[Vocabulary] refer to/mean/express

[hhtt21]

I am having difficulty to distinguish between "mean", "refer" and "express" in meaning. Would you please explain the difference between them? Here is the example. I created the example.

1. $ sign means dollar.

2. $ sign refers to dollar.

3. $ sign expresses dollar.

 

[tedmc]

Have you checked the words in a dictionary? What have you found?
With signs, I would say: $ stands for/represents/ means dollar.

 

[GoesStation]

Have you checked the words in a dictionary? What have you found?
With signs, I would say: "$" stands for/represents/ means "dollars".

You have to mark text that you're writing about even when the text is nothing but a symbol.

 

[hhtt21]

Have you checked the words in a dictionary? What have you found?
With signs, I would say: $ stands for/represents/ means dollar.

Yes, of course. What is wrong with this definition for "refer" for this case?

Refer: (of a word, phrase, or symbol) describe or denote; have as a referent.‘the star refers to items which are intended for the advanced learner’

https://www.lexico.com/definition/refer

Thanks

 

[jutfrank]

This is a very complicated question, so in order to be clear, and to avoid overly long posts, I'll try to answer one point at a time.

I should first make it clear that all three words have various uses. Since this question seems to be about language, I'll start by giving you a brief idea of some concepts as used in semantics, which is the study of linguistic meaning. Let's start with reference, which is one kind of linguistic meaning.


Definition: reference: the relation between a referring expression (a word or phrase) and a referent (a person or thing in the world)

Example: Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.

In this example, both blue words are referring expressions. In this case, they are names of people, but the first refers to a real person, who died a long time ago, and the second refers to a real play which he wrote. The relationship between the words and the things is what we call 'reference'.


Note that reference doesn't require that the referent be real. For example:

Hamlet killed Polonius.

In this example, the two referring expressions refer to fictional characters.

Another thing to note is that reference can be deictic. This is when it depends on the perspective of the speaker. For example, if I say:

I'm talking to you.

I = jutfrank
you = hhtt21

Here, the blue referring expression I refers to the real person jutfrank and the red referring expression you refers to the real person hhtt21.

However, it's different if you say the same utterance to me:

I'm talking to you.

I = hhtt21
you = jutfrank

Now the referring expressions have different reference. That is, I refers to hhtt21 and you refers to jutfrank.


It's also important to understand that two different referring expressions can refer to the same person or thing in the world. For example, the referring expressions Clark Kent and Superman both refer to the same individual. Two referring expressions but one referent.

A good way to understand reference is to imagine that you are pointing out something in the world with your finger. In the same way that your finger shows what you're pointing at, referring expressions show what you're referring to.


In your example about the dollar sign, we cannot use the notion of reference, for two reasons:

1) The dollar sign is not a referring expression. In fact, it is not a piece of language at all—it's a non-linguistic symbol.
2) There is nothing in the world that it names. That is to say, it has no referent.

But the dollar sign does mean something, right? Yes, it does. But since it does not have reference, it must have a different kind of meaning.

Is all of that clear so far? This post is already very long, so before I continue, please ask if you need clarification.

 

[hhtt21]

A good way to understand reference is to imagine that you are pointing out something in the world with your finger. In the same way that your finger shows what you're pointing at, referring expressions show what you're referring to.

Definition: reference: the relation between a referring expression (a word or phrase) and a referent (a person or thing in the world)


In your example about the dollar sign, we cannot use the notion of reference, for two reasons:


1) The dollar sign is not a referring expression. In fact, it is not a piece of language at all—it's a non-linguistic symbol.
2) There is nothing in the world that it names. In technical terms, it has no 'referent'.


But the dollar sign does mean something, right? Yes, it does. But since it does not have reference, it must have a different kind of meaning.


Is all of that clear so far? This post is already very long, so before I continue, please ask if you need clarificaction..

There need to be some points to be clarified.

a. Why should a referring expression be a word or phrase instead of anything pointing out anything else such as the relation between "a skull between bones and death"?

b. As you said each word has various uses and and $ sign must have a different kind of "meaning". The use of "to mean" in that particular example is confusing.

Thank you.

 

[jutfrank]

a. Why should a referring expression be a word or phrase instead of anything pointing out anything else such as the relation between "a skull between bones and death"?

Good question. The answer is that the skull and crossbones has a different kind of meaning. Reference is about linguistic meaning only. Only words and phrases can refer to things in the semantics sense of the word.

The relation between a skull and crossbones and the concept of death is outside the purview of semantics. This relation is what would be studied by someone working in the field of semiotics, which is the study of meaning more generally. Let's look at things a little more generally now:

Semiotics is all about what we call signs. In semiotics, a sign is the interrelationship between the signifier and the signified.

The skull and crossbones, the dollar sign and your username hhtt21 are all examples of signifiers. The corresponding signified things are: the concept of death, the US currency, and you, respectively. The relationship between the signifier and the signified is what we call 'meaning' in the semiotics sense of the word. In other words, signs communicate meaning.

A good word to use here is the verb signify. If we get an invoice for something we have bought, we might see: $49.99

We can say that the dollar sign 'signifies' which currency we have to pay 49.99 units of.

Another verb we can use for semiotic meaning is represent. This is especially good for pictures. Let's say I paint you a lovely picture of a flower. Now, there's obviously a difference between the finished painting of the flower (the signifier) and the actual flower on my desk that I have painted (the signified). The relationship in this case is representational. We wouldn't say that my painting 'means' the flower, and we can't say that my painting 'refers to' the flower, but we can say that my painting 'represents' the flower.

It's useful to understand three different types of sign: icon, index, and symbol. Here's an oversized picture to illustrate this (I don't know how to reduce the size!):

b. As you said each word has various uses and and $ sign must have a different kind of "meaning". The use of "to mean" in that particular example is confusing.

Yes, it is very confusing. That's partly why these academic fields exist. Don't worry—there are lots of very smart people out there who are also confused.

Look again at the picture above. What kind of meaning do you think is communicated by a dollar sign—iconic, indexical or symbolic?

Remember that the explanations I'm giving you all relate to how the words are used in their academic senses. I'm doing this partly because the academic terminology I'm using is clearly defined and easy to explain. The reality is that in ordinary, non-academic language, people use all these words in different ways, which leads to confusion. Hopefully, my breaking things down for you is helping you to untangle the confusion.

Is everything clear so far? Do you have any questions about anything I've said in this post before I go on?

In the next post, I'll talk about the very important distinction in linguistic meaning between reference and sense.

 

[hhtt21]

Is everything clear so far? Do you have any questions?

Yes, everything is very clear. Yes, please go on and identify the differences between those "confused words (refer, mean, express).

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, please go on and identify the differences between those "confused words (refer, mean, express).

Okay. I'll talk about what the second of those three words usually means. I've already talked about reference, and I'll leave express until later. You must be aware, however, that what I'm doing here has a focus primarily on the meaning of those words. What you also need to know is how to use them correctly. Meaning and use are different things. But understanding meaning should come before understanding use, so I'll carry on explaining what they mean.

Next: Read the paragraph above again. You will notice that I have used the words mean/meaning no less than five times. Here's the paragraph again, with each instance highlighted:

"Okay. I'll talk about what the second of those three words usually means. I've already talked about reference, and I'll leave express until later. You must be aware, however, that what I'm doing here has a focus primarily on the meaning of those words. What you also need to know is how to use them correctly. Meaning and use are different things. But understanding meaning should come before understanding use, so I'll carry on explaining what they mean."

Now, with all of those five instances, I have used the words mean/meaning in exactly the same way. That is to say, in each of those five uses of the word, I'm talking about what semanticists call sense.

Sense is a very different kind of linguistic meaning from reference. Whereas the reference of a word or phrase is about its relation to a thing in the world, the sense of a word or phrase is about something inherent within the form of the word itself. I like to think that sense is a property of a word.

Without sense, it would not be possible to write dictionaries because what dictionaries (mainly) do is to show the sense of words and phrases. More importantly, without sense, we would not be able to communicate at all. If you talk to me in Turkish, it will mean nothing to me because I would not understand the sense of any of the words you say. And even when two speakers both speak the same language, communication often breaks down because they disagree on the sense of a particular word. This can even happen without them knowing it!

Let's look at a couple of dialogues:

A: I just saw an animal in the garden.
B: Really? How do you know it was an animal?
A: I saw it. I saw a blackbird, I think.
B: You might have seen a blackbird, but are you sure you saw an animal?
A: Yes, I saw it! It was a blackbird!

Can you see what is happening here? It seems that for person A, a blackbird is an animal, but for person B, a blackbird isn't an animal. The problem here is that the two speakers have a different idea of the sense of the word animal.

Here's another dialogue:

A: I just killed Ben's hamster.
B: What? So it's dead then?
A: No, I didn't say that. I said I killed it.
B: But if you killed it, it must be dead.
A: No, I was very careful. I killed it very gently so it wouldn't die.

There's obviously something very wrong with what person A is saying here. The problem seems to relate to his idea of the sense of either the word kill or the word dead (or possibly both.) What we would say here is that what he says doesn't make sense. For person B on the other hand, there seems to be a relation between the sense of the word kill and the sense of the word dead. In this case, the sense relation is called 'entailment'. It is the senses of the words kill and dead that allow us to make logical statements, such as 'If Jim killed the hamster, it must be dead'. We can say that killing something 'entails' it being dead. (Notice the technical verb entail there. We could also say that killing something 'means' it being dead, but 'entails' is a more precise word, which specifies this particular kind of meaning.)

I'll now mention another kind of sense relation—one that I know you struggle with (quite understandably), and one that I spent a long trying to explain to you last year: synonymy

Let's start with synonymy at the sentence level. Look at the following two sentences:

a) This is my car.
b) This car belongs to me.

Because of the senses of the words my and belong, we can say that the sentences are synonymous. That is, they have the same meaning. Now, one problem with this is that although the sentences are synonymous (this kind of sentence-level synonymy is called 'paraphrase'), we can't really say that that the words my and belong are synonymous, despite there being some kind of semantic relationship.

Synonymy can be a very slippery fish when it comes to the word level, and this is where a lot of your confusion lies. The source of your confusion owes a lot to the way that you understand dictionaries and thesauruses. Consider the following sentences:

a) My car is red.
b) My car is crimson.

Is it right to say that the adjectives red and crimson are synonyms? What do you think?

Here's another pair, this time with verbs:

a) I ran to the shop.
b) I sprinted to the shop.

Are run and sprint synonyms? What do you think? Many dictionaries and thesauruses will tell you that they are, but I, as a teacher, will usually insist that they are not. In fact, in my opinion it is not generally a good idea to lead learners to believe that there is any synonymy in English, or in any other language for that matter. This may seem like an outrageous claim to make (plus, it's not quite true!) but I believe I have good reason to make it, founded on a typical confusion in learners' minds between meaning and use. Many learners, including you, think that if two sentences or two words are synonymous, then they must necessarily be interchangeable. That is not the case.

Talking of use, in the next post I'll focus on another very different kind of meaning, which is very relevant to what we do here on this forum—that of pragmatic meaning, also called speaker meaning. But before I do, do you have any questions about sense?

 

[Tarheel]

Jutfrank, I think you erred. It's A who is speaking nonsense. ("I killed it, but it isn't dead.")

 

[hhtt21]

Definition: reference: the relation between a referring expression (a word or phrase) and a referent (a person or thing in the world)

Example: Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.

In this example, both blue words are referring expressions. In this case, they are names of people, but the first refers to a real person, who died a long time ago, and the second refers to a real play which he wrote. The relationship between the words and the things is what we call 'reference'.

In your example about the dollar sign, we cannot use the notion of reference, for two reasons:

1) The dollar sign is not a referring expression. In fact, it is not a piece of language at all—it's a non-linguistic symbol.
2) There is nothing in the world that it names. That is to say, it has no referent..

Sense is a very different kind of linguistic meaning from reference. Whereas the reference of a word or phrase is about its relation to a thing in the world, the sense of a word or phrase is about something inherent within the form of the word itself. I like to think that sense is a property of a word.

Let's look at a couple of dialogues:

A: I just saw an animal in the garden.
B: Really? How do you know it was an animal?
A: I saw it. I saw a blackbird, I think.
B: You might have seen blackbird, but are you sure you saw an animal?
A: Yes, I saw it! It was a blackbird!

Can we please clarify some points about "reference" and "meaning"? What is the relation between "meaning" and "reference"? How do they affect or involve each other? Can they be the same sometimes? The relation seems to me to be "from specific/precise to general" and "meaning/definition" is more precise/specific than "reference"? Let's try to apply the knowledge you have introduced.

Here "blackbird" is both "a word" and real thing, so is it a "reference"? Is what we see by our eyes is the referrent of word of "blackbird", the thing in the real world, and "blackbird" is the reference of what we see by our eyes?

Can you see what is happening here? It seems that for person A, a blackbird is an animal, but for person B, a blackbird isn't an animal. The problem here is that the two speakers have a different idea of the sense of the word animal .

Here is "blackbird" is something we see by our eyes, a thing, we agreee on that. But is it a "reference" or "sense/meaning" or both? "Blackbird" is more precise/specific than "animal", which is quite "common/general".

So which one is correct? Both?

4. "Blackbird" refers to an animal.

5. "Blackbird" means an animal (= Blackbird has the sense of animals)

What is the situation if there are visky brand named "blackbird" and a football team known as "blackbird" Sometimes people might use "blackbird" instead of the official name.

4a. "Blackbird refers to an animal, a visky brand or a football team".
5b. "Blackbird means an animal, a visky brand, or a football team."

Thank you.

 

[jutfrank]

Jutfrank, I think you erred. It's A who is speaking nonsense. ("I killed it, but it isn't dead.")

Thanks. Fixed now.

 

[jutfrank]

What is the relation between "meaning" and "reference"? How do they affect or involve each other? Can they be the same sometimes?

Reference is one specific kind of meaning.

The relation seems to me to be "from specific/precise to general" and "meaning/definition" is more precise/specific than "reference"?

No. Reference is just one kind of meaning. Reference is about pointing out with language the things in the world you're thinking of.

Here "blackbird" is both "a word" and real thing, so is it a "reference"? Is what we see by our eyes is the referrent of word of "blackbird", the thing in the real world, and "blackbird" is the reference of what we see by our eyes?

Okay, that's a good question. Yes, in the dialogue I wrote, the noun phrase a blackbird has reference. The noun phrase refers to the real bird (the referent) that person A saw.

However, the point I was making was about sense, not reference. Here's an important difference between sense and reference:

Reference only applies to language as spoken by a person. Somebody has to use a word for it to have reference.
Sense applies to language more generally. That's why it's possible to write a dictionary—it's not necessary that anybody must use a word for the word to have sense.

I'll say that again: The kind of meaning that is expressed in dictionaries is sense. The kind of meaning that is expressed when people identify which things in the world they're talking about is reference.

Here is "blackbird" is something we see by our eyes, a thing, we agreee on that. But is it a "reference" or "sense/meaning" or both?

Let's think about this line from the dialogue:

A: I saw a blackbird.

Reference: a blackbird = the thing I just saw in the garden
Sense: blackbird = a European bird with black feathers and a yellow beak

So in the dialogue, it has both kinds. The difference is that the sense of blackbird is the same independent of the dialogue. But reference only happens when a person actually talks about something. In other words, reference is dependent on use.

"Blackbird" is more precise/specific than "animal", which is quite "common/general".

That's right. A blackbird is a kind of animal.

4. "Blackbird" refers to an animal.

No, that's not right. You're thinking about sense, not reference. Remember—if you're thinking about meaning in the sense of what dictionaries try to explain (which you usually are), then that is sense, not reference.

5. "Blackbird" means an animal (= Blackbird has the sense of animals)

Firstly, yes, this is about sense. But unfortunately, it's not quite right to use the verb mean like that. Let me put it more precisely: If something is a blackbird, that means that it is also an animal.

Don't worry that you didn't get the sentence quite right. The important thing is that you understand that this is about sense.

What is the situation if there are visky brand named "blackbird" and a football team known as "blackbird" Sometimes people might use "blackbird" instead of the official name.

4a. "Blackbird refers to an animal, a visky brand or a football team".
5b. "Blackbird means an animal, a visky brand, or a football team."

This is an excellent question, which shows me that you are beginning to understand the difference between sense and reference.

The word blackbird always has the same sense meaning but it can have different reference meaning, depending on how a person is using it.

If you look in a dictionary, you will see the sense meaning, which is always the same. The word "blackbird" means: a European bird with black feathers and a yellow beak. The sense meaning doesn't change. That's why it's possible to write a dictionary.

In contrast, the reference of the word "blackbird" can be pretty much anything. The word "blackbird" can refer to a brand of whisky, an aeroplane, a song, a football team, etc. The list could go on forever. That's why it's impossible for a dictionary to talk about reference—because the people who write dictionaries can never know what reference a word has. They only know about a word's sense.

 

[Alexey86]

Yes, in the dialogue I wrote, the noun phrase a blackbird has reference. The noun phrase refers to the real bird (the referent) that person A saw.

Jutfrank, in one of my previous threads you argued that indefinite NPs were not referring expressions. (https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/...was-twice-the-dose-typically-prescribed/page2):

Me (#15): Would you please explain what exactly you mean by "(in)definite" in this case? ("I've read a book"/"I read the book N gave me for my birthday.")
You (#16): I already have: the book (definite) is a referring expression, which means it identifies which book the speaker is referring to, whereas a book (indefinite) is not a referring expression, which means that it does not refer to any actual, physical book that exists in the world—it relates only to a conceptual member of a conceptual set of real things.

Me (#19): How is it possible to read a nonexistent book? When you say after reading a book, "I've read a book," don't you mean a real one?
You (#20): Many semanticists and logicians and philosophers have shared your reaction to this. My own way of understanding this is that I don't mean a real one, no.

 

[jutfrank]

Jutfrank, in one of my previous threads you argued that indefinite NPs were not referring expressions.

Yes, I did, and I'm willing to defend that position.

Please don't complicate things in this thread, though, if you don't mind. If you really do want to discuss that, start another thread.

hhtt21—please ignore this comment. I have a hard enough job on my hands as it is.

 

[hhtt21]

1. Reference: a blackbird = the thing I just saw in the garden.

The word blackbird always has the same sense meaning but it can have different reference meaning, depending on how a person is using it.

If you look in a dictionary, you will see the sense meaning, which is always the same. The word "blackbird" means: a European bird with black feathers and a yellow beak. The sense meaning doesn't change. That's why it's possible to write a dictionary.

In contrast, the reference of the word "blackbird" can be pretty much anything. The word "blackbird" can refer to a brand of whisky, an aeroplane, a song, a football team, etc. The list could go on forever. That's why it's impossible for a dictionary to talk about reference—because the people who write dictionaries can never know what reference a word has. They only know about a word's sense.

Are "reference" and "reference meaning" exactly the same here? "blackbird=thing I just saw in the garden" is a "reference" appeared/happened instantly at the time of speaking but is "blackbird=thing I just saw in the garden" also a "reference meaning"?

But reference only happens when a person actually talks about something

Does "reference meaning" only happen when a person actually talks about something as "reference" does or a "reference meaning" of something always exist independent of whether it is used in a speech or in a sentence as "sense meaning" does?

Thank you very much.

 

[jutfrank]

Are "reference" and "reference meaning" exactly the same here? "blackbird=thing I just saw in the garden" is a "reference" appeared/happened instantly at the time of speaking but is "blackbird=thing I just saw in the garden" also a "reference meaning"?

Yes. For the purposes of my explanation, you should understand them in the same way.

 

[hhtt21]

Now there is only one problem about "refer". Lexico has two different definition for "refer" which is very similar and whose examples are very similar.

Refer (from Lexico) https://www.lexico.com/definition/refer

1. (refer to) (no object) Mention or allude to.

Example: the Royal Navy is referred to as the Senior Service (I think this fits your explanations)

Example: Of course there is a slight disagreement as to who these words refer to ( I think this fits your explanations)


1.2. (refer to) (of a word, phrase, or symbol): describe or denote; have as a referent (I think this fits your explanations)

Example: Words that refer to kinds of things have definitions that describe the essences of those kinds.

Example: The word refers to a technique, usually a bomb, not an ideology (here the word is terrorism and I think fits your explanations).

What is the difference between these two very similar definitions of "refer"?

 

[jutfrank]

There is no important difference between 1. and 1.2.

1.1 is quite different, though.


Anyway, to sum up what I've said about reference: Use 'refer to something' only when the kind of meaning you want is reference.

That's very simple, right? Unfortunately, the use of the verb mean is much, much more complicated. That's because you can use it for nearly all other kinds of meaning, and there are many of them.

 

[hhtt21]

The skull and crossbones, the dollar sign and your username hhtt21 are all examples of signifiers. The corresponding signified things are: the concept of death, the US currency, and you, respectively. The relationship between the signifier and the signified is what we call 'meaning' in the semiotics sense of the word. In other words, signs communicate meaning.

Definition: reference: the relation between a referring expression (a word or phrase) and a referent (a person or thing in the world)

Example: Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.

In this example, both blue words are referring expressions. In this case, they are names of people, but the first refers to a real person, who died a long time ago, and the second refers to a real play which he wrote. The relationship between the words and the things is what we call 'reference'

A good way to understand reference is to imagine that you are pointing out something in the world with your finger. In the same way that your finger shows what you're pointing at, referring expressions show what you're referring to

One more question please. I am confused by my nickname here. Is it a reference for me, does it have a reference meaning, is it a referring expression? Or is it a "signifier" and has a "semiotic sense meaning"?

It seems both of your explanations apply. So hhtt23 is both a reference and a signifier, right?