Scare-Quoting and Incorporation
Abstract
I explain a mechanism I call “incorporation,” that I think is at work in a wide range of cases often put under the heading of “scare-quoting.” Incorporation is flagging some words in one’s own utterance to indicate that they are to be interpreted as if uttered by some other speaker in some other context, while supplying evidence to one’s interpreter enabling them to identify that other speaker and context. This mechanism gives us a way to use others’ vocabularies and contexts, thereby extending our expressive capacities on the fly.
Explaining incorporation involves explaining intra-sentential shifts in lexicon and in context. Shifts of the former sort are familiar to linguists under the heading of “code-switching.” Shifts of the latter sort have been less explored; accordingly I explain how to modify Kaplan’s logic of demonstratives to allow for such shifts.
I compare the incorporation account of scare-quoting with accounts offered by Brandom, Recanati, Geurts and Maier, Benbaji, Predelli, and Shan. Finally I note a possible implication concerning the speech act of assertion: that you can properly assert a content you do not believe, let alone know, because part of it is expressed with words you do not understand.
References
- Abbott, B. (2005). Some notes on quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H. (Eds.). (1989). Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Baker, S. (1984). The complete stylist and handbook (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
- Benbaji, Y. (2004). A demonstrative analysis of “open quotation”. Mind & Language, 19, 534–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Birchfield, R. W. (2004). Fowler’s modern English usage (3rd ed.). Clarendon Press. First edition edited by Henry Fowler.Google Scholar
- Boyd, J. P., Cullen, C. T., Catanzariti, J., Oberg, B. B., et al. (Eds.). (1950). The papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Brandom, R. (1983). Asserting. Nous, 17, 637–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Braun, D. (1996). Demonstratives and their linguistic meanings. Nous, 30, 145–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106, 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Varieties of quotation revisited. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2007). Language turned on itself: The semantics and pragmatics of metalinguistic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chicago. (1982). The Chicago manual of style (13th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Chicago. (2010). The Chicago manual of style (16th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cumming, S. (2005). Two accounts of indexicals in mixed quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. Journal of Philosophy, 60, 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and decision 11: 27–40. Reprinted in Inquiries Into Truth and Interpretation, 79–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- De Brabanter, P. (2005). Introduction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- De Brabanter, P. (2013). A pragmaticist feels the tug of semantics: Recanati’s “Open quotation revisited”. teorema, 32, 129–147.Google Scholar
- Ehrlich, E., & Murphy, D. (1991). The HarperCollins concise dictionary of English usage. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
- Fowler, H. W. (1926). A dictionary of modern english usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Frege, G. (1919). The thought: A logical inquiry. Beitra¨ge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus Translated by A. M. and Marcelle Quinton in Mind, 65, 289–311.Google Scholar
- Garcıa-Carpintero, M. (2005). Double-duty quotation: The deferred ostension account. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Georgi, G. (2015). Logic for languages containing referentially promiscuous expressions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44, 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2005). Quotation in context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gibaldi, J. (1998). MLA style manual and guide to scholarly publishing (2nd ed.). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
- Gomez-Torrente, M. (2017). Semantics vs pragmatics in impure quotation. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp.135–167). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
- Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Grunwald, M. (2012). The new new deal: The hidden story of change in the Obama Era. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61, 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johnson, M. (2017). Quotation through history: A historical case for the proper treatment of quotation. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp.281–302). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives. In Almog et al. (1989), 481–614.Google Scholar
- Kaplan, D. (1989). Afterthoughts. In Almog et al. (1989), 567–614.Google Scholar
- Keeley, B. (2010). The book of unnecessary quotation marks. San Francisco: Chronicle.Google Scholar
- Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., & Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Kierzek, J. M. (1977). The Macmillan handbook of English (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Sixth edition revised by Robert F. Willson, Jr.Google Scholar
- Kolbel, M. (2010). Literal force: A defence of conventional assertion. In S. Sawyer (Ed.), New waves in philosophy of language (pp. 108–137). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kotkin, S. (2014). Stalin: Volume I: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928. Penguin.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review, 88, 513–543. Reprinted in ‘Philosophical Papers’ (1983), (pp.133–159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. (1983). Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Maier, E. (2015). Quotation and unquotation in free indirect discourse. Mind & Language, 30, 345–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McCarten, J. (2013). The Canadian press stylebook (17th ed.). Canadian Press.Google Scholar
- Neale, S. (1999). Coloring and composition. In K. Murasugi & R. Stainton (Eds.), Philosophy and linguistics (pp. 35–82). Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
- Perrin, P. G., & Smith, G. H. (1968). Handbook of current English (3rd ed.). Atlanta: Scott, Foresman and Company. Third edition revised by Jim W. Corder.Google Scholar
- Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN ESPAN˜ OL: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Poplack, S., & Sankoff, D. (1984). Borrowing: The synchrony of integration. Linguistics, 22, 99–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 405–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Predelli, S. (2003). Scare quotes and their relation to other semantic issues. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Predelli, S. (2005). ‘Subliminable’ messages, scare quotes, and the use hypothesis. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Purver, M., & Kempson, R. (2004). Incrementality, alignment and shared utterances. In J. Ginzburg & E. Vallduvı (Eds.), Catalog ‘04: Proceedings of the eighth workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 85–92). Barcelona: Department of Translation and Philology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
- Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An essay on metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Recanati, F. (2001). Open quotation. Mind, 110, 637–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Saka, P. (1998). Quotation and the use-mention distinction. Mind, 107, 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Saka, P. (2013). Quotation. Philosophy Compass, 8, 935–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Segal, G. (1990). In the mood for a semantic theory. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 91, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shan, C.-c. (2010). The character of quotation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 417–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9, 315–322. Reprinted in ‘Context and content’ (1999), (pp. 78–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stanley, J., & Williamson, T. (1995). Quantifiers and context-dependence. Analysis, 55, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stilman, A. (2010). Grammatically correct: The essential guide to spelling, style, usage, grammar, and punctuation. Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books.Google Scholar
- Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage (3rd ed.). Oxford Uinversity Press.Google Scholar
- Todd, L., & Hancock, I. (1986). International English usage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Williamson, T. (1996). Knowing and asserting. Philosophical Review, 105, 489–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar