Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 381–415

Pure quotation and general compositionality

Research Article

Abstract

Starting from the familiar observation that no straightforward treatment of pure quotation can be compositional in the standard (homomorphism) sense, we introduce general compositionality, which can be described as compositionality that takes linguistic context into account. A formal notion of linguistic context type is developed, allowing the context type of a complex expression to be distinct from those of its constituents. We formulate natural conditions under which an ordinary meaning assignment can be non-trivially extended to one that is sensitive to context types and satisfies general compositionality. As our main example we work out a Fregean treatment of pure quotation, but we also indicate that the method applies to other kinds of context, e.g. intensional contexts.

Keywords

Quotation Compositionality General Compositionality Linguistic context 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barker C., Jacobson P. (2007) Direct compositionality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Cappelen H., LePore E. (2007) Language turned on itself. The semantics and pragmatics of metalinguistic discourse. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Cappelen, H., & LePore, E. (2008). Quotation. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Winter 2008.Google Scholar
  4. Clark H., Gerrig R. (1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4): 764–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision, 11, 27–40. (Reprinted in Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation (pp. 79–92). Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  6. Dowty D. (2007) Compositionality as an empirical problem. In: Barker C., Jacobson P. (eds) Direct compositionality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 23–101Google Scholar
  7. Frege, G. (1892). Uber Sinn und Bedeutung. In P. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 56–78). Oxford: Blackwell; 1952.Google Scholar
  8. Frege, G. (1902). Letter to Russell 28.12 1902. In G. Gabriel (Ed.), Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel (pp. 234–237). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag; 1976.Google Scholar
  9. Geach P. (1957) Mental acts. Routledge Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Glüer K., Pagin P. (2006) Proper names and relational modality. Linguistics & Philosophy 29: 507–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glüer K., Pagin P. (2008) Relational modality. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17: 307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glüer, K., & Pagin, P. (2011). General terms and relational modality. Nous (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  13. Hodges W. (2001) Formal features of compositionality. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10: 7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaplan D. (1989) Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 481–566Google Scholar
  15. Kennedy C. (2007) Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics & Philosophy 30: 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger & S. Öhman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  17. Pagin P. (2005) Compositionality and context. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Contextualism in philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 303–348Google Scholar
  18. Pagin, P. (2010). General compositionality and belief sentences. Talk given at SPE 3, Paris, May 2010.Google Scholar
  19. Pagin, P. (unpublished). Compositionality, computability, and complexity. Manuscript, unpublished.Google Scholar
  20. Pagin, P. (to appear). Communication and the complexity of semantics. In W. Hinzen, E. Machery, & M. Werning (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pagin P., Westerståhl D. (2010a) Compositionality I: Definitions and variants. Philosophy Compass 5(3): 250–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pagin P., Westerståhl D. (2010b) Compositionality II: Arguments and problems. Philosophy Compass 5(3): 265–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parsons T. (1982) What do quotation marks name? Frege’s theory of quotations and that clauses. Philosophical Studies 42(3): 315–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Partee, B. H. (1984). Compositionality. In F. Landman & F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of formal semantics (pp. 281–311). Dordrecht: Foris. (Reprinted in Partee, B. H. (2004). Compositionality in formal semantics (pp. 153–181). Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  25. Potts C. (2007) The dimensions of quotation. In: Barker C., Jacobson P. (eds) Direct compositionality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 405–431Google Scholar
  26. Predelli S. (2008) The demonstrative theory of quotation. Linguistics & Philosophy 31(5): 555–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quine W. V. O. (1940) Mathematical logic. Harvard University Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. Quine W. V. O. (1960) Word and object. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. Recanati F. (2001) Open quotation. Mind, 110: 637–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Recanati F. (2008) Open quotation revisited. Philosophical Perspectives 22: 443–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Recanati, F. (to appear). Compositionality, flexibility and context-dependence. In W. Hinzen, E. Machery, & M. Werning (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Saka P. (1998) Quotation and the use-mention distinction. Mind 107: 113–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Searle J. (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Shan, C.-c. (2011). The character of quotation. Linguistics and Philosophy (this volume).Google Scholar
  35. Tarski A. (1952) The semantic conception of truth. In: Linsky L. (ed.) Semantics and the philosophy of language. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp 13–47Google Scholar
  36. Tarski, A. (1983). The concept of truth in formalized languages. In Logic, semantics, metamathematics (2nd ed., pp. 152–278). Indianapolis: Hackett; 1983.Google Scholar
  37. Washington C. (1992) The identity theory of quotation. The Journal of Philosophy 89: 582–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Werning, M. (2005). Right and wrong reasons for compositionality. In E. Machery, M. Werning, & G. Schurz (Eds.), The compositionality of meaning and content: Foundational issues (Vol. I, pp. 285–309). Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
  39. Westerståhl D. (1998) On mathematical proofs of the vacuity of compositionality. Linguistics & Philosophy 21: 635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Westerståhl D. (2002) On the compositionality of idioms; an abstract approach. In: Barker-Plummer D. et al (eds) Words, proofs, and diagrams. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 241–271Google Scholar
  41. Westerståhl D. (2004) On the compositional extension problem. Journal of Philosophical Logic 33: 549–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Westerståhl, D. (to appear). Compositionality in Kaplan style semantics. In W. Hinzen, E. Machery, & M. Werning (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Linguistics, and Theory of ScienceStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations