In this thesis difficulties associated with the use of referring expressions in that-clauses are approached through an examination of several well-known attempts to illustrate such difficulties by means of examples. The most notorious of the examples which are discussed are Frege's, concerning the morning star, Russell's, concerning George IV's query about Scott, and Quine's, concerning Tully. The passages in which these examples are presented are examined and found to involve a neglect of some of our conventions regarding the indirect mode reporting of others' beliefs and sayings. It is argued that sentences which would constitute indirect mode reports upon others' sayings and beliefs should be examined against the background of a context in which they would be used. If we - as an audience - are able to understand what a reported saying or belief is about, then we should say that the referring expressions of the clause in question do refer . The tie between substitutivity and reference is discussed, and it is suggested that there is often proper reference even on occasions when the replacement of expressions would be prohibited. It is emphasized that our purposes in constructing reports, and our expectations of proffered reports, are often such that a report which merely specifies the object of the belief or saying would be inadequate. The "existential condition" which attaches to referring is discussed in conjunction with a criticism of views expressed by A. N. Prior and A. Kenny. It is argued that the phenomenon of "opacity" does not constitute a means of reporting upon o t hers without commitment to their "ontologies." It is suggested that the notion of a subject of discourse can be sufficiently explicated without regard to questions of "ontological" status. Problems connected with the individuation of the objects of another's sayings and beliefs are approached through a consideration of our willingness to proffer indirect mode reports about those sayings or beliefs in particular circumstances. In the closing sections the discussion is addressed to questions concerning the degree of allowable variation between sentences which, on some occasion of their use, would make the same report or describe the same belief .

Bibliography: p. 185-187.