Talk:Use–mention distinction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

"We mention "our vast nuclear arsenal" so as to make it unnecessary to use it" -- Douglas Hofstadter

OR

"We mention "our vast nuclear arsenal" so that we won`t have to use it." -- Douglas Hofstadter

I think that the former is the correct, but I don't have Metamagical Themas to check it with. This quotation would be an excellent example.

Paullusmagnus 21:15, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • I looked it up, but I don't see an obvious way of working it into the article. The quotation is:
We mention "our gigantic nuclear arsenal" in order not to use it.
-- Douglas R. Hofstadter, in Metamagical Themas
(Page 43 of the 1996 Penguin paperback edition, ISBN 0-14-008534-3.)
--AlanBarrett 22:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

The example under "journalism" is way out of date - as it turns out, some of the allegations were true and Jeffrey Archer is a crook. Anyone think of a new one? Onebyone 18:24, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "Violation"

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting it, but the part about violating the use-mention distinction strikes me as ambiguous and confusing. It previously read:

Violation of the use-mention distinction can produce sentences that sound and appear similar to the original, but have an entirely different meaning. For example,

"The use-mention distinction" is not "strictly enforced here".
is literally true because the two phrases in it are not the same.

First, to comply with Manual of Style, I propose the example sentence be re-formatted as: The use-mention distinction is not strictly enforced here.

More importantly, I think the explanatory sentence needs to be re-worded. What constitutes a "violation" of the use-mention distinction? I'm not sure you can violate a distinction, although you may make a distinction ambiguous, or eliminate a distinction. I interpret the example sentence as demonstrating a case where the use-mention distinction may be ambiguous. The explanatory sentence also refers to "the original" - what is "the original" here? There is only one example given, although the sentence implies a second (or first, actually). I'm having trouble coming up with a good alternate version, but I have revised the section as follows:

For example, the two versions of a seemingly-paradoxical statement below can be interpreted to have two distinct meanings, one of which resolves the apparent paradox:

  • The use-mention distinction is not strictly enforced here.
  • The use-mention distinction is not strictly enforced here.

This statement (Putting a statement in quotation marks and attributing it to its originator is a useful way of turning a disputed statement about a subject into an undisputed statement about another statement.) is also problematic, particularly the "disputed/undisputed" business. It seems unencyclopedic to me. Schi 19:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

At first I didn't understand the example sentences, until I saw the explanatory material in this discussion which apparently used to be in the article itself: "... is literally true because the two phrases in it are not the same." As it is now, it is hard to tell what the second sentence means. The old explanation should be put back in. And shouldn't the word the be in italics too, since it's part of the phrase? 24.159.255.29 05:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right about misinterpreting it, Schi. What is being violated is not a distinction, but a rule or recommendation known as "the use-mention distinction." Unfree (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about glosses?

How does a gloss—a translation or definition—fall into this model? It seems to be a third aspect. For example:

  • The moose is a large herbivore. Moose comes from the Algonquian mus or mooz (‘twig eater’).

The first moose is used. The second is mentioned, as are its algonquian translations. But the term 'twig eater' is neither: its meaning is essential, and it seems to be a derivative of the word. —Michael Z. 2006-10-18 18:25 Z

[edit] Alice Through the Looking Glass

I think the conversation below is relevant to the use-mention distinction. Whether it is useful to link to is a different matter. Any comments? I see that Haddocks' Eyes mentions this article. This connection may already have been discussed here.

There is a passage in Alice Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll in which the White Knight proposes to comfort Alice by singing her a song:

"Is it very long?" Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.
"It's long," said the Knight, "but it's very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it--either it brings the tears into their eyes, or else--"
"Or else what?" said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.
"Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called 'Haddock's Eyes'."
"Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested.
"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little vexed. "That's what the name is called. The name really is 'The Aged Aged Man'."
"Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called?'" Alice corrected herself.
"No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called 'Ways and Means': but that's only what it's called, you know!"
"Well, what is the song, then?" said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is 'A-sitting on a Gate': and the tune's my own invention."

Wanderer57 16:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphen

Shouldn't "use-mention" incorporate a hyphen? When I pasted it (from the beginning of the article) into Notepad and saved it, it didn't. For example, saving it as ANSI shows the character as hex 96, whereas the hyphen is hex 2d. I don't know how hex 96 should be rendered (in codepage 437, it's a lowercase u-caret), but perhaps a dash was entered by mistake. My browser (Firefox) apparently renders it as a dash.

Unfree (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an en dash. Typographical sticklers like to use that instead of a hyphen for compound modifiers when the two words are being related to each other in a symmetric way. See Hyphen#Compound_modifiers. 155.212.242.34 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hat note

Carl, we have just been through a whole rigmarole over this issue at substitution instance which could have been avoided altogether if this hat note was here already. I think we can learn from our experiences, AND SHARE THEM WITH OTHERS in this way. The policy you refer to mentions nothing about hatspace. Furthermore, I just kind of hinted to you about narrowness. In this case there is not even a policy to take narrowly.

This was clearly a productive edit. I have no idea what makes you think that was a good idea. Was it a mistake to indicate that I feel like giving up? WTF? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside speculation about how a reader might have reached the article on "use–mention distinction", I seems to me it might be useful to them to know that there is a Wikipedia policy on the matter. Or have I missed the point of this "discussion" completely? Wanderer57 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The guideline on avoiding self-references is important. Practice is that only a few, particularly important policies are given hatnotes in articles. For example, style guide has one, but not italics. The ""words as words" section is a particularly esoteric paragraph in the MOS, not a page of its own or a particularly important policy. There's no reason to violate the principle of avoiding self-references and cross-namespace redirects just to link to it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Carl, there is nothing self referential about it. The policy you cite does not apply to this case AT ALL. There may be some policy you are thinking of, but this does not appear to be it. Furthermore there are plenty of such hatnotes in WP so, maybe you should start there instead. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No Wanderer. You understand clearly. The others seem to think that everybody uses the wp the way they do. These are the types that would remove the random link button if it wasn't hard wired into wp. Way to go guys, real helpful. Not to mention that its need was demonstrated by recent events. Help me out by putting it back. I'm done for the day on that issue.
Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Cross-namespace links are considered "self reference" in the language of wikipedia. Our general practice is to avoid them with a few select exceptions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. If the reference to the MOS was in the body of the Use-Mention article rather than in a hatnote, would there still have been an issue? Wanderer57 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It would still be a self reference, in the jargon people employ. Our goal is that, with a few exceptions, articles should not link to other namespaces or directly acknowledge the fact that they are on Wikipedia. I have sometimes found this practice restricting, as well, but it is justified by the goal that our articles should stand alone independent of the project that created them. In other words, readers of our articles should be able to ignore the editing part and just pay attention to the content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
CBM: I can sympathize with the goal you state. In the interest of understanding the policy and the situation, can we discuss the article USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia?
Both the hatnote and the first sentence of that article seem, on the surface at least, to offend the policy.
The questions in my mind are, 1) does the nature of the subject matter justify overriding the policy in this instance, and 2) is the wording used in the article appropriate? (My answers are 1) yes, and 2) no, as it seems excessively self-referential.) Wanderer57 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that was probably put there by popular concern around the time of the incidents. Now that it has been almost two years, I personally don't see the need to publicize an "internal account" of the incident at all. If our article isn't good enough to present all viewpoints impartially, then I think it should be improved rather than forked into Wikipedia space. There are, however, other editors who strongly dislike even mentioning Wikipedia in an article, even if Wikipedia is the subject. I'll ask on the talk page if the hatnote there still has much support. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you. Aside from the hatnote, what about the first sentence of the article? (I ask this partly for the sake of improving the article, partly for my own education.) Wanderer57 (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the first sentence is OK - it is neutrally worded, and the fact of the matter is that the incident involved Wikipedia. I am aware of other editors who more strongly oppose any mention of Wikipedia in our articles, but in this one I don't see any way to get around it. I think there will always be a degree of awkwardness in Wikipedia articles about incidents involving Wikipedia, and we have to deal with it on an ad hoc basis. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments re explanation of the concept of U-M Distinction

First sentence is: "The use–mention distinction is the distinction between using a word (or phrase, etc.) and mentioning it."

However, the rest of the paragraph is devoted to how the distinction is represented typographically. I think this is premature as the definition of the U-M distinction has not yet been made clear (at least in IMHO.)

I think the concept of "use-mention distinction" can be better explained if the word "mention" does not have to be used in the explanation. My attempt at a revised explanation follows.

The use–mention distinction is the distinction between using a word (or phrase, etc.) to refer to the "thing" it represents, and discussing the word itself.
For example, the following sentences illustrate the use-mention distinction.
  • Cheese is made from milk.
  • Cheese is derived from a word in Old English.
The first sentence is a statement about cheese. The second is a statement about the word "cheese".
This could be said more briefly as follows:
  • Cheese is made from milk. (This is a statement about cheese.)
  • "Cheese" is derived from a word in Old English. (This is a statement about the word "cheese".)

I find the following sentence confusing. "The use–mention distinction is the distinction between using a word (or phrase, etc.) and mentioning it." In everyday speech, it could be said that both of the example sentences use the word "cheese".

I may be way off-base. Someone else please take a look. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments re article lead section

Currently more than half the lead is about how to represent the distinction in print. It seems to me this detracts from the explanation of the distinction itself.

I suggest the part about how to represent the distinction should be a section in the body of the article.

This would leave the lead section quite short. An example to illustrate the concept could be put into the lead to make it clearer. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Certain articles have a tendency to move towards addressing Wikipedia editors primarily, even though our goal is to build a general encyclopedia. Perhaps WP:UMD could be bolstered with specific formatting examples, and that would alleviate the pressure to the have this article's lead section serve that role? (section-shortcuts seem to be broken right this second... if they're still broken, WP:UMD points here)
Regarding examples, the lead contains the cheese example already. Is the cheese example a problem as well? While it does brush against some of the formatting issues (necessarily so, since this is a written medium), formatting issues aren't its main focus like other parts of the lead are. --Underpants (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd simply chop off the lead at the words "In written language", and make everything from that point on a section of the article. Heading? Maybe "Usage" - but that's already taken. BTW, what is that "usage" section about, and how does it relate to the subject of the article? Would we better off if it were simply deleted? Or am I just too stupid to understand it? Snalwibma (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)