Scare-Quoting and Incorporation

  • Mark McCullagh
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 15)


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.


  1. Abbott, B. (2005). Some notes on quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H. (Eds.). (1989). Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22, 327–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, S. (1984). The complete stylist and handbook (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  6. Benbaji, Y. (2004). A demonstrative analysis of “open quotation”. Mind & Language, 19, 534–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birchfield, R. W. (2004). Fowler’s modern English usage (3rd ed.). Clarendon Press. First edition edited by Henry Fowler.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Brandom, R. (1983). Asserting. Nous, 17, 637–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Braun, D. (1996). Demonstratives and their linguistic meanings. Nous, 30, 145–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106, 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Varieties of quotation revisited. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2007). Language turned on itself: The semantics and pragmatics of metalinguistic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chicago. (1982). The Chicago manual of style (13th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chicago. (2010). The Chicago manual of style (16th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cumming, S. (2005). Two accounts of indexicals in mixed quotation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davidson, D. (1963). Actions, reasons, and causes. Journal of Philosophy, 60, 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. De Brabanter, P. (2005). Introduction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Brabanter, P. (2013). A pragmaticist feels the tug of semantics: Recanati’s “Open quotation revisited”. teorema, 32, 129–147.Google Scholar
  23. Ehrlich, E., & Murphy, D. (1991). The HarperCollins concise dictionary of English usage. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  24. Fowler, H. W. (1926). A dictionary of modern english usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Garcıa-Carpintero, M. (2005). Double-duty quotation: The deferred ostension account. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Georgi, G. (2015). Logic for languages containing referentially promiscuous expressions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44, 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2005). Quotation in context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibaldi, J. (1998). MLA style manual and guide to scholarly publishing (2nd ed.). New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Grunwald, M. (2012). The new new deal: The hidden story of change in the Obama Era. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  33. Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language, 61, 121–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives. In Almog et al. (1989), 481–614.Google Scholar
  36. Kaplan, D. (1989). Afterthoughts. In Almog et al. (1989), 567–614.Google Scholar
  37. Keeley, B. (2010). The book of unnecessary quotation marks. San Francisco: Chronicle.Google Scholar
  38. Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., & Gabbay, D. (2001). Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Kierzek, J. M. (1977). The Macmillan handbook of English (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Sixth edition revised by Robert F. Willson, Jr.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Kotkin, S. (2014). Stalin: Volume I: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928. Penguin.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Lewis, D. (1983). Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Maier, E. (2015). Quotation and unquotation in free indirect discourse. Mind & Language, 30, 345–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCarten, J. (2013). The Canadian press stylebook (17th ed.). Canadian Press.Google Scholar
  46. Neale, S. (1999). Coloring and composition. In K. Murasugi & R. Stainton (Eds.), Philosophy and linguistics (pp. 35–82). Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Poplack, S., & Sankoff, D. (1984). Borrowing: The synchrony of integration. Linguistics, 22, 99–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In C. Barker & P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp. 405–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Predelli, S. (2003). Scare quotes and their relation to other semantic issues. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Predelli, S. (2005). ‘Subliminable’ messages, scare quotes, and the use hypothesis. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An essay on metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Recanati, F. (2001). Open quotation. Mind, 110, 637–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Saka, P. (1998). Quotation and the use-mention distinction. Mind, 107, 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Saka, P. (2013). Quotation. Philosophy Compass, 8, 935–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Segal, G. (1990). In the mood for a semantic theory. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 91, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shan, C.-c. (2010). The character of quotation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 417–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stanley, J., & Williamson, T. (1995). Quantifiers and context-dependence. Analysis, 55, 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stilman, A. (2010). Grammatically correct: The essential guide to spelling, style, usage, grammar, and punctuation. Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books.Google Scholar
  65. Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage (3rd ed.). Oxford Uinversity Press.Google Scholar
  66. Todd, L., & Hancock, I. (1986). International English usage. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Williamson, T. (1996). Knowing and asserting. Philosophical Review, 105, 489–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations