If words are used to refer, it is inaccurate to say that words refer. They don't and I don't even see how they possibly could. The notion that words refer is only a short cut and it is misleading to claim it's accurate.
Whether I roll a rock down a hill or whether an earthquake causes a rock to roll down a hill, it's true that the rock is rolling.
Consider, now, my rolling a marble across a tabletop. There may be this mistaken thought at play that there's an implication that it's false the marble is rolling since not things but rather people (and able-bodied conscious entities--animals, insects, etc) do things. When language misleads us to think there's an implication, we should make sure it's not just suggestive. In logic, we must be mindful of the difference between an implication and suggestion. Saying I don't like black people suggests I'm prejudice, but it doesn't imply that I am, as I may not like white people either.
Words denote meaning. Of course, it's true that we use words to denote meaning, but that truth (seemingly and suggestively more accurate) does not therefore make it false that words denote meaning. To say it does may suggest that it's the word and not the person doing something, but the implication, I submit, is absent. We must consider the possibility that nonconscious entities do things. That word, "do" can be tricky. Trees grow. Is the tree doing something? You may want to argue that it's not doing something but rather something is happening to them. Fair enough, but what about the tires on the upside down car after crashing? The tires are spinning. No, that's not shorthand for someone turned their vehicle over causing the tires to spin, true as that may be. Tires do spin. To say as much may in your mind suggest something, but in absence of that implication, we should accept that the word, "do" does not invoke conscious action on part of an inanimate object.
Words refer. Yes, they do. That's one reason we have something called referring terms. The truth that people may intentionally use a term to refer is wholly irrelevant as to whether they do.
Talented little fellows? No! To say they do may suggest they are, but they aren't. Why say they do? Because it's true they do. How, if they (words themselves) are incapable of thought? That's where understanding language comes in. We shouldn't be taken in by the mistaken thought that saying such things implies the things one may think.
