David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 137 (3):301 - 333 (2008)
This paper argues that ‘that’-clauses are not singular terms (without denying that their semantical values are propositions). In its first part, three arguments are presented to support the thesis, two of which are defended against recent criticism. The two good arguments are based on the observation that substitution of ‘the proposition that p’ for ‘that p’ may result in ungrammaticality. The second part of the paper is devoted to a refutation of the main argument for the claim that ‘that’-clauses are singular terms, namely that this claim is needed in order to account for the possibility of quantification into ‘that’-clause position. It is shown that not all quantification in natural languages is quantification into the position of singular terms, but that there is also so-called ‘non-nominal quantification’. A formal analysis of non-nominal quantification is given, and it is argued that quantification into ‘that’-clause position can be treated as another kind non-nominal quantification.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy of Religion Philosophy of Mind Epistemology Logic Philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Stephen R. Schiffer (2003). The Things We Mean. Oxford University Press.
Wolfgang Künne (2003). Conceptions of Truth. Oxford University Press.
Friederike Moltmann (2003). Propositional Attitudes Without Propositions. Synthese 135 (1):77 - 118.
Agustin Rayo & Stephen Yablo (2001). Nominalism Through de-Nominalization. Noûs 35 (1):74–92.
Citations of this work BETA
Sean Crawford (2014). Propositional or Non-Propositional Attitudes? Philosophical Studies 168 (1):179-210.
David Liggins (2016). Grounding and the Indispensability Argument. Synthese 193 (2):531-548.
James Pryor (2007). Reasons and That‐Clauses. Philosophical Issues 17 (1):217-244.
Gary Ostertag (2009). A Problem for Russellian Theories of Belief. Philosophical Studies 146 (2):249 - 267.
Similar books and articles
Agustin Rayo (2006). Beyond Plurals. In Agustín Rayo & Gabriel Uzquiano (eds.), Absolute Generality. Oxford University Press 220--54.
Ed Keenan (1999). Quantification in English is Inherently Sortal. History and Philosophy of Logic 20 (3-4):251-265.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1991). Prior and Lorenzen on Quantification. Grazer Philosophishe Studien 41:150-173.
Mireille Staschok (2008). Non-Traditional Squares of Predication and Quantification. Logica Universalis 2 (1):77-85.
Mark Textor (2005). Truth Via Sentential Quantification. Dialogue 44 (3):539-550.
Anna Szabolcsi (2011). Certain Verbs Are Syntactically Explicit Quantifiers. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6 (1):5.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1982). Indenumerability and Substitutional Quantification. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23 (4):358-366.
Crispin Wright (2007). On Quantifying Into Predicate Position: Steps Towards a New (Tralist) Perspective. In Mary Leng, Alexander Paseau & Michael D. Potter (eds.), Mathematical Knowledge. Oxford University Press 150--74.
Philippe De Rouilhan (2002). On What There Are. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102:183 - 200.
Marc A. Moffett (2003). Knowing Facts and Believing Propositions: A Solution to the Problem of Doxastic Shift. Philosophical Studies 115 (1):81-97.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads124 ( #28,644 of 1,789,981 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #105,400 of 1,789,981 )
How can I increase my downloads?