What is 'that'?

Analysis 71 (4):651-653 (2011)
Abstract
Davidson's paratactic account of indirect speech exploits the fact that ‘that’ can be either a demonstrative pronoun or a subordinating conjunction. Davidson thinks that the fact that it is plausible to think that it inherited the latter function from the former lends support to his account. However, in other languages the two functions are performed by unrelated words, which makes the account impossible to apply to them. I argue that this shows that, rather than revealing the underlying form of indirect reports, the account reflects only a quirk of English
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Ivan Welty (2011). Frege on Indirect Proof. History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (3):283-290.
    Stefano Predelli (2008). The Demonstrative Theory of Quotation. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (5):555-572.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2011-08-28

    Total downloads

    33 ( #44,438 of 1,089,055 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,801 of 1,089,055 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.