reference are associated with the identity of the referents,
which is either not essential or can be gleaned from context or prior
mentions.
Ono and Thompson discuss reference in everyday English conversations
in Chapter 7 by focusing on two insufficiently studied reference
practices: the indeterminacy of pronominal forms (it, this, that)
without a clear referent in either preceding or following talk and how
reference changes between general and specific denotation. The data
show that these shifts are accepted and not challenged in interaction.
This is a study in interactional semantics looking at American English
conversations, and the data analysis shows that shifting reference
from general to specific and vice versa is fluid and causes no
disruptions in meaning and intelligibility. Moreover, it is something
that occurs constantly and imperceptibly in everyday conversations,
where interlocutors use resources to achieve alignment among
themselves.
In Chapter 8, Suzuki offers another study in Japanese by focusing on
uses of newly-created expressions by manipulating reference in
everyday interactions. These expressions are created ad hoc by
speakers in private settings and used mainly to assess or characterise
situations or entities in particular ways. They occur interactively
and intertextually, where one speaker innovates and then that
expression is taken over by the following speaker, usually by adding
prosodic and other multimodal resources. The purpose is one of phatic
communion or social bonding. The study looks at three instances of
such innovation: using onomatopoeia to turn a noun phrase into
referential topic; turning individual items in a list into a unified
topic noun phrase; and creating a novel noun phrase through
reanalysis. What all three examples have in common is that
referentiality is an interactive process and a source of playfulness,
with intentional humorous effects, and subsequent changes from use of
gestures and emphatic intonation to ordinary prosody and no use of
gestures.
The last chapter explores the generic second person singular
expressions in Mandarin conversations. Tao focuses on when this
generic reference is used and what social actions it accomplishes. In
Mandarin, the second person singular pronoun can also have impersonal
or indefinite, dramatic and metalinguistic (vocative) reference in
addition to its usual reference of the addressee. The data analysed
fall within the first and second types of generic reference and the
observed patterns of use are clustering, locally conditional
generalities and primary speaker roles. Clustering means that the
second person pronoun generic use tends to occur in clusters or
multiple adjacent positions in the analysed interactions (65% of the
times). Furthermore, the reference is bound by the local context of
the conversations and is not applicable to universal entities or
situations. Finally, the second person pronoun is associated with a
primary speaker role. These are speakers who tend to dominate the
conversational floor and the data indicate they use generic
expressions more often. Regarding social actions, these expressions
are a “powerful rhetorical device” for engaging interlocutors in
“rather unusual, complex and at times controversial topics” (p. 178).
The actions include complex informing, persuasion and argumentation.
Thus, the generic uses of the second person singular forms in Mandarin
are a powerful means to manipulate others’ perspectives, and the
effect usually builds up through clustering, i.e. multiple turns
usage.
EVALUATION
This volume is a valuable ‘one-stop-shop’ for the latest research in
referentiality from a social and interactional linguistic perspective.
All eight studies are united in terms of the type of research
(qualitative) and the type of data used, i.e. recordings of everyday,
informal conversations between family and friends, as well as in
approaching grammatical resources as tools used by interlocutors to
interact but also as being shaped and co-constructed through
interaction. The authors are explicit in terms of what they set out to
do, their research questions as well as the goals they have achieved.
They also address the limitations of their studies and make
cross-references to the other studies in this volume where relevant.
This makes this book a coherent and cohesive narrative even though all
the studies are individual and distinct.
Researchers and scholars focusing on interactional linguistics,
conversation analysis and multimodality in naturally-occurring
interactions will find this book of great interest, as will students
and language enthusiasts, who study language through a social and
interactional lens. This volume may also be of interest to applied
linguists and social scientists, whereas cognitive linguists might not
find it useful.
One of the most important merits of (Non)referenitality on
Conversation is that it addresses a particular concept in various
languages and makes comparisons and contrasts among them. Of the eight
studies, only one is about English, while the rest discuss French,
Finnish, Japanese, Indonesian and Mandarin languages. This is useful
because there are not many internationally available studies about
reference in languages other than English (e.g. Chen, 2009 on Chinese;
Golluscio et al., 2021 on Mapudungun[1]) or comparative studies on the
topic (e.g. Anderson, 2011; Olthof, 2020).
Furthermore, the studies in this volume address the various types of
reference (especially indeterminate, allusive and silent) and the
absence of it. All the studies discuss unusual or unique instances of
referentiality and non-referentiality in the respective languages,
which may be common to them but non-existent in other languages. The
range of resources used to refer (or not) to people, entities and
situations is also vastly represented: from personal pronouns and noun
phrases to onomatopoeic expressions. This also holds true for the
multimodal resources,  as gestures, gaze, body orientation and prosody
are examined along with the grammatical features that they accompany,
particularly in those studies that have used video recordings of the
analysed conversations. Finally, the unifying premise for the entire
volume--that referentiality is an emergent phenomenon, co-created by
the interlocutors, shaped by the context of interaction and impacting
its flow--is thoroughly exemplified and evidenced in all the chapters.
The research conducted for this volume shows strong links to
interactional linguistics and conversation analysis literature on the
topic of referentiality (e.g. Auer, 1984; Enfield & Stivers, 2007;
Fox, 1996; Laury, 1997) and it furthers the findings made by those
studies. In addition, one of the current studies is a continuation of
the author’s previous work in this field (Matsuoka, 1997, 2002).
While this volume presents some valuable research on the topic of
referentiality in naturally-occurring conversations and offers some
important insights and findings, the data samples of these studies are
rather small and confined to a particular type of interaction, i.e.
everyday, informal conversations among family and friends. Therefore,
the findings cannot be extended to other types of interactions and
contexts. It would be valuable to conduct research in other contexts
(e.g. professional interactions), situations and types of interactions
to get a sense of how referentiality and its expressions operate
there. It may also be a good endeavour to make a comparative analysis
between those particular contexts and uses in different languages.
______________
[1] Mapundungun is an Indigenous language spoken in Chile and
Argentina.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. (2011). Referentiality and the noun. HERMES – Journal of
Language and Communication in Business, 24(47), 13 – 29.
https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v24i47.97563
Auer, P. (1984). Referential problems in conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics 8, 627–648
Bakhtin, M. (1979/1986). Speech genres and other late essays.
University of Texas Press.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and
displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago
University Press.
Chen, P. (2009). Aspects of referentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 41,
1657 – 1674.
Du Bois, J. W., & Thompson, S. A. (1991). Dimensions of a theory of
information flow [Unpublished manuscript]. University of California.
Enfield, N.J., & Stivers, T. (Eds). (2007). Person reference in
interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge
University Press.
Fox, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Studies in anaphora. Benjamins.
Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie
und philosophische Kritik 100, 25-50.
Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp.
124 – 159). Blackwell.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan
(Eds.), Syntax and semantics, (pp. 41 – 58). Academic Press.
Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society
13, 139 – 157.
Hopper, P. J. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in
interactional linguistics. In M.-L. Helasvuo & L. Cambell (Eds.),
Constructions: Emerging and emergent, (CILT 277, pp. 173 – 208). John
Benjamins.
Laury, R. (1997). Demonstratives in interaction. John Benjamins.
Matsumoto, Y. (1997). Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A
frame-semantic approach. John Benjamins.
Matsumoto, Y. (2002, April 4 – 7). Silent reference in Japanese
discourse. [A paper presented in a panel “Toward a Cognitive and
Interactional Understanding of Person Reference in Japanese: A
Usage-based Approach”]. Association for Asian Studies 45th Annual
Meeting, Washington D.C.
Olthof, M. (2020). Referentiality and modifiability of incorporated
nouns. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 73(3), 305 – 362.
https://doi-org.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/10.1515/stuf-2020-1000
Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind 14(56), 479 - 493.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). Thought and language. M.I.T. Press.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Neda Chepinchikj is a linguist, educator and researcher with an
interest in applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and discourse
studies. She is a published author and currently works at the
University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney, Australia.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List to support the student editors:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Mouton https://cloud.newsletter.degruyter.com/mouton

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

Elsevier Ltd http://www.elsevier.com/linguistics

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us

Wiley http://www.wiley.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-36-1074
----------------------------------------------------------