Editing Use–mention distinction

{{Short description|Distinction between using a word and mentioning it}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2020}}

In [[analytic philosophy]],<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">[[Willard Van Orman Quine|W.&nbsp;V.&nbsp;O. Quine]] (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 with the word "cheese":<ref name="Devitt99"/><ref name="Suine40p24"/>
# Cheese is derived from milk.
# "Cheese" is derived from the [[Old English]] 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 [[Sign (linguistics)|signifier]]: it {{em|mentions}} the word without using it to refer to anything other than itself.

== Overview ==

In written language, {{em|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.<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 [[Strunk and White]], emphasize that mentioned words or phrases should be visually distinct. On the other hand, {{em|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 [[references]] in various contexts was referred to as ''[[Supposition Theory|suppositio]]'' (substitution) by medieval logicians.<ref>See Read, Stephen (2006). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-terms Medieval Theories: Properties of Terms]. In [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]].</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:
* With a {{em|concrete and real referent}}:{{efn|This use of the word ''concrete'' is explained at [[Abstract and concrete]].}} "That is my ''pig''." (personal supposition) 
* With a {{em|concrete but unreal referent}}: "Santa Claus's ''pig'' is very big." (personal supposition)
* With a {{em|generic referent}}: "Any ''pig'' breathes air." (simple supposition)
* Metaphorically: "Your grandfather is a ''pig''." (improper supposition)
* As a {{em|pure term}}: "''Pig'' has only three letters." (material supposition)

The use–mention distinction is particularly significant in [[analytic philosophy]].<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 [[category error]]s.

[[Self-reference|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 [[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>

== See also ==

* {{Annotated link |Haddocks' Eyes}}
* {{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==
{{notelist}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Sources ==
* [[Derrida|Derrida, Jacques]] (1977) ''Limited Inc abc ...'' in ''[[Limited Inc]]''
* [[Michael Devitt]], [[Kim Sterelny]] (1999) [https://books.google.com/books?id=JwuHtulKe6AC&pg=PA40 ''Language and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of language'']
* [[W.&nbsp;V.&nbsp;O. Quine]] (1940) [https://books.google.com/books?id=5glxwVt_srEC ''Mathematical Logic''], §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 [http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79%3Atable-of-contents-27-2&Itemid=14 ''Symposium: Derrida/America, The Present State of America's Europe'']

== Further reading ==
* A.&nbsp;W. Moore (1986) [https://www.jstor.org/pss/3328410 ''How Significant Is the Use/Mention Distinction?''] in ''Analysis'' Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct. 1986), pp.&nbsp;173–179

== External links ==
* "[https://web.archive.org/web/20050305154415/http://www.unconventional-wisdom.com/WAW/ROBERT.html Robert And The Use-Mention Distinction]", by William A. Wisdom, c. 2002
* "[http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/quotes.html 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).
* "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9w8JougLQ The evolution of Confusion]", talk by [[Daniel Dennett]] AAI 2009, 4 October 2009

{{Philosophy of language}}
{{Metalogic}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Use-mention distinction}}
[[Category:Analytic philosophy]]
[[Category:Concepts in the philosophy of language]]
[[Category:Metalogic]]
[[Category:Conceptual distinctions]]