Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Quotation Is Not a Semantic Phenomenon, and Why It Calls for a Pragmatic Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line

Part of the book series: Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning ((LARI,volume 11))

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Whenever suitable, I will write T for Theory.

  2. 2.

    I use the term ‘hybrid’ in a sense that is both broader and narrower than Clark and Gerrig (1990). For some discussion, see Sect. 14.5.2.

  3. 3.

    See Sect. 14.4.2 for versions of the Demonstrative T developed in order to deal with occurrences going beyond pure quotations.

  4. 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. 5.

    In the meantime, the situation has changed somewhat, with the advent of ‘gesture studies’.

  6. 6.

    I use utterance for any communicative act. The producer of an utterance is an utterer, whether or not words are said.

  7. 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. 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. 9.

    In spite of their similarities, there are significant differences between the theories of Geurts & Maier and Benbaji. Another important account is Predelli’s (2005). See De Brabanter (2010a) for discussion.

  10. 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. 11.

    For a more detailed discussion of quote marks and desirable features of quotation theories, see De Brabanter (2013b: 137–142).

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. (1988). Quotation. Noûs, 22, 399–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R. (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Julius Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106, 429–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Varieties of quotation revisited. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 51–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (2000). Explicature and semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17, 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, N. E. (1967). The alleged distinction between use and mention. Philosophical Review, 76, 358–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, S. (2005). Two accounts of indexicals in mixed quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision, 11, 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Brabanter, P. (2005a). Philosophes du langage et autonymie: une déjà longue histoire. Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage, 27–1, 9–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brabanter, P. (2005b). The impact of autonymy on the lexicon. Word, 56–2, 171–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brabanter, P. (2010a). The semantics and pragmatics of hybrid quotations. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(2), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Brabanter, P. (2013a). François Recanati’s radical pragmatic theory of quotation. Teorema, 32(2), 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brabanter, P. (2013b). A pragmaticist feels the tug of semantics: Recanati’s ‘open quotation revisited’. Teorema, 32(2), 129–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Carpintero, M. (2005). Double-duty quotation: The deferred ostension account. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2005). Quotation in context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Torrente, M. (2005). Remarks on impure quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klewitz, G., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1999). Quote-Unquote. The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Pragmatics, 9, 459–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Predelli, S. (2005). ‘Subliminable’ messages, scare quotes, and the use hypothesis. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O. (1940). Mathematical logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, F. (1979). La transparence et l’énonciation. Pour introduire à la pragmatique. Paris: Seuil, coll. L’ordre philosophique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An essay on metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, F. (2001). Open quotation. Mind, 110, 637–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, M. (2005). Too counter-intuitive to believe? Pragmatic accounts of mixed quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Debove, J. (1978). Le Métalangage. Etude linguistique du discours sur le langage. Paris: Le Robert.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shan, C.-c. (2011). The character of quotation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 417–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, H. S. (1958). Word-classes in modern English, with special references to proper names. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, E., & Clark, H. H. (1993). Reproduction and demonstration in quotation. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 805–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington, C. (1992). Identity theory of quotation. Journal of Philosophy, 89, 582–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. (1999). Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 11, 127–162.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Département de Langues et Littératures Modernes, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Philippe De Brabanter

Authors
  1. Philippe De Brabanter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe De Brabanter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CNRS, UMR 8163 – STL – Savoirs Textes Langage, Univ. Lille, Lille, France

    Ilse Depraetere

  2. School of Humanities, University of Brighton, Falmer, Brighton, United Kingdom

    Raphael Salkie

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation