‘That’-Clauses and Non-nominal Quantification

Philosophical Studies 137 (3):301 - 333 (2008)

Authors
Tobias Rosefeldt
Humboldt-University, Berlin
Abstract
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)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-006-0002-8
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,238
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

The Things We Mean.Stephen Schiffer - 2003 - Oxford University Press.
Conceptions of Truth.Wolfgang Künne - 2003 - Oxford University Press.
Syntax and Semantics of Questions.Lauri Karttunen - 1977 - Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1):3--44.

View all 35 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Hopes, Fears, and Other Grammatical Scarecrows.Jacob M. Nebel - 2019 - Philosophical Review 128 (1):63-105.
The Face‐Value Theory, Know‐That, Know‐Wh and Know‐How.Giulia Felappi - 2019 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 8 (1):63-72.
"That"-Clauses and Propositional Anaphors.Peter van Elswyk - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies.
Propositional or Non-Propositional Attitudes?Sean Crawford - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 168 (1):179-210.

View all 26 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Beyond Plurals.Agustin Rayo - 2006 - In Agustín Rayo & Gabriel Uzquiano (eds.), Absolute Generality. Oxford University Press. pp. 220--54.
On What There Are.Philippe De Rouilhan - 2002 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102:183 - 200.
On Quantifying Into Predicate Position: Steps Towards a New (Tralist) Perspective.Crispin Wright - 2007 - In Mary Leng, Alexander Paseau & Michael Potter (eds.), Mathematical Knowledge. Oxford University Press. pp. 150--74.
Indenumerability and Substitutional Quantification.Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward - 1982 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23 (4):358-366.
Certain Verbs Are Syntactically Explicit Quantifiers.Anna Szabolcsi - 2011 - The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6:5.
Truth Via Sentential Quantification.Mark Textor - 2005 - Dialogue 44 (3):539-550.
Prior and Lorenzen on Quantification.Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward - 1991 - Grazer Philosophishe Studien 41:150-173.
Quantification in English is Inherently Sortal.Edward L. Keenan - 1999 - History and Philosophy of Logic 20 (3-4):251-265.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
166 ( #48,631 of 2,285,838 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #250,216 of 2,285,838 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature