UNIT 8 WORDS AND THINGS: EXTENSIONS AND PROTOTYPES Entry requirements SENSE and

REFERENCE (Unit 3), PREDICATE (Unit 5), IDENTIFYING the REFERENT of a REFERRING
EXPRESSION and UNIVERSE of DISCOURSE (Unit 6). If you feel you understand these notions,
take the entry test below. If not, review the relevant unit(s). Entry test (1) Which of the
following most appropriately describes reference? Circle your preference. (a) Reference is a
relationship between sentences and the world. (b) Reference is a relationship between certain
uttered expressions and things in the world. (c) Reference is a relationship between certain
uttered expressions and certain things outside the context of the utterance. (2) Which of the
following is a correct statement about sense? (a) All words in a language may be used to refer,
but only some words have sense. (b) If two expressions have the same reference, they always
have the same sense. (c) The sense of an expression is its relationship to semantically equivalent
or semantically related expressions in the same language. (3) How do hearers identify the
referent of a referring expression (other than a proper name) – (a) by seeking in the context of
the utterance some object to which the predicates in the referring expression apply? (b) by
sharing with the speaker a conventional system according to which each possible referring
expression has a single agreed referent? (c) by telepathy – reading the speaker’s mind? (4)
Which of the following words are predicates? Circle your choices. Henry, square, expensive, and,
under, not, love (5) Which of the following is correct? (a) The universe of discourse is a part of
the context of an utterance. (b) The context of an utterance is a part of the universe of
discourse. (c) The universe of discourse is the whole real world. PART TWO From reference . . .
80 Feedback (1) (b) (2) (c) (3) (a) (4) square, expensive, under, love (5) (b) If you have scored at
least 4 out of 5 correct, continue to the introduction. Otherwise, review the relevant unit.
Introduction We have outlined the basic distinction between sense and reference (Unit 3) and
explored details of the use of reference (Units 4–7). In subsequent units (9–11) we will develop
the idea of sense in similar detail. The present unit will act as a bridge between the preceding
units on reference and the following units on sense, introducing several notions, including
extension and prototype, which in certain ways bridge the conceptual and theoretical gap
between sense and reference. In other words, we are going to try to pin down more specifically
how the notions of sense and reference are related to each other in determining the meaning of
a linguistic expression. To show what we mean when we talk of a ‘gap’ between reference and
sense, we look first at the question of how much a knowledge of the reference of referring
expressions actually helps a speaker in producing and understanding utterances which describe
the world he lives in. Practice (1) In the case of expressions with constant reference, such as the
Sun or the Moon, could a speaker be said to know what they refer to simply by having
memorized a permanent connection in his mind between each expression and its referent? Yes /
No (2) In the case of expressions with variable reference, such as the man or the middle of the
road, could a speaker be said to know what they refer to by having memorized a permanent
connection in his mind between each expression and its referent? Yes / No (3) How, in a given
situation, would you know that in saying ‘the cat’ I was not referring to a man sitting in an
armchair, or to a book in his hand, or to the clock on the mantelpiece? (Remember, from your
answer to question (2), that it cannot be because you have memorized a connection between
the expression the cat and some particular object, a cat, in the
world.) .......................................................................................................................... (4) Might it
seem reasonable to say, in the case of a referring expression with variable reference, such as the
cat, that a speaker has memorized a connection between the expression and a set, or type, of
the expression’s potential referents? Yes / No (5) How many potential referents are there for
the expression the
cat? .......................................................................................................................... UNIT 8 Words
and things: extensions and prototypes 81 Feedback (1) Yes (2) No, because for such expressions
there is no single referent with which the speaker could establish a permanent connection in his
mind. (3) Because you know that the expression the cat can only refer to a cat, and not to
anything which is not a cat, and you know that men, books, and clocks are not cats. (4) Yes (5) As
many as there are (or have been, or will be) cats in the world – certainly a very large number.
Comment The point that we are spelling out here is that someone who knows how to use the
word cat has an idea of the potential set of objects that can be referred to as cats, i.e. he has
some concept of the set of all cats. (This idea or concept may only be a vague, or fuzzy, one, but
we will come back to that point later.) This leads us to the notion of the extension of a
predicate. Definition The EXTENSION of a one-place predicate is the set of all individuals to
(partial) which that predicate can truthfully be applied. It is the set of things which can
POTENTIALLY be referred to by using an expression whose main element is that predicate.
Example The extension of window is the set of all windows in the universe. The extension of dog
is the set of all dogs in the universe. The extension of house is the set of all houses. The
extension of red is the set of all red things. Comment In the case of most frequent common
nouns, at least, an extension is a set of physical objects. Thus, extension contrasts with sense,
since a sense is not a set of anything. And extension contrasts with referent, since a referent is
normally an individual thing, not a set of things. Beside these contrasts, the notion of extension
has similarities to that of sense, on the one hand, and to that of reference, on the other.
Extension is like sense, and unlike reference, in that it is independent of any particular occasion
of utterance. Speakers refer to referents on particular occasions, but words which have sense
and extension have them ‘timelessly’. On the other hand, extension is like reference and unlike
sense, in that it connects a linguistic unit, such as a word or expression, to something non-
linguistic (i.e. outside language) be it a set of physical objects or an individual physical object, or
a set of abstract entities (e.g. songs, distances) or an individual abstract object (e.g. a particular
song, a specific distance). Practice (1) In the light of the above comment, fill in the chart with ‘ ’
and ‘’ signs to indicate the differences and similarities between these three concepts. Sense
Extension Reference Involves a set Independent of particular occasions or utterance Connects
language to the world PART TWO From reference . . . 82 (2) A B Which of the two pictures would
more informatively be captioned: ‘part of the extension of the word cat’? A / B (3) Might the
other picture appropriately be captioned: ‘the referent of “Jaime Lass’ present eldest cat”,
uttered on January 1st 1983’? (Assume that there is someone named Jaime Lass who owned
cats at that time.) Yes / No (4) Could the expression her cat, uttered on different occasions with
different topics of conversation, have a number of different referents? Yes / No (5) Would each
object (each separate animal, that is) referred to by the expression her cat on separate
occasions belong to the extension of the word cat? Yes / No (6) Could both pictures actually be
labelled: ‘part of the extension of the word cat’ (though to do so might not immediately clarify
the notions involved)? Yes / No Feedback (1) (2) B (3) Yes (4) Yes (5) Yes (6) Yes, since any
individual cat belongs to the set of all cats. Comment The notions of reference and extension are
clearly related, and are jointly opposed to the notion of sense. The relationship usually
envisaged between sense, extension, and reference can be summarized thus: (1) A speaker’s
knowledge of the sense of a predicate provides him with an idea of its extension. For example,
the ‘dictionary definition’ which the speaker accepts for cat can be used to decide what is a cat,
and what is not, thus defining implicitly the set of all cats. Some semanticists describe this
relationship between sense and extension by saying that the sense of a predicate ‘fixes’ the
extension of that predicate. (2) The referent of a referring expression used in a particular
utterance is an individual member of the extension of the predicate used in the expression; the
context of the utterance usually helps the hearer to identify which particular member it is. For
example, if any English speaker,