{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024838012958963283, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.263513513513513, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Accounting for non-constituents in hybrid quotations. Why unquotation is not the answer

This paper addresses a serious challenge to some recent semantic accounts of quotation: the existence of ‘non-constituent hybrid quotations’, as in Vera said she was ‘very happy and incredibly relieved’by the supreme court’s decision. These pose a threat to theories that have to make the assumption that hybrid quotations must be co-extensive with syntactic constituents. Responses to the challenge have been proposed, first a quote-breaking procedure, and subsequently unquotation. I argue that these responses fall short of providing empirically satisfactory accounts of the phenomena. Other theories of quotation are not under threat of non-constituent hybrid quotations. I single out a particular family of theories, depiction theories, which have the added advantage of doing justice to the core mechanisms at the heart of quoting.