Use–mention distinction
Template:Short description Template:Use dmy dates
In analytic philosophy,[1] a fundamental distinction is made between the typical linguistic use of a term (a word, name, phrase, etc.) versus the self-aware mention of it.[2][3] The distinction between use and mention can be illustrated with the English word "cheese":[2][3]
- Cheese is derived from milk.
- "Cheese" is derived from the Old English word Script error: No such module "Lang"..
The first sentence is a statement about the substance called "cheese": it is Template:Em the word "cheese" to refer to the common dairy product. The second is a statement about the very word "cheese" itself. In that sentence, "cheese" is acting as a signifier: the writer is Template:Em the word without using it to refer to anything other than itself.
The use–mention distinction can sometimes be pedantic, especially in simple cases where it is obvious.[2][4] However, scholars argue that many philosophical works have been misguided, or misinterpreted by others, based on a failure to understand or recognize this basic distinction.[2]
Overview
In written language, Template:Em 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.[5] Some style authorities, such as Strunk and White, emphasize that mentioned words or phrases should be visually distinct. On the other hand, Template:Em words or phrases do not carry typographic markings.[6]
The phenomenon of a term having different references in various contexts was referred to as suppositio (substitution) by medieval logicians.[7] 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 Template:Em:Template:Efn "That is my pig." (personal supposition)
- With a Template:Em: "Santa Claus's pig is very big." (personal supposition)
- With a Template:Em: "Any pig breathes air." (simple supposition)
- Metaphorically: "Your grandfather is a pig." (improper supposition)
- As a Template:Em: "Pig has only three letters." (material supposition)
The use–mention distinction is particularly significant in analytic philosophy.[8] 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.[9]
Donald Davidson argued that quotation cannot always be treated as mere mention, giving examples where quotations carry both use and mention functions.[10]
Douglas Hofstadter explains the distinction between use and mention as follows:[11]
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
When a word is used to Template:Em to something, it is being Template:Em. When a word is Template:Em, the focus is on its surface aspects, such as typography or phonetics, and it is being Template:Em.
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".
Issues arise when a mention itself is mentioned. Notating this with italics or repeated quotation marks can lead to ambiguity.[12]
Some analytic philosophers have said the distinction "may seem rather pedantic".[2]
In a 1977 response to analytic philosopher John Searle, Jacques Derrida mentioned the distinction as "rather laborious and problematical".[4]
See also
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
- Template:Annotated link
Notes
References
Sources
- Derrida, Jacques (1977) Limited Inc abc ... in Limited Inc
- Michael Devitt, Kim Sterelny (1999) Language and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of language
- W. V. O. Quine (1940) Mathematical Logic, §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 Symposium: Derrida/America, The Present State of America's Europe
Further reading
- A. W. Moore (1986) How Significant Is the Use/Mention Distinction? in Analysis Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct. 1986), pp. 173–179
External links
- "Robert And The Use-Mention Distinction", by William A. Wisdom, c. 2002
- "On the use of Quotation Marks", 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).
- "The evolution of Confusion", talk by Daniel Dennett AAI 2009, 4 October 2009
Template:Philosophy of language Template:Metalogic
- ↑ Wheeler (2005) p. 568.
- ↑ a b c d e Devitt and Sterelny (1999) pp. 40–1.
- ↑ a b W. V. O. Quine (1940) p. 24.
- ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ See Read, Stephen (2006). Medieval Theories: Properties of Terms. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".