Abstract
In this paper, I argue that quotation is not primarily a linguistic phenomenon. Linguistic productions are essentially symbolic, conventional, whereas quotations, in essence, are acts of iconic communication, i.e. ‘demonstrations’. As a consequence, any purely semantic account of the meaning of quotations—quotation are names, descriptions, demonstratives—is bound to be not only incomplete but flawed in key respects. Since most existing accounts of quotation are fundamentally semantic, they are also necessarily deficient, and therefore unsuitable as general, comprehensive theories of quotation. The ‘Depiction’ theory I defend is a pragmatic one at heart. That does not prevent it from also accounting for the truth-conditional effects of quotation pointed out in the literature (via such mechanisms as ‘syntactic recruitment’, ‘free pragmatic enrichment’, and ‘context-shifts’) and for certain morphosyntactic peculiarities of quoting expressions. The Depiction theory offers the best prospects for a theory that can (i) describe the empirical facts about quotation, (ii) help fix the boundaries of the phenomenon ‘quotation’, while (iii) doing justice to its iconic essence.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Whenever suitable, I will write T for Theory.
- 2.
- 3.
See Sect. 14.4.2 for versions of the Demonstrative T developed in order to deal with occurrences going beyond pure quotations.
- 4.
Interestingly, Christensen, an Identity theorist, rejected any ‘picture’ theory of quotation, on the grounds that a picture “is always different from what it pictures” (1967: 362). To his credit, Christensen took identity seriously. But that led him to make the wrong choice.
- 5.
In the meantime, the situation has changed somewhat, with the advent of ‘gesture studies’.
- 6.
I use utterance for any communicative act. The producer of an utterance is an utterer, whether or not words are said.
- 7.
For a more complete picture of a demonstration, using Recanati’s terminology (which improves on Clark & Gerrig’s in terms of accuracy), see De Brabanter (2013a: 111–115).
- 8.
In truth, the line is not easy to draw between supportive and incidental aspects. But that is true both for non-verbal demonstrations and for quotations. Hence, it does not undermine the claim that quotations are demonstrations.
- 9.
- 10.
From here on in, I will use the term hybrid as a noun designating that part of a descriptive string that is also (relevantly) accompanied by depiction. For a discussion of whether just any additional depiction generates a hybrid, see Sect. 14.5.2.
- 11.
For a more detailed discussion of quote marks and desirable features of quotation theories, see De Brabanter (2013b: 137–142).
- 12.
Maier (2014: 4–5) is the only semanticist I am aware of who recognises this explicitly.
References
Abbott, B. (2005). Some notes on quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 13–26.
Atkin, A. (2010). Peirce’s theory of signs. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/peirce-semiotics/
Benbaji, Y. (2005). Who needs semantics of quotation marks? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 27–49.
Bennett, J. (1988). Quotation. Noûs, 22, 399–418.
Carnap, R. (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Julius Springer.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106, 429–450.
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Varieties of quotation revisited. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 51–75.
Carston, R. (2000). Explicature and semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 1–44.
Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17, 127–148.
Christensen, N. E. (1967). The alleged distinction between use and mention. Philosophical Review, 76, 358–367.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805.
Cumming, S. (2005). Two accounts of indexicals in mixed quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 77–88.
Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision, 11, 27–40.
De Brabanter, P. (2005a). Philosophes du langage et autonymie: une déjà longue histoire. Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage, 27–1, 9–39.
De Brabanter, P. (2005b). The impact of autonymy on the lexicon. Word, 56–2, 171–200.
De Brabanter, P. (2010a). The semantics and pragmatics of hybrid quotations. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(2), 107–120.
De Brabanter, P. (2010b). Uttering sentences made up of words and gestures. In B. Soria & E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (pp. 199–216). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
De Brabanter, P. (2013a). François Recanati’s radical pragmatic theory of quotation. Teorema, 32(2), 109–128.
De Brabanter, P. (2013b). A pragmaticist feels the tug of semantics: Recanati’s ‘open quotation revisited’. Teorema, 32(2), 129–147.
García-Carpintero, M. (2005). Double-duty quotation: The deferred ostension account. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 89–108.
Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2005). Quotation in context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 109–128.
Gómez-Torrente, M. (2005). Remarks on impure quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 129–151.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klewitz, G., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Quote-Unquote. The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Pragmatics, 9, 459–485.
Maier, E. (2007). Quotation marks as monsters, or the other way around? In M. Aloni, P. Dekker, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 145–150). Amsterdam: ILLC.
Maier, E. (2014). Mixed quotation: The grammar of apparently transparent opacity. Semantics & Pragmatics, 7, Article 7: 1–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.7
Pascual, E. (2014). Fictive interaction. The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Predelli, S. (2005). ‘Subliminable’ messages, scare quotes, and the use hypothesis. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 153–166.
Quine, W. V. O. (1940). Mathematical logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Recanati, F. (1979). La transparence et l’énonciation. Pour introduire à la pragmatique. Paris: Seuil, coll. L’ordre philosophique.
Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An essay on metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Recanati, F. (2001). Open quotation. Mind, 110, 637–687.
Reimer, M. (2005). Too counter-intuitive to believe? Pragmatic accounts of mixed quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 167–186.
Rey-Debove, J. (1978). Le Métalangage. Etude linguistique du discours sur le langage. Paris: Le Robert.
Rosier-Catach, I. (2003). La suppositio materialis et la question de l’autonymie au Moyen Age. In J. Authier-Revuz, M. Doury, & S. Reboul-Touré (Eds.), Parler des mots, Le fait autonymique en discours (pp. 21–55). Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne nouvelle.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shan, C.-c. (2011). The character of quotation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 417–443.
Sørensen, H. S. (1958). Word-classes in modern English, with special references to proper names. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad Publisher.
Sørensen, H. S. (1961). An analysis of linguistic signs occurring in suppositio materialis or the meaning of quotation marks and their phonetic equivalents. Lingua, 10–2, 174–189.
Stainton, R. (1999). Remarks on the syntax and semantics of mixed quotation. In K. Murasugi & R. Stainton (Eds.), Philosophy and linguistics (pp. 259–278). Boulder: Westview Press.
Tarski, Alfred 19832 (1956). Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Papers from 1923 to 1938 (J. H. Woodger, Trans., 2nd edition edited and introduced by John Corcoran). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Wade, E., & Clark, H. H. (1993). Reproduction and demonstration in quotation. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 805–819.
Washington, C. (1992). Identity theory of quotation. Journal of Philosophy, 89, 582–605.
Wilson, D. (1999). Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 127–162.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to Emma Vanden Wyngaerd and to an anonymous reviewer for useful comments on previous drafts of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
De Brabanter, P. (2017). Why Quotation Is Not a Semantic Phenomenon, and Why It Calls for a Pragmatic Theory. In: Depraetere, I., Salkie, R. (eds) Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32245-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32247-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)