The slides of a presentation at the "New Developments in Linguistic Pragmatics" at the University of Lodz, poland, 2012.

1. Quoteless Quotations
Philippe De Brabanter
Univ. Paris 4-Sorbonne / Institut Jean Nicod

2. Quotation and quotation marks
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

3. Quotation and quotation marks
• Until recently, most researchers interested in quotation were
philosophers (e.g Carnap, Quine, Geach, Searle, Davidson, etc.)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

4. Quotation and quotation marks
• Until recently, most researchers interested in quotation were
philosophers (e.g Carnap, Quine, Geach, Searle, Davidson, etc.)
• Quote marks have always been important in philosophical theorising
on quotation.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

5. Quotation and quotation marks
• Until recently, most researchers interested in quotation were
philosophers (e.g Carnap, Quine, Geach, Searle, Davidson, etc.)
• Quote marks have always been important in philosophical theorising
on quotation.
- Initially, because they were promoted as a means of disambiguation
(cf. Quine’s use vs. mention).
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

6. Quotation and quotation marks
• Until recently, most researchers interested in quotation were
philosophers (e.g Carnap, Quine, Geach, Searle, Davidson, etc.)
• Quote marks have always been important in philosophical theorising
on quotation.
- Initially, because they were promoted as a means of disambiguation
(cf. Quine’s use vs. mention).
Boston is a large city vs. ‘Boston’ is disy#abic.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

7. Quotation and quotation marks
• Until recently, most researchers interested in quotation were
philosophers (e.g Carnap, Quine, Geach, Searle, Davidson, etc.)
• Quote marks have always been important in philosophical theorising
on quotation.
- Initially, because they were promoted as a means of disambiguation
(cf. Quine’s use vs. mention).
Boston is a large city vs. ‘Boston’ is disy#abic.
- Later, because quotation affects the truth-conditions of the ‘host’
clause.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

8. Quotation and quotation marks
• Until recently, most researchers interested in quotation were
philosophers (e.g Carnap, Quine, Geach, Searle, Davidson, etc.)
• Quote marks have always been important in philosophical theorising
on quotation.
- Initially, because they were promoted as a means of disambiguation
(cf. Quine’s use vs. mention).
Boston is a large city vs. ‘Boston’ is disy#abic.
- Later, because quotation affects the truth-conditions of the ‘host’
clause.
- And therefore appears to call for a semantic treatment.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

9. Quotation marks are necessary
• For a lot of theorists: quote marks = a necessary ingredient of
quotation (e.g. Quine, Davidson, Cappelen & Lepore, García-
Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente).
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

10. Quotation marks are necessary
• For a lot of theorists: quote marks = a necessary ingredient of
quotation (e.g. Quine, Davidson, Cappelen & Lepore, García-
Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente).
➡ Devising the right theory of quotation = attributing the right
conventional role/meaning to quotation marks
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

11. Quotation marks are necessary
• For a lot of theorists: quote marks = a necessary ingredient of
quotation (e.g. Quine, Davidson, Cappelen & Lepore, García-
Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente).
➡ Devising the right theory of quotation = attributing the right
conventional role/meaning to quotation marks
• Essentially, a theory of quotation becomes a semantics of quotation
marks.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

12. Quotation marks are necessary
• But is this a claim about surface structure?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

13. Quotation marks are necessary
• But is this a claim about surface structure?
- i.e. about marks that are visible or audible?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

14. Quotation marks are necessary
• But is this a claim about surface structure?
- i.e. about marks that are visible or audible?
• Or a claim about some level of structure beneath the surface?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

15. Quotation marks are necessary
• But is this a claim about surface structure?
- i.e. about marks that are visible or audible?
• Or a claim about some level of structure beneath the surface?
- with e.g. invisible/inaudible quotation marks?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

16. Quotation marks at the surface
• There are two issues here:
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

17. Quotation marks at the surface
• There are two issues here:
- quotations in writing
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

18. Quotation marks at the surface
• There are two issues here:
- quotations in writing
- quotations in speech
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

19. Quotation marks at the surface
• There are two issues here:
- quotations in writing
- quotations in speech
• We’ll start with some written data.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

20. Some written corpus data
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

21. Some written corpus data
• British National Corpus (BNC) accessed via (free online) BYU-
interface (Davies 2004-)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

22. Some written corpus data
• British National Corpus (BNC) accessed via (free online) BYU-
interface (Davies 2004-)
• Case 1: name is Y
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

23. Some written corpus data
• British National Corpus (BNC) accessed via (free online) BYU-
interface (Davies 2004-)
• Case 1: name is Y
• The Y often a string that mentions a linguistic object, i.e. a name!
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

24. Some written corpus data
• British National Corpus (BNC) accessed via (free online) BYU-
interface (Davies 2004-)
• Case 1: name is Y
• The Y often a string that mentions a linguistic object, i.e. a name!
• Means 1 of mentioning a name: use of an ‘autonym’ (Carnap, Rey-
Debove) for that name: “Giorgione” sounds scary.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

25. Some written corpus data
• British National Corpus (BNC) accessed via (free online) BYU-
interface (Davies 2004-)
• Case 1: name is Y
• The Y often a string that mentions a linguistic object, i.e. a name!
• Means 1 of mentioning a name: use of an ‘autonym’ (Carnap, Rey-
Debove) for that name: “Giorgione” sounds scary.
• Means 2: using a ‘heteronym’ (Recanati): That name sounds scary.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

26. Some written corpus data
• British National Corpus (BNC) accessed via (free online) BYU-
interface (Davies 2004-)
• Case 1: name is Y
• The Y often a string that mentions a linguistic object, i.e. a name!
• Means 1 of mentioning a name: use of an ‘autonym’ (Carnap, Rey-
Debove) for that name: “Giorgione” sounds scary.
• Means 2: using a ‘heteronym’ (Recanati): That name sounds scary.
• Both possible after name is, but easily distinguishable.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

27. Some written corpus data
• British National Corpus (BNC) accessed via (free online) BYU-
interface (Davies 2004-)
• Case 1: name is Y
• The Y often a string that mentions a linguistic object, i.e. a name!
• Means 1 of mentioning a name: use of an ‘autonym’ (Carnap, Rey-
Debove) for that name: “Giorgione” sounds scary.
• Means 2: using a ‘heteronym’ (Recanati): That name sounds scary.
• Both possible after name is, but easily distinguishable.
• Now for some data for name is Y + word means Y + [be] ca#ed Y
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

28. Written corpus data: name is Y
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

29. Written corpus data: word means Y
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

30. Written corpus data: [be] ca#ed Y
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

31. Written corpus data: some results
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

32. Written corpus data: some results
• In several syntactic configurations that call for an autonymous
complement, that autonym is only infrequently enclosed in quote
marks.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

33. Written corpus data: some results
• In several syntactic configurations that call for an autonymous
complement, that autonym is only infrequently enclosed in quote
marks.
• Similar results on Corpus of Contemporary American English
(CoCA).
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

34. Written corpus data: some results
• In several syntactic configurations that call for an autonymous
complement, that autonym is only infrequently enclosed in quote
marks.
• Similar results on Corpus of Contemporary American English
(CoCA).
• Quoteless written autonyms are rampant! (at the visible/audible
surface)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

35. Spoken quotations
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

36. Spoken quotations
• Methodologically: pointless to use corpora like BNC or CoCA.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

37. Spoken quotations
• Methodologically: pointless to use corpora like BNC or CoCA.
• Their spoken components = transcripts of oral performance.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

38. Spoken quotations
• Methodologically: pointless to use corpora like BNC or CoCA.
• Their spoken components = transcripts of oral performance.
• Any literature on the subject?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

39. Spoken quotations
• Methodologically: pointless to use corpora like BNC or CoCA.
• Their spoken components = transcripts of oral performance.
• Any literature on the subject?
• Work by Günthner, Couper-Kuhlen, Klewitz — German
Conversation Analysts — on spoken direct reported speech:
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

40. Spoken quotations
• Methodologically: pointless to use corpora like BNC or CoCA.
• Their spoken components = transcripts of oral performance.
• Any literature on the subject?
• Work by Günthner, Couper-Kuhlen, Klewitz — German
Conversation Analysts — on spoken direct reported speech:
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

41. Intermediate recap
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

42. Intermediate recap
• At the surface of discourse (written or spoken), autonyms are not
systematically signalled by quotation marks or an elusive spoken
counterpart.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

43. Intermediate recap
• At the surface of discourse (written or spoken), autonyms are not
systematically signalled by quotation marks or an elusive spoken
counterpart.
• Tempting to say: quotation marks are only a contingent feature of
quotation.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

44. Ways of dealing with the surface facts
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

45. Ways of dealing with the surface facts
• Accept them
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

46. Ways of dealing with the surface facts
• Accept them
- and conclude that quote marks are contingent (e.g. Clark & Gerrig
1990; Recanati 2001: quotation marks as ‘pragmatic indicators’)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

47. Ways of dealing with the surface facts
• Accept them
- and conclude that quote marks are contingent (e.g. Clark & Gerrig
1990; Recanati 2001: quotation marks as ‘pragmatic indicators’)
• Accept them
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

48. Ways of dealing with the surface facts
• Accept them
- and conclude that quote marks are contingent (e.g. Clark & Gerrig
1990; Recanati 2001: quotation marks as ‘pragmatic indicators’)
• Accept them
- but claim that the quoteless autonyms are not quotations
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

49. Ways of dealing with the surface facts
• Accept them
- and conclude that quote marks are contingent (e.g. Clark & Gerrig
1990; Recanati 2001: quotation marks as ‘pragmatic indicators’)
• Accept them
- but claim that the quoteless autonyms are not quotations
- maybe they’re sui generis (Saka 1998; Cappelen & Lepore 2005)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

50. Ways of dealing with the surface facts
• Accept them
- and conclude that quote marks are contingent (e.g. Clark & Gerrig
1990; Recanati 2001: quotation marks as ‘pragmatic indicators’)
• Accept them
- but claim that the quoteless autonyms are not quotations
- maybe they’re sui generis (Saka 1998; Cappelen & Lepore 2005)
- they trigger Gricean repair (García-Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

51. Ways of dealing with the surface facts
• Accept them
- and conclude that quote marks are contingent (e.g. Clark & Gerrig
1990; Recanati 2001: quotation marks as ‘pragmatic indicators’)
• Accept them
- but claim that the quoteless autonyms are not quotations
- maybe they’re sui generis (Saka 1998; Cappelen & Lepore 2005)
- they trigger Gricean repair (García-Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente)
• Accept them and dismiss them
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

52. Ways of dealing with the surface facts
• Accept them
- and conclude that quote marks are contingent (e.g. Clark & Gerrig
1990; Recanati 2001: quotation marks as ‘pragmatic indicators’)
• Accept them
- but claim that the quoteless autonyms are not quotations
- maybe they’re sui generis (Saka 1998; Cappelen & Lepore 2005)
- they trigger Gricean repair (García-Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente)
• Accept them and dismiss them
- because the interesting business takes place beneath the surface.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

53. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: Saka
Background Surface claim Response 1a Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

54. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: Saka
• Basically a terminological difference
Background Surface claim Response 1a Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

55. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: Saka
• Basically a terminological difference
• To him, the important phenomenon is mention. Quotations are a sub-
category of mention.
Background Surface claim Response 1a Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

56. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: Saka
• Basically a terminological difference
• To him, the important phenomenon is mention. Quotations are a sub-
category of mention.
• Distinction based on the assumption that the utterances in the
following pair are not ambiguous in the same ways.
Background Surface claim Response 1a Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

57. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: Saka
• Basically a terminological difference
• To him, the important phenomenon is mention. Quotations are a sub-
category of mention.
• Distinction based on the assumption that the utterances in the
following pair are not ambiguous in the same ways.
Chicago has seven characters.
Background Surface claim Response 1a Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

58. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: Saka
• Basically a terminological difference
• To him, the important phenomenon is mention. Quotations are a sub-
category of mention.
• Distinction based on the assumption that the utterances in the
following pair are not ambiguous in the same ways.
Chicago has seven characters.
“Chicago” has seven characters.
Background Surface claim Response 1a Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

59. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: Saka
• Basically a terminological difference
• To him, the important phenomenon is mention. Quotations are a sub-
category of mention.
• Distinction based on the assumption that the utterances in the
following pair are not ambiguous in the same ways.
Chicago has seven characters.
“Chicago” has seven characters.
• Saka’s insight may be correct or not. Little time to discuss it here.
Background Surface claim Response 1a Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

60. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

61. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• Looks suspiciously like a theory-preserving move.
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

62. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• Looks suspiciously like a theory-preserving move.
• C&L varieties of quotation:
’s
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

63. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• Looks suspiciously like a theory-preserving move.
• C&L varieties of quotation:
’s
• exclude: scare quotes and quoteless autonyms,
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

64. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• Looks suspiciously like a theory-preserving move.
• C&L varieties of quotation:
’s
• exclude: scare quotes and quoteless autonyms,
neither of which are amenable to the sort of semantic treatment they advocate
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

65. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• Looks suspiciously like a theory-preserving move.
• C&L varieties of quotation:
’s
• exclude: scare quotes and quoteless autonyms,
neither of which are amenable to the sort of semantic treatment they advocate
• include: indirect speech (labelled ‘indirect quotation’).
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

66. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• Looks suspiciously like a theory-preserving move.
• C&L varieties of quotation:
’s
• exclude: scare quotes and quoteless autonyms,
neither of which are amenable to the sort of semantic treatment they advocate
• include: indirect speech (labelled ‘indirect quotation’).
which is amenable to the sort of semantic treatment they advocate
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

67. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• Looks suspiciously like a theory-preserving move.
• C&L varieties of quotation:
’s
• exclude: scare quotes and quoteless autonyms,
neither of which are amenable to the sort of semantic treatment they advocate
• include: indirect speech (labelled ‘indirect quotation’).
which is amenable to the sort of semantic treatment they advocate
• There’s little support for these decisions (at least, it hasn’t been
offered).
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

68. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

69. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• One unpalatable consequence (the following examples are from papers
by Cappelen & Lepore — there are many more):
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

70. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• One unpalatable consequence (the following examples are from papers
by Cappelen & Lepore — there are many more):
What we call the unboundedness of quotation is important in this context.
According to Saka’s second objection, which he calls “The Recursion Problem”,
[...]
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

71. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• One unpalatable consequence (the following examples are from papers
by Cappelen & Lepore — there are many more):
What we call the unboundedness of quotation is important in this context. Not a quotation
According to Saka’s second objection, which he calls “The Recursion Problem”,
[...] Quotation!
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

72. Quoteless autonyms are sui generis: C&L
• One unpalatable consequence (the following examples are from papers
by Cappelen & Lepore — there are many more):
What we call the unboundedness of quotation is important in this context. Not a quotation
According to Saka’s second objection, which he calls “The Recursion Problem”,
[...] Quotation!
[Partee] explicitly says that what we are calling pure and mixed quotation should
“be treated separately” from direct quotation. Not a quotation
[...] that a theory of quote marks be able to account for what we have called
Quotation!
“mixed quotes”.
[...] tokens that stand in a certain relation, call it the sametokening relation, to the
demonstrated token. Partial quotation?
Background Surface claim Response 1b Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

73. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

74. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• The conversational-implicature story (García-Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente):
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

75. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• The conversational-implicature story (García-Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente):
Donald is Davidson’s name / Boston is disyllabic
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

76. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• The conversational-implicature story (García-Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente):
Donald is Davidson’s name / Boston is disyllabic
- the proposition asserted is false.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

77. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• The conversational-implicature story (García-Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente):
Donald is Davidson’s name / Boston is disyllabic
- the proposition asserted is false.
- this blatant falsity triggers a Gricean process:
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

78. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• The conversational-implicature story (García-Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente):
Donald is Davidson’s name / Boston is disyllabic
- the proposition asserted is false.
- this blatant falsity triggers a Gricean process:
- assuming the utterer abides by the Cooperative Principle, she must have
meant something else.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

79. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• The conversational-implicature story (García-Carpintero, Gómez-Torrente):
Donald is Davidson’s name / Boston is disyllabic
- the proposition asserted is false.
- this blatant falsity triggers a Gricean process:
- assuming the utterer abides by the Cooperative Principle, she must have
meant something else.
- the most likely implicature is that she was talking about the name (of the
person / the city).
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

80. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

81. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• This could be tested experimentally:
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

82. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• This could be tested experimentally:
- does it take longer to process utterances like, e.g., My name is Donald
with and without quote marks?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

83. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• This could be tested experimentally:
- does it take longer to process utterances like, e.g., My name is Donald
with and without quote marks?
• Spoken utterances could be tested too, varying intonational marks.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

84. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• This could be tested experimentally:
- does it take longer to process utterances like, e.g., My name is Donald
with and without quote marks?
• Spoken utterances could be tested too, varying intonational marks.
• But, careful: what García-Carpintero offers is a Gricean ‘rational
reconstruction’, one that does not necessarily seek psychological
plausibility.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

85. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• This could be tested experimentally:
- does it take longer to process utterances like, e.g., My name is Donald
with and without quote marks?
• Spoken utterances could be tested too, varying intonational marks.
• But, careful: what García-Carpintero offers is a Gricean ‘rational
reconstruction’, one that does not necessarily seek psychological
plausibility.
• Experiments with neutral (non-metalinguistic) predicates, as with I
hate Chicago.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

86. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

87. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• The repair hypothesis has a similarly unpalatable consequence as
C&L sui generis move:
’s
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

88. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• The repair hypothesis has a similarly unpalatable consequence as
C&L sui generis move:
’s
What we call the unboundedness of quotation is important in this context.
According to Saka’s second objection, which he calls “The Recursion Problem”,
[...]
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

89. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• The repair hypothesis has a similarly unpalatable consequence as
C&L sui generis move:
’s
What we call the unboundedness of quotation is important in this context. Via repair
According to Saka’s second objection, which he calls “The Recursion Problem”, Literal
[...]
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

90. Quoteless autonymy requires pragmatic repair
• The repair hypothesis has a similarly unpalatable consequence as
C&L sui generis move:
’s
What we call the unboundedness of quotation is important in this context. Via repair
According to Saka’s second objection, which he calls “The Recursion Problem”, Literal
[...]
[Partee] explicitly says that what we are calling pure and mixed quotation should
“be treated separately” from direct quotation. Via repair
[...] that a theory of quote marks be able to account for what we have called
“mixed quotes”. Literal
[...] tokens that stand in a certain relation, call it the sametokening relation, to the
demonstrated token. Partial repair?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

91. Quotation marks as an empty category
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

92. Quotation marks as an empty category
• +/- the quotation marks are there (in hidden syntactic structure),
though not realised phonetically or orthographically at the the surface.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

93. Quotation marks as an empty category
• +/- the quotation marks are there (in hidden syntactic structure),
though not realised phonetically or orthographically at the the surface.
• To my knowledge, no existing complex syntactic theory with explicit
constraints on the occurrence of the empty category ‘quotation mark’.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

94. Quotation marks as an empty category
• +/- the quotation marks are there (in hidden syntactic structure),
though not realised phonetically or orthographically at the the surface.
• To my knowledge, no existing complex syntactic theory with explicit
constraints on the occurrence of the empty category ‘quotation mark’.
• If an empty category, quote marks would be an odd one, with no clear
constraints on occurrence vs. non-occurrence of the overt marker.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

95. Quotation marks as an empty category
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

96. Quotation marks as an empty category
• A few empty categories standardly assumed by generative
syntacticians to exist in English:
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

97. Quotation marks as an empty category
• A few empty categories standardly assumed by generative
syntacticians to exist in English:
- null relative pronouns (The car ø you’ve bought.)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

98. Quotation marks as an empty category
• A few empty categories standardly assumed by generative
syntacticians to exist in English:
- null relative pronouns (The car ø you’ve bought.)
- null complementisers (I thought ø she was keen.)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

99. Quotation marks as an empty category
• A few empty categories standardly assumed by generative
syntacticians to exist in English:
- null relative pronouns (The car ø you’ve bought.)
- null complementisers (I thought ø she was keen.)
- null subject PRO or pro (She decided PRO to leave; pro Can’t find my
pen.)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

100. Quotation marks as an empty category
• A few empty categories standardly assumed by generative
syntacticians to exist in English:
- null relative pronouns (The car ø you’ve bought.)
- null complementisers (I thought ø she was keen.)
- null subject PRO or pro (She decided PRO to leave; pro Can’t find my
pen.)
- null auxiliaries, as in gapping (He could have helped her, or she ø have
helped him.)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

101. Quotation marks as an empty category
• A few empty categories standardly assumed by generative
syntacticians to exist in English:
- null relative pronouns (The car ø you’ve bought.)
- null complementisers (I thought ø she was keen.)
- null subject PRO or pro (She decided PRO to leave; pro Can’t find my
pen.)
- null auxiliaries, as in gapping (He could have helped her, or she ø have
helped him.)
• All of those only occur under well-defined constraints.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

102. Quotation marks as an empty category
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

103. Quotation marks as an empty category
• Empty categories usually crop up under precisely defined conditions
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

104. Quotation marks as an empty category
• Empty categories usually crop up under precisely defined conditions
• e.g. a null auxiliary in gapping: He could have helped her, or [she have
helped him].
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

105. Quotation marks as an empty category
• Empty categories usually crop up under precisely defined conditions
• e.g. a null auxiliary in gapping: He could have helped her, or [she have
helped him].
- possible because could appears elsewhere in the sentence and
the clauses are both finite and similar in structure.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

106. Quotation marks as an empty category
• Empty categories usually crop up under precisely defined conditions
• e.g. a null auxiliary in gapping: He could have helped her, or [she have
helped him].
- possible because could appears elsewhere in the sentence and
the clauses are both finite and similar in structure.
• e.g. a ‘truncated null subject’ in English: Can’t find my pen.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

107. Quotation marks as an empty category
• Empty categories usually crop up under precisely defined conditions
• e.g. a null auxiliary in gapping: He could have helped her, or [she have
helped him].
- possible because could appears elsewhere in the sentence and
the clauses are both finite and similar in structure.
• e.g. a ‘truncated null subject’ in English: Can’t find my pen.
- if it is the first word in a sentence, and if it is weak (i.e.
unstressed/non-contrastive) (cf. Radford 2009)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

108. Quotation marks as an empty category
• Empty categories usually crop up under precisely defined conditions
• e.g. a null auxiliary in gapping: He could have helped her, or [she have
helped him].
- possible because could appears elsewhere in the sentence and
the clauses are both finite and similar in structure.
• e.g. a ‘truncated null subject’ in English: Can’t find my pen.
- if it is the first word in a sentence, and if it is weak (i.e.
unstressed/non-contrastive) (cf. Radford 2009)
• Unclear that there are equally well-defined conditions for the putative
omission of quote marks.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

109. Reducing the scope of the claim?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

110. Reducing the scope of the claim?
• Maybe quotation marks are necessary only for some varieties of
quotation.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

111. Reducing the scope of the claim?
• Maybe quotation marks are necessary only for some varieties of
quotation.
• How about ‘hybrid uses’ (‘simultaneous use and mention’)?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

112. Reducing the scope of the claim?
• Maybe quotation marks are necessary only for some varieties of
quotation.
• How about ‘hybrid uses’ (‘simultaneous use and mention’)?
Gerald said he would ‘consider running for the Presidency’
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

113. Reducing the scope of the claim?
• Maybe quotation marks are necessary only for some varieties of
quotation.
• How about ‘hybrid uses’ (‘simultaneous use and mention’)?
Gerald said he would ‘consider running for the Presidency’
Done properly, computer simulation represents a kind of “telescope for the mind,”...
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

114. Reducing the scope of the claim?
• Maybe quotation marks are necessary only for some varieties of
quotation.
• How about ‘hybrid uses’ (‘simultaneous use and mention’)?
Gerald said he would ‘consider running for the Presidency’
Done properly, computer simulation represents a kind of “telescope for the mind,”...
• Can the quote marks be dispensed with?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

115. Reducing the scope of the claim?
• Maybe quotation marks are necessary only for some varieties of
quotation.
• How about ‘hybrid uses’ (‘simultaneous use and mention’)?
Gerald said he would ‘consider running for the Presidency’
Done properly, computer simulation represents a kind of “telescope for the mind,”...
• Can the quote marks be dispensed with?
• Problem n° 1: if hybrid quotations exist in speech, what is the
counterpart of quote marks in speech? (an empirical question)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

116. Reducing the scope of the claim?
• Maybe quotation marks are necessary only for some varieties of
quotation.
• How about ‘hybrid uses’ (‘simultaneous use and mention’)?
Gerald said he would ‘consider running for the Presidency’
Done properly, computer simulation represents a kind of “telescope for the mind,”...
• Can the quote marks be dispensed with?
• Problem n° 1: if hybrid quotations exist in speech, what is the
counterpart of quote marks in speech? (an empirical question)
• Problem n° 2: there are arguably hybrids without quote marks.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

117. Reducing the scope of the claim?
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

118. Reducing the scope of the claim?
BMP files weren't of good quality, and, since beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, I've pulled out some of the screens that I like. (BNC, HAC 4519)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

119. Reducing the scope of the claim?
BMP files weren't of good quality, and, since beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, I've pulled out some of the screens that I like. (BNC, HAC 4519)
So ended the attempts of these poor, yearning, tired huddled masses to gain
asylum in the US. (New Statesman, 17/01/2000: 16)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

120. Reducing the scope of the claim?
BMP files weren't of good quality, and, since beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, I've pulled out some of the screens that I like. (BNC, HAC 4519)
So ended the attempts of these poor, yearning, tired huddled masses to gain
asylum in the US. (New Statesman, 17/01/2000: 16)
Perhaps the question is not to be or not to be a Web presenter, but rather, when to
be or not to be ? (www.effectivemeetings.com/technology/webpresentations/
web_dilemma.asp)
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

121. Reducing the scope of the claim?
BMP files weren't of good quality, and, since beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, I've pulled out some of the screens that I like. (BNC, HAC 4519)
So ended the attempts of these poor, yearning, tired huddled masses to gain
asylum in the US. (New Statesman, 17/01/2000: 16)
Perhaps the question is not to be or not to be a Web presenter, but rather, when to
be or not to be ? (www.effectivemeetings.com/technology/webpresentations/
web_dilemma.asp)
• Problem n° 3: there are many other types of ‘quotational hybridity’
across languages of the world. (i.e. cases with some features of Direct
Speech and some features or Indirect Speech).
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

122. Conclusions
• If the goal = an empirically motivated and integrated account of the
phenomenon QUOTATION,
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

123. Conclusions
• If the goal = an empirically motivated and integrated account of the
phenomenon QUOTATION,
• The ‘sui generis’ and ‘pragmatic repair’ moves are nonstarters.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

124. Conclusions
• If the goal = an empirically motivated and integrated account of the
phenomenon QUOTATION,
• The ‘sui generis’ and ‘pragmatic repair’ moves are nonstarters.
• Move 3 — ‘empty categories’ — is the least unpromising alternative.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

125. Conclusions
• If the goal = an empirically motivated and integrated account of the
phenomenon QUOTATION,
• The ‘sui generis’ and ‘pragmatic repair’ moves are nonstarters.
• Move 3 — ‘empty categories’ — is the least unpromising alternative.
• But a theory is needed specifying under what particular conditions
null quotation marks are licensed.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

126. Conclusions
• If the goal = an empirically motivated and integrated account of the
phenomenon QUOTATION,
• The ‘sui generis’ and ‘pragmatic repair’ moves are nonstarters.
• Move 3 — ‘empty categories’ — is the least unpromising alternative.
• But a theory is needed specifying under what particular conditions
null quotation marks are licensed.
• The reductive move (quotation marks are necessary only for hybrid
quotations) needs to be fully worked out.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

127. Conclusions
• If the goal = an empirically motivated and integrated account of the
phenomenon QUOTATION,
• The ‘sui generis’ and ‘pragmatic repair’ moves are nonstarters.
• Move 3 — ‘empty categories’ — is the least unpromising alternative.
• But a theory is needed specifying under what particular conditions
null quotation marks are licensed.
• The reductive move (quotation marks are necessary only for hybrid
quotations) needs to be fully worked out.
• Pragmatic accounts (Clark & Gerrig; Recanati) face none of those
difficulties.
Background Surface claim Response 1 Response 2 Below surface Narrower claim Conclusions

128. Intro Theories Basic features Metalinguistic Q Direct Speech Written bias Quote Marks Hybrid Q

129. Thank you!
Intro Theories Basic features Metalinguistic Q Direct Speech Written bias Quote Marks Hybrid Q