Use–mention distinction
in analytic philosophy, a distinction between using a word or phrase and mentioning it
In analytic philosophy, a fundamental distinction is made between the ordinary use of a term (a word, name, phrase, etc.) versus the self-aware mention of it. The distinction between use and mention can be illustrated with the English word cheese:
Cheese is derived from milk.
Cheese is derived from the Old English word ċēse.
The first sentence is a statement about the edible substance called cheese. It demonstrates a use or usage; the writer is using the normal English word cheese, in its typical way, to refer to the common dairy product. The second is a statement about the very word cheese itself as a linguistic entity. This second sentence provides a mention; the writer is mentioning the word but not using it to refer to anything other than itself.
The use–mention distinction can sometimes be pedantic, especially in simple cases where it is obvious. However, scholars argue that many philosophical works have been misguided, or misinterpreted by others, based on a failure to understand or recognize this basic distinction.
Overview
In written language, mentioned words or phrases often appear between single or double quotation marks or in italics.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Use–mention distinction” is in analytic philosophy, a distinction between using a word or phrase and mentioning it. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through mention, distinction and analytic, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “in analytic philosophy, a distinction between using a word or phrase and mentioning it” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2577553. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Use–mention distinction”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Use–mention distinction primary sources, Use–mention distinction archive and mention research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Use–mention distinction”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Use–mention distinction” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.