of Anapuruna, the mountain whose conquest Maurice Herzog described in his book of the same name. Interpretation Dhaulagiri is adjacent of Anapuruna ∧Maurice Herzog described Anapuruna in his book x ∧ ∃n.(Name(Anapuruna, n) ∧ Name(x, n)))
description theory, this is a valid inference 1 “Alice swooned” is a sentence 2 ∃x. x :: “swooned” is a sentence 3 ∃x, y. x :: y is a sentence Davidson commented “quotation marks play no vital role in the spelling theory; and also that this theory is not a theory of how quotation works in natural language.” However, these two examples illustrate that the description theory predicts an important behavior of quantiﬁcation and quotation: Quotation blocks the scope of quantiﬁcation.
a natural counterpart of mixed quotation Examples 1 “Alice swooned” is a sentence 2 Alice “swooned” is a sentence 3 There is something which it “swooned” is a sentence or better, Examples 1 Quine says that “quotation has a certain anomalous feature” 2 Quine says that quotation “...has a certain anomalous feature” 3 There is something which Quine says that it “...has a certain anomalous feature”
transformation 1 “Alice” is a word 2 ‘A’ :: ‘l’ :: ‘i’ :: ‘c’ :: ‘e’ is a word 3 eeh :: el :: ai :: si :: ee is a word 4 ee ::r si ::r ai ::r el ::r eeh is a word By this transformation, Davidson argues that the description theory does not capture picture-like property of quotation. However, our goal is to create a semantic theory of quotation, not a mere syntactic paraphrase. Therefore, as long as the semantic value of a quoted expression retains its structure of the quoted expression, the theory is justiﬁed.
transformation 1 “Alice” 2 ‘A’ :: ‘l’ :: ‘i’ :: ‘c’ :: ‘e’ 3 eeh :: el :: ai :: si :: ee 4 ee ::r si ::r ai ::r el ::r eeh All of them denote the sequence of alphabets Alice which is exactly the same object as a quoted word “Alice”. Therefore, from the semantic viewpoint, the description theory preserves picture-like property of quotation.
can use any kind of a symbol inside of quotation. Therefore, the description theory may need inﬁnite number of alphabets to interpret quotation. This would be against Davidson’s thesis that the language must have ﬁnite number of primitives.
options. 1 Argue that there are only ﬁnite number of symbols, by the limitation of human cognitive capacity 2 Deny thesis that the language must have ﬁnite number of primitives I am inclined to the second option. The essential property of natural language is that it is inﬁnitely extensible. This is not against learnability, because in any point of time, the language is ﬁnite.
interpret impure quotation and mixed case of use and mention. Further, we argue that Davidson’s criticism to the description theory based on quantiﬁcation and picture-like property of quotation is groundless. Finally, we discuss possibility of inﬁnite number of alphabets. We inclined to accept this possibility, based on inﬁnite extensibility of a natural language.