The final chapter rounds off the discussion, highlighting the distinctive nature of argumentation in the development of functional grammars informed by SFL and the importance of assembling data as a corpus of texts designed on the basis of a linguistic theory of register and genre.

Chapter 5 explores transitivity systems and structures. It concentrates on the evidence used to motivate descriptions of paradigmatic relations. At stake here is the weight given to evidence of different kinds, including arguing from above, around and below. This chapter also foregrounds the cline of delicacy with respect to both system and structure, exploring what happens when general transitivity classes are explored in greater detail and issues that arise with respect to how much subclassification should be reflected in function structure labelling.

This chapter examines reference in a non-collaborative context. Despite the collaborative nature of referring, there are times when referring become problematic. Focussing specifically on problems in referring, we explore some of the reasons for problematic reference, including how the problems get resolved. The main focus of the chapter is on uses of reference in contexts which are discursively non-collaborative, despite shared common ground. This chapter makes a significant contribution by detailing how referring works when the speaker and addressee do not share goals and have no invested interest in a shared conceptualisation of the referent. We look at various examples from primarily legal contexts to extend our understanding of reference in these contexts. We show that collaboration is indeed needed even when the social relationship is adversarial but that the strategies for ratifying an expression differ depending on whether or not speaker and addressee share the same discourse goals.

This chapter examines reference in planned, deliberated language production. Using evidence from examples of institutional writing (writing text in academic, professional, and social settings), the effects of the written mode of production on referential choice, including evidence from keystroke logging methods which give us insight into revisions during the writing process. In comparison with spontaneous discourse, we demonstrate how the relatively low frequency of pronominal reference that is typical of spontaneous discourse is replaced with more complex referential expressions. We also consider whether referential choice is a feature of genre as we examine the referential profiles of different text types. The chapter concludes that referring expressions in prepared discourse tend to be more frequently information rich and consequently, the modification and qualification zones of the noun phrase are more active in this type of discourse.

We have indeed come to the end of our work. In preparing this volume, we hoped to address the need for an integrated approach to referring, one that brings together functional grammar and cognitive linguistics within a model of context and one that is informed by empirical evidence. We wanted to offer our perspective on building bridges between the traditional literature on reference and more usage-based functional approaches to language. Most of all, we felt there was a need to provide an account of atypical uses of reference given that most literature on reference concentrates on typical reference, frequently using isolated expressions or experimental tasks. What we hope we have shown throughout the volume is that referring expressions matter.

This chapter provides a detailed account of the atypical use of a certain type of indefinite referring expression. Contrary to the established view that indefinite expressions cannot be used for uniquely identifiable reference, we show that this is not always the case. Using written texts from opinion writing in newspaper discourse, we detail how writers can create an adequately definite shared space with their readers to allow an indefinite expression to be understood as referring to an established entity. The cotextual and contextual scaffolding put in place by the writer is sufficient for the indefinite expression to be understood as identifiable. The chapter also discusses the reasons why a writer would want to override normal accessibility considerations. Writers use these atypical expressions to ensure the association to an old, identifiable referent remains explicit by exploiting contextually and co-textually established information which is tied to the context or ongoing discourse.

This chapter examines typical uses of referring expressions in spontaneous discourse by building on the concept of context of situation and considering how parameters of register establish a framework for reference variation. We formulate a way to capture distinctions between what we can claim about typical referring expressions which approximate spontaneous production as compared to typical referring expressions when more planning and revising are involved. Focussing specifically on mode of production, our account of spontaneous reference is first situated by contextual parameters, and then described using evidence from examples attested in spontaneous discourse. This spontaneous vs planned distinction is useful for the study of reference, but we argue against a strict division. Typical reference in spontaneous discourse is shown to rely on highly accessible and in focus referents, which makes it easier for acts of reference to be successful and which reduces the cognitive load of the speaker and addressee.

This chapter unpacks the complex stitching that makes up the reference tapestry by reviewing theories of indefiniteness and definiteness and by examining the complex issues of in-/definiteness. The chapter argues that definiteness is a speaker-centred concept, including whether the speaker expects the addressee able to share a sufficiently similar conceptualisation of the referent and that the entire discourse event contributes to the establishment of an entity as definite or not. For this reason, we argue for the separation of reference (function) from the expression (form). An indefinite expression (form) can be used for definite reference (function) and a definite expression (form) can be used for indefinite reference (function). There is no one-to-one relationship between the lexicogrammatical realisation of the expression and its function in an act of reference. The chapter includes discussion of various types of referential choice including lexical expressions, pronouns, and proper names.