Philosophical Studies

, Volume 161, Issue 2, pp 207–225 | Cite as

Minimalism on quotation? Critical review of Cappelen and Lepore’s language turned on itself

  • Manuel García-Carpintero


Research on quotation has mostly focussed in the past years on “mixed” or “open” quotation. In a recent book-length discussion of the topic, Cappelen and Lepore have abandon their previous Davidsonian allegiances, proposing a new view that they describe as minimalist, to a good extend on the basis of facts concerning mixed quotation. In this paper I critically review Cappelen and Lepore’s new minimalist proposals, briefly outlining my preferred Davidsonian view as a useful foil. I explore first their allegedly non-Davidsonian, anti-contextualist views about pure quotation, and then their new views on mixed quotation. I have complained in the first place that their proposals are not presented as perspicuously as they should be; and in the second place that, when we have a clearer picture of what appears to be the favoured account, the differences with their previous proposals and others already in the literature are not as great as they claim.


Pure quotation Mixed quotation Demonstratives Direct discourse Presuppositions Conventional implicatures 



Financial support for my work was provided by the DGI, Spanish Government, research project FFI2010-16049 and Consolider-Ingenio project CSD2009-00056; through the award ICREA Academia for excellence in research, 2008, funded by the Generalitat de Catalunya; and by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/20072013 under grant agreement no. 238128. Thanks to José Luis Prades and an anonymous referee for helpful discussion of some topics in this review, and to Michael Maudsley for the grammatical revision.


  1. Braun, D. (2005). Empty names, fictional names, mythical names. Noûs, 39, 596–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106, 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1999). Using, mentioning and quoting: A reply to Saka. Mind, 108, 741–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2007). Language turned on itself. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cumming, S. (2005). Two accounts of indexicals in mixed quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision, 11, 27–40. (Reprinted in Davidson, D. (1984). Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  7. García-Carpintero, M. (1994). Ostensive signs: Against the identity theory of quotation. Journal of Philosophy, xci, 253–264.Google Scholar
  8. García-Carpintero, M. (1998). Indexicals as token-reflexives. Mind, 107, 529–563.Google Scholar
  9. García-Carpintero, M. (2004). The deferred ostension theory of quotation. Noûs, xxxviii(4), 674–692.Google Scholar
  10. García-Carpintero, M. (2005). Double-duty quotation: The deferred ostension account. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 89–106.Google Scholar
  11. García-Carpintero, M. (2006). Recanati on the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Crítica, 38, 35–68.Google Scholar
  12. García-Carpintero, M. (2007). Bivalence and what is said. Dialectica, 61, 167–190.Google Scholar
  13. García-Carpintero, M. (Forthcoming). Double-duty quotation, conventional implicatures and what is said. In E. Brendel, J. Meibauer & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Understanding quotation. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Mouton Series in Pragmatics 7).Google Scholar
  14. Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2005). Quotation in context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gómez Torrente, M. (2001). Quotation revisited. Philosophical Studies, 102, 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gómez Torrente, M. (2005). Remarks on impure quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Nunberg, G. (1993). Indexicals and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Potts, C. (2005a). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Potts, C. (2005b). Lexicalized intonational meaning. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 30, 129–146.Google Scholar
  21. Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 405–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Predelli, S. (2003). Scare quotes and their relation to other semantic issues. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Predelli, S. (2008). The demonstrative theory of quotation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 555–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Recanati, F. (2001). Open quotation. Mind, 110, 637–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reimer, M. (2005). Too counter-intuitive to believe? Pragmatic accounts of mixed quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tsohatzidis, S. (1998). The hybrid theory of mixed quotation. Mind, 107, 661–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22, 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Washington, C. (1992). The identity theory of quotation. Journal of Philosophy, LXXXIX, 582–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LOGOS-Departament de LògicaHistòria i Filosofia de la Ciència, Universitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations