Misplaced Pages

Use–mention distinction: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:12, 17 May 2015 editMacrakis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,709 edits + WP policy← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:40, 26 November 2024 edit undoTimwi (talk | contribs)Administrators32,134 editsm →Overview 
(130 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Difference between using a word and mentioning it}}
The '''use–mention distinction''' is a ] concept of ],<ref name="Wheele05p568">Wheeler (2005) p. 568</ref> according to which it is necessary to make a ] between ''using'' a word (or phrase) and ''mentioning'' it,<ref name="Devitt99">Devitt and Sterelny (1999) pp. 40-1</ref><ref name="Suine40p24">] (1940) p. 24</ref> and many philosophical works have been "vitiated by a failure to distinguish use and mention".<ref name="Devitt99"/> The distinction is disputed by non-analytic philosophers.<ref name="Derrida77p79"/>
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2020}}


In ],<ref>Wheeler (2005) p. 568</ref> a fundamental distinction is made between the use of a term and the mere mention of it.<ref name="Devitt99">Devitt and Sterelny (1999) pp. 40–1</ref><ref name="Suine40p24">] (1940) p. 24</ref> Many philosophical works have been "vitiated by a failure to distinguish use and mention".<ref name="Devitt99"/> The distinction can sometimes be pedantic, especially in simple cases where it is obvious.<ref name="Devitt99" /><ref name="Derrida77p79"/>
The distinction between use and mention can be illustrated for the word ''cheese'':<ref name="Devitt99"/><ref name="Suine40p24"/>
* ''Use'': cheese is derived from milk.
* ''Mention'': "cheese" is derived from the ] word "cyse".


The distinction between use and mention can be illustrated with the word "cheese":<ref name="Devitt99"/><ref name="Suine40p24"/>
The first sentence is a statement about the substance called "cheese"; it ''uses'' the word "cheese" to refer to that substance. The second is a statement about the word "cheese" as a ]; it ''mentions'' the word without ''using'' it to refer to anything other than itself.
# Cheese is derived from milk.
# "Cheese" is derived from the ] word {{lang|ang|ċēse}}.


The first sentence is a statement about the substance called "cheese": it {{em|uses}} the word "cheese" to refer to that substance. The second is a statement about the word "cheese" as a ]: it {{em|mentions}} the word without using it to refer to anything other than itself.
== Grammar ==
{{refimprove|date=November 2010}}
In written language, mentioned words or phrases often appear between ]s ("Chicago" contains three vowels) or in ] (When I say ''honey'', I mean the sweet stuff that bees make), and style authorities such as '']'' insist that mentioned words or phrases must always be made visually distinct in this manner. Used words or phrases (much more common than mentioned ones) do not bear any typographic distinction. In spoken language, or in absence of the use of stylistic cues such as quotation marks or italics in written language, the audience must identify mentioned words or phrases through semantic and pragmatic cues.<ref>{{cite web|last=Wilson|first=Shomir|title=A Computational Theory of the Use-Mention Distinction in Natural Language|url=http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11694|publisher=Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland|accessdate=16 February 2013|year=2011}}</ref>


== Overview ==
If quotation marks are used, it is sometimes the practice to distinguish between the quotation marks used for speech and those used for mentioned words, with double quotes in one place and single in the other:
*When Larry said, "That has three letters," he was referring to the word 'bee'.
*With reference to "bumbershoot", Peter explained that 'The term refers to an umbrella.'


Many authorities recommend against such a distinction, and prefer one style of quotation mark to be used for both purposes,<ref>For example, ''Butcher's Copy-Editing: the Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors and Proofreaders.'' 4th edition, by Judith Butcher, Caroline Drake and Maureen Leach. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Butcher's recommends against the practice, but ''The Chicago Manual of Style'', section 7.58 (15th edition, 2003), indicates that "philosophers" use single quotes for a practice akin to the use/mention distinction, though it is not explained in this way.</ref> which is a much more common practice. In written language, ''mentioned'' words or phrases often appear between single or double ] or in ]. In philosophy, single quotation marks are typically used, while in other fields (such as linguistics) italics are more common.<ref>For example, ''Butcher's Copy-Editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors and Proofreaders,'' 4th edition, by Judith Butcher, Caroline Drake, and Maureen Leach. Cambridge University Press, 2006. ''Butcher's'' recommends against the practice, but ''The Chicago Manual of Style,'' section 7.58 (15th edition, 2003), indicates that philosophers use single quotes for a similar distinction, though it is not explained in these terms.</ref> Some style authorities, such as ], emphasize that mentioned words or phrases should be visually distinct. On the other hand, ''used'' words or phrases do not carry typographic markings.<ref>{{cite web |last=Wilson |first=Shomir |year=2011 |title=A Computational Theory of the Use-Mention Distinction in Natural Language |url=http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11694 |access-date=16 February 2013 |publisher=PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland}}</ref>


The phenomenon of a term having different ] in various contexts was referred to as '']'' (substitution) by medieval logicians.<ref>See Read, Stephen (2006). . In ].</ref> A substitution describes how a term is substituted in a sentence based on its referent. For nouns, a term can be used in different ways:
== In philosophy ==
* With a ''concrete and real referent'':{{efn|This use of the word ''concrete'' is explained at ].}} "That is my ''pig''." (personal supposition)
The general phenomenon of a term's having different ] in different contexts was called '']'' (substitution) by medieval logicians.<ref>See Read, Stephen (2006). . In ].</ref> It describes how one has to substitute a term in a sentence based on its meaning—that is, based on the term's referent. In general, a term can be used in several ways. For nouns, they are:
* With a ''concrete but unreal referent'': "Santa Claus's ''pig'' is very big." (personal supposition)
* With a ''generic referent'': "Any ''pig'' breathes air." (simple supposition)
* Metaphorically: "Your grandfather is a ''pig''." (improper supposition)
* As a ''pure term'': "''Pig'' has only three letters." (material supposition)


The use–mention distinction is particularly significant in ].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Quotation |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quotation/#2.2 |access-date=5 October 2009 |date=16 July 2005}}</ref> Confusing use with mention can lead to misleading or incorrect statements, such as ]s.
*Properly with a ''real referent'': "That is my ''cow''" (assuming it exists). (personal supposition)
*Properly with a ''generic referent'': "Any ''cow'' gives milk." (simple supposition)
*Properly but with a ''non-real referent'': "Santa Claus's cow is very big."
*Improperly by way of ''metaphor'': "Your sister is a ''cow''". (improper supposition)
*As a ''pure term'': "''Cow'' has only three letters". (material supposition)


] statements also engage the use–mention distinction and are often central to logical paradoxes, such as ]. In mathematics, this concept appears in ], where the ] plays a crucial role.
The last sentence contains a mention example.


== Commentary ==
The use–mention distinction is especially important in ].<ref>{{cite web|title=Quotation|work=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quotation/#2.2|date=16 July 2005|accessdate=5 October 2009}}</ref> Failure to properly distinguish use from mention can produce false, misleading, or ]s or ]s. For example, the following correctly distinguish between use and mention:
] extensively employed this distinction, noting the fallacies that can result from confusing it in ] and ]'s '']''.<ref>{{cite book |last=Simons |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Simons (academic) |title=Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition |title-link=Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Thomson Gale |year=2006 |isbn=0-02-866072-2 |editor=Borchert, Donald M |edition=e-book |page= |chapter=Leśniewski, Stanisław}}</ref>


] argued that quotation cannot always be treated as mere mention, giving examples where quotations carry both use and mention functions.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Davidson |first=Donald |date=March 1979 |title=Quotation |journal=Theory and Decision |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=27–40 |doi=10.1007/BF00126690 |issn=0040-5833 |s2cid=261211103}}</ref>
* "Copper" contains six letters, and is not a metal.
* Copper is a metal, and contains no letters.


] explains the distinction between use and mention as follows:<ref>{{cite book |last=Hofstadter |first=Douglas R. |url=https://archive.org/details/metamagicalthema0000hofs |title=Metamagical Themas |year=1985 |page=}}</ref>
The first sentence, a mention example, is a statement about the word "copper" and not the chemical element. Notably, the word is composed of six letters, but not any kind of metal or other tangible thing. The second sentence, a use example, is a statement about the chemical element copper and not the word itself. Notably, the element is composed of 29 electrons and protons and 35 neutrons, but not any letters.
{{blockquote|When a word is used to ''refer'' to something, it is being ''used''. When a word is ''quoted'', the focus is on its surface aspects, such as typography or phonetics, and it is being ''mentioned''.}}
Issues arise when a mention itself is mentioned. Notating this with italics or repeated quotation marks can lead to ambiguity.<ref>{{cite book |last=Boolos |first=George |author-link=George Boolos |title=Logic, Logic, and Logic |year=1999 |page=398 |quote=In this 1995 paper, Boolos discussed ambiguities in using quotation marks as part of a ], and proposed a way of distinguishing levels of mentioning using a finite number of marks.}}</ref>


Some analytic philosophers have said the distinction "may seem rather pedantic".<ref name="Devitt99" />
] was perhaps the first to make widespread use of this distinction and the ] that arises from overlooking it, seeing it all around in analytic philosophy of the time, for example in Russell and Whitehead's '']''.<ref>{{cite book|last=Simons|first=Peter|title=], 2nd edition|year=2006|publisher=Thomson Gale|isbn=0-02-866072-2|edition=e-book|authorlink=Peter Simons (academic)|editor=Borchert, Donald M|page=292|chapter=Leśniewski, Stanisław}}</ref> At the logical level, a use–mention mistake occurs when two heterogeneous levels of meaning or context are confused inadvertently.{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}


In a ] analytic philosopher ], ] mentioned the distinction as "rather laborious and problematical".<ref name="Derrida77p79">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-ANhg9zaAtIC&pg=PA79|title=Limited Inc
] told that in his student years, "quotation was usually introduced as a somewhat shady device, and the introduction was accompanied by a stern sermon on the sin of confusing the use and mention of expressions". He presented a class of sentences like
|year=1977 |page=79|isbn=9780810107885 |last1=Derrida |first1=Jacques |publisher=Northwestern University Press
* Quine said that "quotation has a certain anomalous feature."
}}</ref>
which both use the meaning of the quoted words to complete the sentence, and mention them as they are attributed to ], to argue against his teachers' hard distinction. His claim was that quotations could not be analyzed as simple expressions that mention their content by means of ] it or ] its parts, as sentences like the above would lose their exact, twofold meaning.<ref>{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1007/BF00126690| issn = 0040-5833| volume = 11| issue = 1| pages = 27–40| last = Davidson| first = Donald| title = Quotation| journal = Theory and Decision| accessdate = 8 December 2010| date = March 1979| url = http://www.springerlink.com/content/v234l47038554624/}}</ref>


== See also ==
] statements mention themselves or their components, often producing logical ]es, such as ]. A mathematical analogy of self-referential statements lies at the core of ].{{Citation needed|date=October 2012}} There are many examples of self-reference and use–mention distinction in the works of ], who makes the distinction thus:


* {{Annotated link |Haddocks' Eyes}}
:When a word is used to ''refer'' to something, it is said to be being ''used''. When a word is ''quoted'', though, so that someone is examining it for its surface aspects (typographical, phonetic, etc.), it is said to be being ''mentioned''.<ref>{{cite book|title=Metamagical Themas|last=Hofstadter|first=Douglas R.|year=1985|page=9}}</ref>
* {{Annotated link |James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher}}
* {{Annotated link |Map–territory relation}}
* {{Annotated link |Metalanguage}}
* {{Annotated link |Pointer (computer programming)}}
* {{Annotated link |Quasi-quotation}}
* {{Annotated link |Scare quotes}}
* {{Annotated link |Sense and reference}}
* {{Annotated link |When a white horse is not a horse}}


==Notes==
Although the standard notation for mentioning a term in philosophy and logic is to put the term in quotation marks, issues arise when the mention is itself of a mention. Notating using italics might require a potentially infinite number of typefaces, while putting quotation marks within quotation marks may lead to ambiguity.<ref>{{cite book|title=Logic, Logic, and Logic|last=Boolos|first=George|authorlink=George Boolos|year=1999|page=398}}
{{notelist}}


== References ==
In this 1995 paper, Boolos discussed ambiguities in using quotation marks as part of a ], and proposed a way of distinguishing levels of mentioning using a finite number of marks, using "′" to modify the succeeding "°", as in:
{{Reflist}}
:According to W. ],
:Whose views on quotation are fine,
::°Boston° names Boston,
::and ′°°Boston°′° names °Boston°, <!-- sic; for more explanation, you must read the paper -->
:But 9 doesn't designate 9.
</ref>


== Sources ==
Some analytic philosophers have said the distinction "may seem rather pedantic".<ref name="Devitt99"/>
* ] (1977) ''Limited Inc abc ...'' in '']''

* ], ] (1999)
In a 1977 response to analytic philosopher ], ] mentioned the distinction as "rather laborious and problematical".<ref name="Derrida77p79">Derrida (1977) p.79</ref>
* ] (1940) , §4 ''Use versus mention'', pp.&nbsp;23–5

* Wheeler, Samuel (2005) ''Davidson as Derridean: Analytic Philosophy as Deconstruction'' in ''Cardozo Law Review'' Vol. 27–2 November 2005
== See also ==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] for the Misplaced Pages style policy

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== References ==
*] (1977) ''Limited Inc abc ...'' in '']
*], ] (1999)
*] (1940) , §4 ''Use versus mention'', pp.23-5
*Wheeler, Samuel (2005) ''Davidson as Derridean: Analytic Philosophy as Deconstruction'' in ''Cardozo Law Review'' Vol. 27–2 November 2005


== Further reading == == Further reading ==
*A. W. Moore (1986) in ''Analysis'' Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 173-179 * A. W. Moore (1986) in ''Analysis'' Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct. 1986), pp.&nbsp;173–179


== External links == == External links ==
*"", by William A. Wisdom, c. 2002 * "", by William A. Wisdom, c. 2002
*"", by Ralph E. Kenyon, Jr. PhD, 29 December 1992, Revised 21 October 1993, Published in ''Etc.: A Review of General Semantics'', Vol. 51 No 1, Spring 1994. (accessed: 26 August 2006). * "", by Ralph E. Kenyon Jr. PhD, 29 December 1992, Revised 21 October 1993, Published in ''ETC: A Review of General Semantics'', Vol. 51 No 1, Spring 1994. (accessed: 26 August 2006).
*"", talk by Daniel Dennet AAI 2009, 4 October 209 * "", talk by ] AAI 2009, 4 October 2009


{{philosophy of language}} {{Philosophy of language}}
{{Metalogic}} {{Metalogic}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2010}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Use-Mention Distinction}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Use-mention distinction}}
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]

Latest revision as of 17:40, 26 November 2024

Difference between using a word and mentioning it

In analytic philosophy, a fundamental distinction is made between the use of a term and the mere mention of it. Many philosophical works have been "vitiated by a failure to distinguish use and mention". The distinction can sometimes be pedantic, especially in simple cases where it is obvious.

The distinction between use and mention can be illustrated with the word "cheese":

  1. Cheese is derived from milk.
  2. "Cheese" is derived from the Old English word ċēse.

The first sentence is a statement about the substance called "cheese": it uses the word "cheese" to refer to that substance. The second is a statement about the word "cheese" as a signifier: it mentions the word without using it to refer to anything other than itself.

Overview

In written language, mentioned words or phrases often appear between single or double quotation marks or in italics. In philosophy, single quotation marks are typically used, while in other fields (such as linguistics) italics are more common. Some style authorities, such as Strunk and White, emphasize that mentioned words or phrases should be visually distinct. On the other hand, used words or phrases do not carry typographic markings.

The phenomenon of a term having different references in various contexts was referred to as suppositio (substitution) by medieval logicians. A substitution describes how a term is substituted in a sentence based on its referent. For nouns, a term can be used in different ways:

  • With a concrete and real referent: "That is my pig." (personal supposition)
  • With a concrete but unreal referent: "Santa Claus's pig is very big." (personal supposition)
  • With a generic referent: "Any pig breathes air." (simple supposition)
  • Metaphorically: "Your grandfather is a pig." (improper supposition)
  • As a pure term: "Pig has only three letters." (material supposition)

The use–mention distinction is particularly significant in analytic philosophy. Confusing use with mention can lead to misleading or incorrect statements, such as category errors.

Self-referential statements also engage the use–mention distinction and are often central to logical paradoxes, such as Quine's paradox. In mathematics, this concept appears in Gödel's incompleteness theorem, where the diagonal lemma plays a crucial role.

Commentary

Stanisław Leśniewski extensively employed this distinction, noting the fallacies that can result from confusing it in Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica.

Donald Davidson argued that quotation cannot always be treated as mere mention, giving examples where quotations carry both use and mention functions.

Douglas Hofstadter explains the distinction between use and mention as follows:

When a word is used to refer to something, it is being used. When a word is quoted, the focus is on its surface aspects, such as typography or phonetics, and it is being mentioned.

Issues arise when a mention itself is mentioned. Notating this with italics or repeated quotation marks can lead to ambiguity.

Some analytic philosophers have said the distinction "may seem rather pedantic".

In a 1977 response to analytic philosopher John Searle, Jacques Derrida mentioned the distinction as "rather laborious and problematical".

See also

Notes

  1. This use of the word concrete is explained at Abstract and concrete.

References

  1. Wheeler (2005) p. 568
  2. ^ Devitt and Sterelny (1999) pp. 40–1
  3. ^ W.V. Quine (1940) p. 24
  4. ^ Derrida, Jacques (1977). Limited Inc. Northwestern University Press. p. 79. ISBN 9780810107885.
  5. For example, Butcher's Copy-Editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors and Proofreaders, 4th edition, by Judith Butcher, Caroline Drake, and Maureen Leach. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Butcher's recommends against the practice, but The Chicago Manual of Style, section 7.58 (15th edition, 2003), indicates that philosophers use single quotes for a similar distinction, though it is not explained in these terms.
  6. Wilson, Shomir (2011). "A Computational Theory of the Use-Mention Distinction in Natural Language". PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland. Retrieved 16 February 2013.
  7. See Read, Stephen (2006). Medieval Theories: Properties of Terms. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  8. "Quotation". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 16 July 2005. Retrieved 5 October 2009.
  9. Simons, Peter (2006). "Leśniewski, Stanisław". In Borchert, Donald M (ed.). Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition (e-book ed.). Thomson Gale. p. 292. ISBN 0-02-866072-2.
  10. Davidson, Donald (March 1979). "Quotation". Theory and Decision. 11 (1): 27–40. doi:10.1007/BF00126690. ISSN 0040-5833. S2CID 261211103.
  11. Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1985). Metamagical Themas. p. 9.
  12. Boolos, George (1999). Logic, Logic, and Logic. p. 398. In this 1995 paper, Boolos discussed ambiguities in using quotation marks as part of a formal language, and proposed a way of distinguishing levels of mentioning using a finite number of marks.

Sources

Further reading

External links

Philosophy of language
Index of language articles
Philosophers
Theories
Concepts
Works
Related articles
Metalogic and metamathematics
Categories: