Abstract

It is argued that the propositions semantically expressed by attitude ascriptions report relations to the Russellian propositions expressed by their complement clauses, and hence that pairs of ascriptions that differ only in the substitution of linguistically simple, coreferential names, or indexicals are semantically equivalent. It is explained how ascriptions that are equivalent in this way may nevertheless be used by speakers to assert and convey propositions with different truth values. The end result is a theory in which a Millian account of the semantic contents of simple names and indexicals, plus a Russellian treatment of propositional attitude ascriptions, is reconciled with Fregean intuitions about the information asserted and conveyed by utterances of both simple sentences and attitude ascriptions. The chapter concludes with an examination of the consequences of this theory for Kripke's doctrines about identity sentences and the necessary _a posteriori_.