Research Group
in Analytic Philosophy

Abstract

Corey Washington (1992) identified three questions that a theory of pure quotation (as in "'Boston' is disyllabic") should address, and on the basis of which such theories could be classified: (i) what part of a quotation has a referring role, (ii) what is the reference of that referring part, and (iii) how that reference is fixed. In this paper I will compare the answers given by the sort of demonstrative, Davidsonian account that I (1994, 2004) have advocated with those provided by what I take to be the most interesting alternative emerged in recent years, the "disquotational" Tarski-inspired account advocated by Gómez-Torrente (2001), a (much less compelling) variant of which has been recently adopted by the former Davidsonians Cappelen and Lepore (2007). My focus will be on general methodological and theoretical issues about the distinction between semantic and speaker's reference, the relation between reference-fixing and meaning, and in general the semantics/pragmatics divide, which I think the debates about quotation can helpfully illuminate.