That-clauses and propositional anaphors

Abstract

This paper argues that that-clauses do not reference propositions because they are not intersubstitutible with other expressions that do reference propositions. In particular, that-clauses are shown to not be intersubstitutible with propositional anaphors like so. The substitution failures are further argued to support a semantics on which that-clauses are predicates.

Higher-Order Metaphysics and Propositional Attitudes

“…In general, for any variable x of type 𝜎, and any expression 𝜑 of type 𝜏, the expression 𝜆x 𝜍 .𝜑 has type 𝜎 → 𝜏.⁸ ⁷ A view of this kind fits with a popular view in linguistics, on which the English "that" has (roughly) type t → (e → t), so that "that"-clauses have type e → t, and, when "that"-clauses are used as complements of attitude verbs, they modify covert arguments which have type e (Kratzer, 2006, Moulton, 2009, Moulton, 2015, cf. Moltmann, 2003, Matthews, 2020van Elswyk, 2019, van Elswyk, 2020, van Elswyk, 2022, Güngör, 2022; and for a slightly different view, which comes to much the same, Pietroski, 2000, Pietroski, 2005, Forbes, 2006, and especially Forbes, 2018.…”