1
Quotation through History: A Historical Case for the Proper Treatment of Quotation
Michael Johnson
Department of Philosophy, Hong Kong University
Tel: 852 9706 5215
AbstractI present a theory of quotation in speech reports and the resolution of indexicals in those reports based partially on the historical development of the practice of punctuating with quotation marks. For the first thousand or so years of English writing, quotation marks weren’t used. Their use in direct quotation developed in the 18th century through a need created by the rise of the novel, a need to clearly and frequently mark out when direct speech begins and ends. The 18th Century practice differs noticeably from current practice. While 18th century novels always place direct speech forms within quotes, they sometimes also place indirect forms there as well. I present a diachronically consistent theory of quotation in speech reports. For a variety of reasons, contemporary direct speech reports may diverge from a verbatim reproduction of the reported speakers’ words: translation, removal of taboos, and clean-up of infelicities and non-standard dialect features. Speech that has been minimally altered in these respects is still appropriately placed within quotation marks. The same was true in the 18th Century novel: but those authors allowed that context-sensitive direct forms could be altered within a quotation to indirect forms, in certain circumstances. The historical data also supports the claim that quotation marks are punctuation marks with no semantic effects. Monstrous accounts cannot handle cases where some but not all context sensitive expressions are “shifted” within quotes. I present a non-monstrous account of indexicals in reported speech.
1 Introduction
In common parlance, quotation is repeating the words of someone. That someone need not be distinct from the person quoting: you can quote yourself. That someone need not exist, and need not be in the past: you can quote Gandalf, quote what someone should have said, or quote what they will say. Indeed, you can even quote a source when you aren’t aware that that person was the source of the quote:
Even if you’ve never read a play by Shakespeare, you’ve probably quoted him countless times without even knowing it…Bet the last time you said that you hadn't “slept one wink,” you didn't realize you were quoting Cymbeline.[1]
There are myriad reasons to quote. Quoting others reveals our social alignments, our knowledge, preferences, and interests. Quoting is a powerful social signifier:
I get a lot of e-mails from foreigners hoping to secure a visa to work in the United States… a few weeks ago, one of the guys who e-mailed me had a signature that, at the very bottom, said, “Everything dies, baby that’s a fact, but maybe everything that dies someday comes back.”
I wishedso bad that I could get that guy into the United States at that moment. Because anyone going around quoting Bruce Springsteen deserves to be allowed into the United States.[2]
Quoting song lyrics, religious texts, and literary figures not only reveals our knowledge of social norms and mores, but also appeals to and at the same time enforces those norms. Quoting can be a powerful form of adding gravitas, credibility, and authority to our speech, and it can also be a potent means of undermining authority. For example, when Job appears to be questioning his ability to prove his innocence to God in 9:2-24, “Job is really exposing his friends, by ironically quoting some of their absurd maxims” (Clarke 1837: 197). Quotation can even be a means of creating authority, as when we quote past predictions that came out correct.
In our contemporary, formal, written practice, quotation marks are used to attribute spoken or written words to others. But it was not always so. The diple, the forerunner of the quotation mark, began simply as a means for ancient Greek editors to highlight important or interesting aspects of the text (Finnegan 201: 86). In the Christian era, the marks were adopted to signal Old Testament passages that are quoted or paraphrased in the New Testament, and to signal the words of Jesus (but not others). Quotation marks weren’t used for ordinary dialog: “quotation quintessentially pertained to the scriptures… it was not for the speech of ordinary mortals” (Finnegan: 97-98). It wasn’t until the 18th century and the rise of the novel that quotation marks began to take on a role closer to their present one (Finnegan: 98). In novels, multiple speakers exchange remarks, and it is necessary to indicate when one person’s speech ends and another’s begins. Quote marks soon became standard in this role.
However, the 18th century practice of using quote marks does differ in a number of significant ways from our current practice, though I will argue that the differences aren’t very deep. I’ll further argue that there’s no particular reason to think our current practice is either more or less worthy of a theoretical understanding than its historical forerunners are. Insofar as we have reasons to have a semantic or pragmatic (or whatever) theory of quotation as it works now, we have reasons to have a semantic or pragmatic (or whatever) theory of quotation in the 18th century. In this essay I’ll first introduce and analyze 18th century practice;then I’ll attempt to provide a theory that covers both it and contemporary practice.
2 Q-marks and the 18th Century Novel
For the majority of time that English has been written, direct speech has gone unpunctuated. For example at MS Cotton Vitelius A XV (the manuscript containing Beowulf) f 137r, there is a transition from the Beowulf poet’s voice to the voice of a character, the cliff warden, after a verb of saying ‘frægn’ (‘asked’). This transition is marked only with a dot, the same symbol that punctuates elsewhere ends of various sentences and clauses. The warden is reported with a direct question in the present tense ‘hƿæt syndon ge…’ (‘what are you…?’), and the indexicals ‘ge’ (2nd person plural, ‘you’) and ‘Ic’ (1st singular, ‘I’) refer to the warden’s interlocutors and the warden, respectively.
Even into the 18th century, quotation marks were not always used by printers.
Tho’ my Mother refused to move it to my Father, yet as I have heard afterwards, she reported all the Discourse to him, and that my Father, after shewing a great Concern at it, said to her with a Sigh, That Boy might be happy if he would stay at home, but if he goes abroad he will be the miserablest Wretch that was ever born: I can give no Consent to it. [Robinson Crusoe, W. Taylor, 1719 1st Edition: 6]
The final ‘I’ here refers to the reported speaker, Crusoe’s father, and ‘he’ refers to the (fictional) author of the passage, Crusoe.
These examples show at least this: current conventions regarding quotation marks are recent. For the first thousand years English has been written, there were no such marks (or they served purposes other than our contemporary ones). Nevertheless, readers had little trouble working out the referents of indexicals including ones “shifted” to the reported speaker’s context. The supposed inability to get “shifted” readings from written reports without quotation marks (Cappelen & Lepore, 2007: 55-56) is a malady that uniquely affects present-day readers.
One early use of so-called “quotation marks” in printing was commonplacing. Between the 17th and 19th Centuries, the educated classes in Britain and America were taught to keep commonplace books, something like a book of quotations (“commonplaces”) compiled individually by their owner, though these books could also contain things like statistics, measurement conversions, and other information. Commonplace books were a status symbol, signifying the refinement and erudition of their owners. They could be used as a source of meditation on profound thoughts, or a means for finding a choice quote in the age before the internet. Francis Bacon reportedly used his commonplace book to prepare for his speeches.
The demand for wise words to fill up one’s commonplace book was high enough that printers used commonplace marks—inverted double commas—to indicate passages worthy of copying. Editions of Shakespeare were common targets. In this example from Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, the printer has marked Isabella’s statement of the play’s theme, as she chooses to refuse Angelo’s request to exchange her virginity for her brother’s life:
Then Isabell live chaste, and brother die;
“More then our Brother, is our Chastitie.
Ile tell him yet of Angelo’s request,
And fit his minde to death, for his soules rest.[3]
Commonplace marks thus had the function of “reverse quotation marks” in that they did not indicate which parts of a text had been copied from elsewhere (had been quoted), but rather indicated which parts of a text you were supposed to copy (to quote).
Still today there are texts that are intended to be copied and re-purposed—chain emails and so-called “copypasta”—but the practice of explicitly marking such texts has fallen out of favor. Commonplacing is an evolutionary dead end on the radiation of functions of “quotation marks” during the early days of printing.
In order to distinguish between the marks and their function, which is only sometimes quotation, I will call the inverted double commas “Q-marks.” The earliest practice of Q-marking printed quotations differed from the present-day practice in some notable ways, ways that I will argue matter for the theory of quotation.[4]
The first relevant feature of direct and mixed quotation in the 18th century novel is that it subsumes most of our contemporary practice. So, for example, there are standard indirect quotes (1) and indirect questions (2) that are punctuated roughly as we would punctuate them today (the exception being that the indirect questions end with a question mark). Then there are standard direct quotations (3), accounting for the majority of quotations. Finally, there are plenty of mixed quotations, such as (4) and (5).[5]
(1) …For sometimes he said, he looked
on himself as still married, and considered his
Wife as only gone a little before him… [vol. I, p. 6]
(2) Mrs. Miller then asked what was to be done with Blifil?
(3) ‘ I wish,’ answered the surgeon, ‘ I could
‘ assure your being well in a month or two.
‘ …’ [vol. II, p. 186]
(4) Upon this, Jones related to him the whole
Truth, and earnestly begged him not to punish
the poor Soldier, ‘ who, I am confident,’ says
he, ‘ is as innocent of the Ensign's Escape, as he
‘ is of forging any Lie, or of endeavouring to
‘ impose on you.’ [vol. II, p. 169]
(5) nay, Cicero reports them to have been ‘ incredi-
‘ bly childish.’ [vol. II, p. 78]
But there is no shortage of examples that are at first instance tough to parse for the contemporary reader[6],[7]:
(6)Jones1 answered with a Sigh, ‘ He1 feared it was
‘ already too late for Caution;’ [vol. I, p. 264]
In (6), Tom is alone with Sophia, who has just warned him to be cautious. He presumably says, “I fear it is already too late for caution,” but these are not the words Fielding uses to report him. Instead, the tense progression is altered to follow the main verb ‘answer’ and the pronoun is changed to the third-person form.
We might suspect that Fielding is just putting quote marks around indirect discourse, but again there is no shortage of forms like (1) with indirect discourse but no quote marks. We might suspect that Fielding is just not being meticulous in his use of the marks, but three facts belie this claim: first, never once does Fielding fail to put quotation marks around a direct quotation. It would be strange then for him to accidentally forget to do so for a large number of indirect quotations. Second, consider this fragment of quote from Mr. Allworthy:
(7) ‘… I cannot avoid saying,
‘ there is no Part of your Conduct which I re-
‘ sent more than your ill Treatment of that good
‘ young Man (meaning Blifil) who hath behaved
‘ with so much Tenderness and Honour towards
‘ you.’ [vol. II, p. 58]
Fielding isn’t being sloppy in his use of quote marks. When he adds words that the original speaker did not use, he puts them in parentheses. This is someone who cares about distinguishing what he, as narrator, says, from what his characters say. Third, the existence of mixed quotations highly suggests that a careful distinction is being made by the use of quote marks.
Some useful context may be provided by (8). Here, Master Blifil is protesting that he didn’t provoke Tom into assaulting him, so the “his mouth” is the mouth of Blifil. Fielding reports the content of what Blifil said (that he had made use of no such appellation)—without quoting it, because again, it’s just the content. Then he goes on to report what Blifil “added.” The addition here is not more content, because it’s roughly Blifil just saying that he had made use of no such appellation. Instead, Fielding is reporting the words that Blifil used in his protests. That’s Blifil’s “heaven forbid” and Blifil’s “should ever” and Blifil’s exclamation point. Fielding is reporting Blifil’s speech verbatim—except for the personal pronoun (and perhaps the tense of ‘should’).
(8) he1 positively insisted, that he1 had made Use
of no such Appellation ; adding, ‘ Heaven forbid
‘ such naughty Words should ever come out of
‘ his1 Mouth.’ [volI, pp. 123-124]
Other examples seem to attest to this general view, that quotation in these cases suggests verbatim reporting, with grammatical alterations. For example, in (9), it seems unlikely that Fielding is calling Tom “that fine spark” – this is the petty-fogger speaking:
(9)Jones1 had no sooner quitted the room, than
the Petty-fogger, in a whispering tone, asked
Mrs. Whitefield2, ‘ If she2 knew who that fine
‘ Spark1 was?’ [vol. II, p. 214]
Example (9), like (10) and (11), also shows that quote marks sometimes appear around what otherwise seem like indirect questions, though as (2) demonstrates, not for every indirect question.
(10) …He1 then con-
cluded by asking, ‘ who that Partridge was, whom
‘ he2 had called a worthless Fellow?’ [vol. I, p. 82]
(11) …she1 asked her2, ‘ How
‘ she2 had the Assurance to mention her1 Name
‘ with Disrespect?’ [vol. II, p. 116]
In many instances, the grammar seems to force the indirect forms within the quotation. So, for example, in (12), pronouns referring to the speaker are in the third person and ‘beg’ takes an infinitival complement, which is not the language with which one begs. But since Fielding is reporting what Sophia said (amended only for grammatical purposes), he puts quote marks around it and continues in the next sentence to standard direct quoting.
(12) …she1 begged him2, ‘ not to
‘ make her1 the most miserable Creature on Earth
‘ by forcing her1 to marry a Man whom she1 de-
‘ tested. This I1 entreat of you2, dear Sir,’ said
she1, ‘ for your2 Sake, as well as my1 own, since
‘ you2 are so very kind to tell me1 your2 Happiness
‘ depends on mine1.’ [vol. II, p. 38]
We see something similar in (13) with ‘entreat’; here Fielding follows with more indirect speech imposed by the complementizer ‘that’ (which disprefers direct speech). It’s also worth noting that when Fielding is reporting what someone is “adding” or “urging” or “saying” (the gerund participle) we often get the indirect forms, with quotation marks. This may be grammatical in nature as well.
(13) She1 entreated her Aunt, ‘ to have Mercy
‘ upon her1, and not to resent so cruelly her1 Unwilling-
‘ ness to make herself1 miserable; often urging
‘ that she1 alone was concerned, and that her1
‘ Happiness only was at Stake.’ [vol. II, p. 86]
The data then are these. Quote marks always appear around direct forms and sometimes appear around indirect forms in 18th century novels.[8] Quote marks around indirect forms seem to indicate that the speech contained therein is reported verbatim, with the exception of necessary grammatical changes in pronouns, in the tense, in word order (for indirect questions) and in forms of address.[9] The reasons for choosing indirect forms in these cases are sometimes but clearly not always grammatical. It is also possible, as I’ll suggest, that indirect reporting is not seen by these authors as incompatible with verbatim reporting.
3Meaning as Use (for Punctuation)
Suppose we live in a society where each individual x obeys rule (1). Furthermore, it’s common knowledge that the rule is obeyed. I won’t assume that it’s a convention, because it’s not clear what coordination problem obeying the rule solves (Lewis 1969). Today we observe that Jeb is wearing a pink and white polka-dotted hat. We reason:
1. For all x, x wears a pink and white polka-dotted hat when and only when it’s x’s birthday. [Common knowledge]
2. Therefore, Jeb wears a pink and white polka-dotted hat when and only when it’s Jeb’s birthday. [1, universal elimination]
3. Jeb is wearing a pink and white polka-dotted hat. [Observation]
4. Therefore, it’s Jeb’s birthday. [2, 3, biconditional elimination]