Editing Use–mention distinction (section)

== Commentary ==
[[Stanisław Leśniewski]] extensively employed this distinction, noting the fallacies that can result from confusing it in [[Bertrand Russell|Russell]] and [[Alfred North Whitehead|Whitehead]]'s ''[[Principia Mathematica]]''.<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=[https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaphil04borc/page/n295 292] |chapter=Leśniewski, Stanisław}}</ref>

[[Donald Davidson (philosopher)|Donald Davidson]] 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>

[[Douglas Hofstadter]] 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=[https://archive.org/details/metamagicalthema0000hofs/page/9 9]}}</ref>
{{blockquote|When a word is used to {{em|refer}} to something, it is being {{em|used}}. When a word is {{em|quoted}}, the focus is on its surface aspects, such as typography or phonetics, and it is being {{em|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 [[formal language]], 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" />

In a [[Limited Inc|1977 response to]] analytic philosopher [[John Searle]], [[Jacques Derrida]] 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
|year=1977 |page=79|isbn=9780810107885 |last1=Derrida |first1=Jacques |publisher=Northwestern University Press
}}</ref>