Abstract
In saying that “A&B” is logically equivalent to “B&A”, I use strict quotation to assert equivalence between two specific formulas of propositional logic. In saying that ⌜A&B⌝ is equivalent to ⌜B&A⌝, I use quasi-quotation and metavariables to assert equivalence between any conjunction and its reversal. In the case of quasi-quotation, select elements of the quotation are unquoted, unquotations being those elements, inside of quotation marks, that are read as if they are not inside. Unquotation and quasi-quotation are found also in natural language, e.g.: when asked who they are, they say “I am from such-and-such a village.”
Quasi-quotation is ubiquitous in both the technical literature and ordinary speech, but it is hardly acknowledged; much less is it explained, and the few accounts that do exist are circular. I therefore describe quasi-quotation, distinguishing among its varieties, and I sketch a speech-act analysis of the phenomena. Although distinct varieties of quasi-quotation can be identified, they all depend on the speaker’s ability to distinguish between using expressions and mentioning them, with interpretation following preference or default rules that call for discretionary exercise.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
In this paper I use italics and regular quotation marks as logically interchangeable notational variants.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
Quine does say that the Greek letters may be compared to ambiguous numerals only roughly speaking, but my point is that Greek letters are really nothing like ambiguous terms.
- 5.
Note for non-American readers: every US schoolchild is exposed to images of the Declaration of Independence, with its florid calligraphy, and learns its text: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ... with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
- 6.
- 7.
According to Gomez-Torrente (2005: 144), bracketed material and ellipses “do not make any sort of truth-conditional contribution” to the quotations they are in. Surely, however, they affect what thought gets expressed by an assertion, and it is this thought that is relevant when we consider linguistic meaning.
- 8.
A version of this material was presented at the Semantics and Philosophy in Europe conference (Bochum, 2010). I am grateful to its organizers and audience, and to Stan Dubinsky, Michael Johnson, Julia Jorgensen, and anonymous reviewers for comments. This work is dedicated to the memory of Laurence Goldstein.
References
Anderson, L., & Lepore, E. (2013). Slurring words. Nous, 47, 25–48.
Atlas, J. (2005). Logic, meaning, and conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805.
Dubinsky, S., & Hamilton, R. (1998). Epithets as antilogophoric pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 685–693.
Field, H. (2001). Truth and the absence of fact. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forbes, G. (1994). Modern logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garcia-Carpintero, M. (2017). Reference and reference-fixing in pure quotation. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 169–194). Cham: Springer.
Gomez-Torrente, M. (2005). Remarks on impure quotation. In P. De Brabanter (Ed.), Hybrid quotations (pp. 129–151). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Gregoromichelaki, E. (2017). Quotation in dialogue. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 195–256). Cham: Springer.
Grover, D., & Belnap, N., Jr. (1973). Quantifying in and out of quotes. In H. Lablanc (Ed.), Truth, syntax and modality. Cham: Reidel. Reprinted in Grover, A Pro-sentential theory of truth, Princeton University Press, 1992.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2005). Default semantics, foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jaszczolt, K. M., & Huang, M. (2017). Monsters and I: The case of mixed quotation. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 357–382). Cham: Springer.
Johnson, M. (2017). Quotation through history. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 281–302). Cham: Springer.
Koev, T. (2017). Quotational indefinites. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 35, 367–396.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.
Lehrer, A. (1989). Remembering and representing prose. Discourse Processes, 12, 105–125.
Ludwig, K., & Ray, G. (2017). Unity in the variety of quotation. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp. 99–134). Cham: Springer.
Maier, E. (2014). Mixed quotation: the grammar of apparently transparent opacity. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7, 1–67.
Maier, E. (2017). The pragmatics of attraction: Explaining unquotation in direct and free indirect discourse. In P. Saka & M. Johnson (Eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of quotation (pp.259–280). Cham: Springer.
Mates, B. (1972). Elementary logic, 2d edn. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Manicas, P., & Kruger, A. (1968). Essentials of logic. New York: American Book Company.
Marciszewski, W. (1981). Dictionary of logic as applied in the study of language. Cham: Springer.
McKay, T. (1989). Modern formal logic. New York: Macmillan.
Partee, B. (1984). Compositionality. In F. Landman and F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics (pp. 281–312). Cham: Foris Publications.
Pullum, G. (1984). Punctuation and human freedom. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2, 419–425.
Quine, W. (1961). Mathematical logic (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.
Saka, P. (1998). Quotation and the use-mention distinction. Mind, 107, 113–135.
Saka, P. (2005). Quotational constructions. In P. De Brabanter (Ed.), Hybrid quotations (pp. 187–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Saka, P. (2007). How to think about meaning. Cham: Springer.
Saka, P. (2010). Rarely pure and never simple: Tensions in the theory of truth. Topoi, 29, 125–136.
Saka, P. (2011). The act of quotation. In E. Brendel, J. Meibauer, & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Understanding quotation (pp. 303–322). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Saka, P. (2018). Superman semantics. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & P. Perconti (Eds.), Further advances in pragmatics and philosophy. Cham: Springer.
Schiller, F. (1912). Formal logic. London: Macmillan.
Shan, C.-C. (2010). The character of quotation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 417–443.
Smullyan, R. (1962). Fundamentals of logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Sudo, Y. (2013). Metalinguistic quantification: Evidence from Japanese wh-doublets. http://web.mit.edu/ysudo/www/pdf/quotation5.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Saka, P. (2017). Blah, blah, blah: Quasi-quotation and Unquotation. In: Saka, P., Johnson, M. (eds) The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68747-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68747-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68746-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68747-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)