Abstract
Quotation has been much studied in philosophy. Given that quotation allows one to diagonalize out of any grammar, there have been comparatively few attempts within the linguistic literature to develop an account within a formal linguistic theory. Nonetheless, given the ubiquity of quotation in natural language, linguists need to explicate the formal mechanisms it employs. The central claim of this paper is that once one assumes a dialogical perspective on language such as provided by the KoS (KoS is not an acronym, despite emphasizing a Konversationally Oriented Semantics) framework, formalized in a rich type theory like Type Theory with Records, much of the mystery evaporates. In particular, one can utilize as denotations for quotative constructions entities that are independently motivated for dialogue processing—utterance types and locutionary propositions, Austinian propositions about speech events.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Everett (2012) claims that Pira h̃ a lacks indirect quotation.
We limit our discussion and treatment here to ‘pure’, ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ quotation, putting aside the recently much discussed ‘mixed’ and ‘scare’ quotation. We believe the account we develop can be extended to these, but that remains a future project.
The locus classicus for this view is Quine: ‘Take quotation marks: applied to any sort of expression, what they produce is a singular term (naming, as it happens, the expression inside)’ (Quine 1960). Geurts and Maier (2005) say: ‘If the quotation is a ‘pure’ one, it denotes a linguistic expression and its semantic type may differ from that of the quoted expression. For example, in [the example ‘Monosyllabic’ is not monosyllabic.] quotation maps the semantic type of the adjective ‘monosyllabic’ to that of singular terms, and the resulting expression denotes the word ‘monosyllabic’.
We will ignore the possibility that texts can be regarded abstractly as types of physical manifestations, although we find this plausible.
See also the following from the economist Brad DeLong:
It is conventional–at least in the circles in which I travel–to clean-up transcripts. Raw human speech looks silly in print. You eliminate the “ummms” and the “you knows” and the false starts. You collapse into one grammatical sentence those times when people start a sentence, go back and start it again, and then go back and start it again and finally finish it.
The convention is to edit the transcription of what they said into something different–into what they would have written if they had been not speaking but writing, sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph, and editing as they go.
But this seems to go rather beyond that, so much so as to convey a substantially distorted impression of how the symposium actually went \(\ldots \)
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/12/thursday-idiocy-weblogging.html.
Note that \(r\) may contain more objects with labels not mentioned in the type.
The convention is that a field
is used as a convenient notation for
where \(T_a\) is the type \(T\) restricted to a singleton type whose only witness is \(a\). This is why the apparent asymmetry between the ‘phon’ and ‘c-params’ fields on the one hand, and the ‘cat’ and ‘cont’ fields is merely notational.
\(Moves\) is the component of the dialogue gameboard where grounded utterances are represented.
Of course there is a bit of a chicken/egg issue here, given that direct quotation is one of the mechanisms that gets language off the ground.
In order to accommodate quotations of non-linguistic events, we would simply need to modify our characterization of the type of the head daughter as being grammatical to a somewhat wider class of types. Such types would certainly have a field for \(phon\) and might also have a field for \(cont\).
An anonymous reviewer for the Journal of Logic, Language, and Information asks whether by invoking similarity measures we are not rendering our proposal to be unfalsifiable. S/he writes ‘Suppose that John gave a lecture, and somebody asks Peter about the lecture, how it was. Peter: John said: ‘blablabla’. Can ’blablabla’ stand for the content of John’s lecture? If not, how is it blocked in the model?’ On our account the truth of Peter’s report requires an utterance of ‘blablabla’ to be similar to the sequence of utterances that made up John’s lecture, relative to a contextually given similarity measure. A number of similarity measures we have mentioned above would not accommodate such similarity, e.g., one based on identity of content and a fortiori on identity of form. In fact, a measure of similarity that would make Peter’s report true would need to be very coarse grained, essentially one that made all utterances of a given language similar, as for instance when one hears a lecture in a language one does not understand or when one wishes to convey that, for all intents and purposes what someone has said is contentless.
Additional axioms need to be met but they need not concern us here.
And to this one should add, as noted by Bonami and Godard (2008), the existence of predicates incompatible with direct quotation complements. But we will not attempt to capture this pattern here, which extends to verbs of cognition—an analogy much emphasized by Recanati.
-
(i)
Bill thought to himself ‘What a guy I am’.
-
(ii)
#Bill knew ‘What a guy I am’. (cf. We all know what an impressive candidate Bo is.)
-
(i)
And we could extend this somewhat to allow for speech events like, say, grunts that might not be illocutionary in a strict sense.
See Asher (2011) for such a type theoretic framework, though it is not integrated with the discourse semantics, in contrast to TTR/KoS.
References
Asher, N. (2011). Lexical meaning in context: A web of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. J. O. Urmson (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1950). Philosophical papers. In J. Urmson & G. J. Warnock (Eds.), Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barwise, J., & Etchemendy, J. (1987). The liar. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
Bonami, O., & Godard, D. (2008). On the syntax of direct quotation in French. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar (pp. 358–377).
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 482–493.
Cappelen, H. & Lepore, E. (2012). Quotation. In: Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/quotation/.
Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805.
Cooper, R. (2012). Type theory and semantics in flux. In R. Kempson, N. Asher, & T. Fernando (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science, Vol 14: Philosophy of linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cooper, R. (2013a). Clarification and generalized quantifiers. Dialogue and Discourse, 4, 1–25.
Cooper, R. (2013b). Type theory, interaction and the perception of linguistic and musical events. In M. Orwin, C. Howes, & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language, music and interaction, communication, mind and language (Vol. 3). London: College Publications.
Cooper, R., & Larsson, S. (2009). Compositional and ontological semantics in learning from corrective feedback and explicit definition. In J. Edlund, J. Gustafson, A. Hjalmarsson, & G. Skantze (Eds.), Proceedings of DiaHolmia: 2009 workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue (pp. 59–66). KTH: Department of Speech, Music and Hearing.
Cooper, R., & Ranta, A. (2008). Natural languages as collections of resources. In R. Cooper & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, communication, mind and language (Vol. 1, pp. 109–120). London: College Publications.
Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision, 11(1), 27–40.
De Brabanter, P. (2010). The semantics and pragmatics of hybrid quotations. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(2), 107–120.
de Cornulier, B. (1978). \({\text{ L }^{\prime }}\)incise, la classe des verbes parenthétiques et le signe mimique. Cahier de linguistique, 8, 53–95.
de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. C. Bally & A. Séchehaye (Eds.). Lausanne and Paris: Payot.
Everett, D. (2012). Quotatives in wari’ and piraha: different strategies for reporting the contents of other minds. Slides from Bochum quotation workshop.
Geurts, B. (1999). Presuppositions and pronouns. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Geurts, B., & Maier, E. (2005). Quotation in context. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 17, 109–128.
Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ginzburg, J., & Cooper, R. (2004). Clarification, ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(3), 297–366.
Ginzburg, J., & Moradlou, S. (2013). The earliest utterances in dialogue: towards a formal theory of parent/child talk in interaction. In R. Fernández & A. Isard (Eds.), Proceedings of SemDial 2013 (DialDam). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Healey, P. (1997). Expertise or expertese? The emergence of task-oriented sub-languages. In M. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 301–306).
Healey, P. G. T., Swoboda, N., Umata, I., & King, J. (2007). Graphical language games: Interactional constraints on representational form. Cognitive Science, 31(2), 285–309.
Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. No. 42 in Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Larsson, S., & Cooper, R. (2009). Towards a formal view of corrective feedback. In A. Alishahi, T. Poibeau, & A. Villavicencio (Eds.), EACL: Proceedings of the workshop on cognitive aspects of computational language acquisition (pp. 1–9).
Maier, E. (2007). Mixed quotation: Between use and mention. In Proceedings of LENLS.
Martin-Löf, P. (1984). Intuitionistic type theory. Naples: Bibliopolis.
Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. New Haven: Yale University Press, Ed. and with an introduction by Richmond H. Thomason.
Nordström, B., Petersson, K., & Smith, J. M. (1990). Programming in Martin-Löf’s type theory. International series of monographs on computer science (Vol. 7). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pagin, P., & Westerståhl, D. (2010). Pure quotation and general compositionality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 381–415.
Partee, B. (1973). The syntax and semantics of quotation. A festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 410–418).
Postal, P. M. (2004). Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potts, C. (2007). The dimensions of quotation. In P. Jacobson & C. Barker (Eds.), Direct compositionality (pp 405–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Purver, M. (2006). Clarie: Handling clarification requests in a dialogue system. Research on Language and Computation, 6(2), 259–288.
Purver, M., Ginzburg, J., & Healey, P. (2001). On the means for clarification in dialogue. In J. van Kuppevelt & R. Smith (Ed.), Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue (pp. 235–256). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rodriguez, K., & Schlangen, D. (2004). Form, intonation and function of clarification requests in German task-oriented spoken dialogues. In J. Ginzburg & E. Vallduvi (Eds.), Proceedings of Catalog’04, The 8th workshop on the semantics and pragmatics of dialogue. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. M. (2003). Syntactic theory: A formal introduction (2nd ed.). Stanford: CSLI Publications. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/site/1575864002.html.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. London: Blackwell.
Werning, M. (2012). Making quotation transparent. Slides from Bochum quotation workshop.
Acknowledgments
Earlier versions of this work have been presented at the workshop Quotation: Perspectives from Philosophy & Linguistics, held in October 2012 in Bochum, and at UNILOG 2013, held in April 2013 in Rio de Janeiro. We would like to thank audiences there for their comments, in particular Yuri Gurevich, Stefano Predelli, François Recanati, and Markus Werning. For comments on this paper we would like to thank Olivier Bonami and two anonymous reviewers for the Journal of Logic, Language, and Information. We also wish to thank Marcos Lopes and Urszula Wybraniec-Skardowska for much help and encouragement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported in part by VR project 2009-1569, Semantic analysis of interaction and coordination in dialogue (SAICD), by the Lab(oratory of )Ex(cellence)-EFL (ANR/CGI), and by the Disfluency, Exclamations, and Laughter in Dialogue (DUEL) project within the projets franco-allemand en sciences humaines et sociales funded by the ANR and the DFG.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ginzburg, J., Cooper, R. Quotation via Dialogical Interaction. J of Log Lang and Inf 23, 287–311 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-014-9200-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-014-9200-5