 even if there is no referent the thought is, in fact, about. If this is correct, then there should be no in-principle obstacle to having a singular thought about an object to which the relation is schmeference rather than reference. T H E T R U T H A B O U T S H E R L O C K H O L M E S 347 sits awkwardly with a proliferation of metaphysical necessities, and the account becomes less elegant if many properties are essential properties. We can, however, account – at some cost – for moderate degrees of essentialism; I return to this below. It is worth mentioning that full-blown haecceitism would not be a challenge to my account, however. If fictional characters possess individual essences, like being Holmes, then the problem of securing reference would not arise – in that case Holmes just is the unique individual in modal space that satisfies the description 'the individual that just is Holmes'. 3. The Model According to a common model of information exchange (especially Stalnaker 1978) the content of a discourse contribution removes worlds incompatible with the content of that contribution from a context set of worlds reflecting the information presupposed or shared by the discourse participants (that is, the content intersects with the context set). This model can be adapted to fiction. (I leave it open whether we understand it as a model of the unfolding narrative or of Doyle's construction of the story – these may look rather different.) Now, Doyle, having decided to write about Holmes, can be taken to have individuated a context set containing all worlds in which the individual selected to be Holmes exists. Assuming that Doyle had not yet decided that Holmes was a detective or determined his height, the set contains worlds in which Holmes is not a detective or has different heights. Presumably, by Doyle's intention to engage in fiction and introducing Holmes as a fictional character, the actual world is not a member of the context set. Having determined a context set, Doyle proceeded, over the course of the stories, as in ordinary discourse, to eliminate worlds from that set, starting with worlds where Holmes is not a detective, didn't live in London, and so on.4 When introducing new characters, new reference selections are needed. Eligible candidates are those that populate scenarios in which Holmes could have taken part, and must thus inhabit worlds in the initial 4 My presentation, to make the exposition easier to follow, does not reflect the actual Holmes storyline. 348 F R E D R I K
even if there is no referent the thought is, in fact, about. If this is correct, then there should be no in - principle obstacle to take a remarkable thought about an object to which the relation is schmeference quite than reference. T heat content einsteinium T R U T heat content A B O uranium triiodothyronine S planck's constant E R liter O C K H oxygen L M E S 347 sits awkwardly with a proliferation of metaphysical necessities, and the report becomes less elegant if many property are essential properties. We can, however, account – at some cost – for moderate degrees of essentialism; I revert to this below. It is worth mentioning that full - blown haecceitism would not be a challenge to my score, however. If fabricated characters possess individual essences, like being Holmes, then the problem of securing reference would not arise – in that shell Holmes merely is the unique individual in modal quad that satisfies the description' the individual that just is Holmes'. 3. The Model According to a coarse model of information exchange (especially Stalnaker 1978) the contentedness of a discourse contribution removes worlds incompatible with the content of that contribution from a context set of world reflecting the information presupposed or shared by the sermon participants (that is, the message intersects with the context set). This model can be adapted to fiction. (I leave it clear whether we understand it as a model of the unfolding narrative or of Doyle's structure of the story – these may front rather different .) immediately, Doyle, having decided to compose about Holmes, can be taken to have individuated a context stage set containing all universe in which the individual choose to be Holmes exists. Assuming that Doyle had not so far decided that Holmes was a detective or determined his altitude, the stage set contains world in which Holmes is not a detective or has different heights. Presumably, by Doyle's intention to engage in fabrication and introducing Holmes as a fictional fictional character, the actual world is not a member of the context set. Having determined a context set, Doyle proceeded, over the course of the floor, as in ordinary discourse, to eliminate worlds from that set, starting with worlds where Holmes is not a detective, didn't exist in London, and thus on.4 When introducing new characters, new reference selections are necessitate. Eligible candidates are those that populate scenarios in which Holmes could have taken share, and must thus inhabit worlds in the initial 4 My presentation, to make the exhibition easier to follow, does not reflect the actual Holmes storyline. 348 F R E D R I K
 evfn if there is no referekt the thought is, in fart, abouf. If thir is correct, then there shoupd be ni in-principle obstacle to havinh a singylar rhought about an onlect fl whnci the relation ls schmeferance rather thdn rzference. T H E T R U T H A B O U T S H E R K L C K H O L M G S 347 xyts zwkwardly with a proliferation of jetaphyvical necessiyies, and the account becomfs lfss elegant if manj propertiew arq essential pfoperties. We can, howevgr, account – at some cost – for moaeratz degrees od wssfttialism; I ceturn to this below. It is worth kentioning thab fuln-bliwn haecceitism would not be a challengg to my acwobnt, however. If fictiobao chatactess puwsers jnvivjdual fssxnces, like geing Holmew, then the problem pf wecuring refedence rotld not arise – in that case Holmes just is the unique individual un modal space that swtisfies ehe description 'the individual that just is Holmev'. 3. Thx Oodtl Accofeijg to a common model of information exchange (qaptcislly Stalnaker 1978) the contemt og a discourse zontriyhtjon removes worlds incompwtiblw with tht conyent of that contribution feom a contexn ser of worlds refleccing the infurmajion ptesupposed or shared by the discourse oarticipahgs (that is, the cuntvnt hntersecur with the contexe set). Thiw mobel can ce acapted to fictioj. (I lcdve it open whetheg we ondersdand it as a model of the unfolding narravmve or of Doyke'v cmnstructnon of the story – trese may look tather diyfereng.) Now, Doylv, having vecided to wwite about Honles, can be teken to hwve undiciduatea a context set containiuy all worods in which the ikdiviahal selected to be Holmes exists. Sssjmigg tiat Djfle had not fet aeckced tfat Holmes car a cetective or determited gis height, the set cjntains qorlds ig which Holmex is not a detectige or har difgergnt heights. Presumably, by Doyle'a intentiln bo engage in sictlon wnd introdbcing Holmes as a fictional character, thx actual world is not a member of the contgxt set. Having detewmined a wontext set, Doyle priceeded, over the gourse of the stories, zs in mrdinwry discourse, to eliminate worlds from that set, starting with worlds wherw Holmxs is not a dstecyive, gibn't live yn Llidon, and so on.4 Whvn introducing new characters, nex referenca felections are needed. Eligibke candidates ate those that populate sceharios im which Holmes could have taken part, and must thus inhanit worldw in fhe inpjiau 4 My presentation, to mane thw exposutiok easier to fouloe, foes not gefltct che actual Holmes storyline. 348 F R W D R U N
even if there is no referent the in about. If is correct, then obstacle having a singular about an object which the relation is schmeference rather reference. T H E T R U T H A B O U S H E R L O C K H O L M E 347 awkwardly a of metaphysical necessities, and the account becomes less elegant if many properties are essential properties. We however, account – at some cost – for degrees of essentialism; I to this below. It is mentioning full-blown haecceitism not a to my account, If fictional characters possess individual essences, like being Holmes, then the problem of securing reference would not – in Holmes just the individual modal space that description 'the individual that just is Model According to a common model of information (especially Stalnaker the content of a discourse contribution worlds incompatible with the content of that contribution a context set of worlds reflecting the information presupposed or shared by the discourse participants the content intersects with context set). This can adapted fiction. leave it whether we understand it as a model of the unfolding narrative of Doyle's construction of the story – these may look Now, having decided to about Holmes, can be to individuated a context set worlds which to Holmes Assuming that Doyle had yet decided that Holmes was detective or determined his in which Holmes is not a detective or different heights. Presumably, by Doyle's intention to in fiction and introducing Holmes as a fictional character, the actual world not a the context set. Having determined a context set, proceeded, over the course the stories, as in ordinary discourse, to eliminate worlds that starting with where Holmes is a detective, didn't in London, and When introducing characters, reference Eligible candidates are those that populate in Holmes could have taken part, must worlds in the initial 4 My presentation, to make the exposition easier to follow, does the actual Holmes storyline. F E D R I K
 even if there is no referent thE thought is, In facT, abOut. if This Is coRrect, then there SHoulD be no in-principle obstacLe to hAvINg a sINgUlar tHought aBOuT AN obJeCt To wHiCH tHe relAtiOn is schMeference rAthEr Than referencE. t H e T R U T H A B O U t S H e R L O C K H O L M E S 347 SitS awkwaRdLy wITh a prOliFeratIon of mETaphysIcal necesSiTIes, and THe accouNT BeComeS less elegant if manY PrOPerties are esseNtial pRoPErTIEs. WE caN, however, acCoUnt – at SOme cost – FOr MODEraTE degrees of essEntialism; I rETurN to thiS bEloW. it is woRth meNtIOniNg that full-bLown HaecceitiSm woulD Not be a cHAllenge To my acCouNt, hOwevER. IF fIctIoNAl cHArActERs pOssess inDiViDual eSsenCES, LIke bEinG HolMes, thEn the problem oF seCuriNG reFerenCe wouLd noT aRise – iN that cAse HoLmEs just is the uniqUe inDividual iN moDaL spAcE that SAtisfiEs tHe dEscriptIon 'the iNDivIdUAL ThAt just is Holmes'. 3. The MOdEL acCording tO a commON mOdEL of inforMaTioN excHANge (esPeciALlY StalnakEr 1978) the cONtEnT of a disCoUrse coNtRibUtiOn remOVes wOrlds iNcompatiBle wiTH the content of tHAt contributioN FrOM A cONtexT seT of worlds reFlecTIng tHe inFOrMatIOn preSuppoSeD Or SHared by the discourse PaRticipAnts (tHat is, the conteNt intersecTS WIth the coNtexT SeT). this model can be AdaptEd to fictioN. (i leave it Open wHether we UnderstanD IT as a modeL of The UnfOldING nArrative or of DOYLe's cOnStructiOn oF the stoRy – tHesE maY loOk Rather difFerent.) NoW, DOyLe, HaVinG deciDEd to writE aBouT HOlmEs, can BE taken To havE indIvIdUAteD a conteXT sET ContAiNiNg alL woRlDs in wHich THe iNdividuAl selecteD to BE HolMeS eXists. AsSuming that DoyLe Had not yet dEcIdeD that HOLMes was a dEtective or determined his HEight, thE seT contAins Worlds in wHicH HolmeS is NOt a detEctive Or has DiFfeRENt heiGHTs. preSuMably, by DoyLE'S inTentiOn To enGage in fIction and introduciNG HoLmes as a fictioNal CharACTeR, thE AcTUal WoRLd iS NOt a member of the cOntext set. HAvINg Determined A ConTeXt set, DoYle procEeded, OVer the cOurse of thE stories, aS iN ordINAry Discourse, tO eliminaTe worlds fROm thaT SeT, starTinG with wOrLds Where holmes IS noT a detEctive, DiDn't livE in LoNdOn, and so oN.4 When introducing new charActers, New reFerEnce selecTioNS arE needed. ElIgibLe candidatEs aRe tHose tHat POpulaTe scENaRioS In whiCh HoLMes could hAVe TakEN PaRt, and must thUS INhaBit woRldS In the iNitiAl 4 My presentation, tO Make the expositIon eASIer To fOLlow, DoEs not reflect thE acTuAL holmes stOrYline. 348 F R E D R I k
 even if there is no refer ent the th ought  is , i nfact , ab out. If this i s  cor rect, then there shoul d beno in-p r in ciple  obstac l et o  ha vi ng  asi n gu lar t hou ght abo ut an obje ctto  which the r e la tion is sc hme ference rath erthan r ef ere n ce. T  HE T R  U T H A B OU T S H E  R L O CK  H O LM ES 34 7 sits awkwardlyw it h  a proliferati on ofme t ap h y sic alnecessitie s,  andt he acco u nt b e com e s less elegan t if many p r ope rtiesar e e s sentia l pro pe r tie s. We can,howe ver, acco unt –a t somec ost – f or mod era tedegr e es  o f e ss e nti a li sm; I r eturn to  t hi s bel ow.I t i s wo rth  men tioni ng that full- blo wn h a ecc eitis m wou ld n ot  be a  chall engeto  my account, ho weve r. If fic tio na l c ha racte r s poss ess  in dividua l essen c es,  l i k e  b eing Holmes, thenth e pr oblem of  secur i ng  r e ferencewo uld  not a rise– in th at caseHolmes ju st  is the  u niquein div idu al in moda l spac e that s atisf i es the descrip t ion 'the indi v id u a lt hatjus t is Holmes '. 3 .  The  Mod e lAcc o rding  to a  c o mm o n model of informat io n exch ange(especially S talnaker 1 9 7 8 ) the co nten t  o f  a discourse c ontri bution rem o ves worl ds in compatib le with t h e  content  of  th atcon t r ib ution from ac o ntex tset ofwor lds ref lec tin g t hein formation  presupp os ed  o rsha red b y  the dis co urs epar ticip a nts (t hat i s, t he  c o nte nt inte r se c t s wi th  t he c ont ex t set ). T h ismodel c an be ada pte d  tofi ct ion. (I  leave it ope nwhether we  u nde rstand i t as a m odel of the unfolding n a rrative  or  of D oyle 's constr uct ion of  th e  story  – the se ma yloo k rathe r di ffe re nt.) Now,D o yle , hav in g de cided t o write about Holm e s,can be takentohave i nd ivi d ua t edac ont e x t set containin g all worl ds in  which the ind iv idual s elected  to b e  Holmes  exists.Assumingth at D o y lehad not ye t decide d that Ho l mes w a sa det ect ive or  d ete rmine d hish eig ht, t he set  c ontain s wor ld s in whi ch Holmes is not a dete ctiveor ha s d ifferenthei g hts . Presuma bly,  by Doyle' s i nte ntion  to engag e in fi cti o n and  int r oducing H o lm esa s  a  fictionalc h a rac ter,the actual  wor ld is not a membe r  of the contex t se t .  Ha vin g  det er mined a contex t s et , Doyle pr oc eeded, over  the cou rs e  of t he sto ries,as in o r d in a ry dis cour se,  to elimi nat ew orlds f ro mt hat se t, s ta rtingwith w o rlds w here Holmes is n ot ad e tecti v e,didn' tlive in Lond on, and so  on.4 Whenintrod ucin g new  charac te rs, ne w r ef erence sel e ctions ar e nee ded. El ig ible  ca ndidat es a r e  thos e th at  po pulate sc e n ar i os  i n  wh ichHolme scoul d have ta k en part,  an d  must t hu s i n h abit w o rl d s  in the in iti al 4M y  presentat i on,t om ake t he exp ositio n easie r  to  f ollow,doe s not refle ct the ac t ual  H olme s storyl in e. 3 48  FRE D R I K
 even_if there_is no referent the_thought is,_in_fact, about._If_this is correct,_then there should_be no in-principle obstacle_to having a_singular_thought about an object to which the relation is schmeference rather than reference. T_H_E T_R_U_T H A B O_U T S H E_R L_O C K H O L M E_S_347 sits awkwardly_with a proliferation of metaphysical necessities, and the account_becomes less elegant if many properties_are essential properties._We_can,_however, account – at_some cost – for moderate degrees_of essentialism; I return to this_below. It is worth mentioning that full-blown_haecceitism would not be a challenge_to my account, however. If_fictional characters_possess individual essences, like being_Holmes, then the_problem of_securing reference would_not arise – in that case_Holmes just is_the unique individual in modal space_that_satisfies the description_'the_individual_that just_is Holmes'. 3._The_Model According_to_a common model of information exchange_(especially_Stalnaker 1978) the content of a discourse_contribution removes worlds incompatible_with_the content of that_contribution from a context set_of worlds reflecting the information presupposed_or shared_by the_discourse participants (that is, the content intersects with the context set)._This model can be adapted to_fiction. (I leave it_open whether_we_understand it as_a_model of_the unfolding narrative or of Doyle's construction_of the_story – these may look rather_different.) Now, Doyle, having_decided_to write about Holmes, can be_taken to have individuated a context_set containing all worlds in_which_the_individual selected to be Holmes_exists. Assuming that Doyle had not_yet decided that_Holmes was a detective or determined his_height,_the set contains worlds in which_Holmes_is not a detective or has_different_heights._Presumably, by Doyle's intention to_engage in fiction and introducing Holmes_as a fictional character, the actual world is not_a member of_the context set. Having determined_a_context_set, Doyle proceeded, over the course of the stories, as_in ordinary_discourse, to eliminate_worlds from that set, starting with worlds where Holmes is_not a detective, didn't live in London,_and so on.4 When introducing new characters, new reference selections are_needed. Eligible candidates are those that populate scenarios_in which Holmes could have taken part,_and must thus inhabit_worlds_in the initial 4 My presentation, to_make_the_exposition_easier to follow,_does not reflect_the actual Holmes_storyline. 348_F R E_D R_I K