What is 'that'?

Analysis 71 (4):651-653 (2011)
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)
DOI 10.1093/analys/anr086
 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: 15,904
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

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.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

42 ( #79,110 of 1,725,464 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #349,436 of 1,725,464 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

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