Strawson [Hayley Thompson]

Strawson states on of his main arguments as follows: "Because Russell confused meaning with mentioning, he thought that if there were any expressions having a uniquely referring use, which were what they seemed (i.e. logical subjects) and not something else in disguise, their meaning must be the particular object which they were used to refer to."
Strawson believes Russell is silly for trying to pin down the meaning of a sentence, since he confuses the sentence itself with the use of that sentence. Strawson notes that the same sentence may have many different meanings depending on the context in which it is uttered. For example, "the current king of France" refers to a different individual or none at all depending on the year it was said.  He counters Russell's assertion that a statement must have a truth value in order to have meaning, explaining that if someone told you a fact about the current French king, you likely would not assign a truth value to the statement, but either ask for clarification on the subject (Is this French king fictional or a pretender to the throne? Where did you hear about this? etc.) or dismiss the statement as misinformed. Overall, Strawson is saying that contrary to Russell's belief, a sentence cannot be true or false without being spoken with a relevant meaning in mind, but even without a real world reference, the sentence still has sense - since all its parts have sense.
Strawson's quote make me curious as to whether any phrases are uniquely referential and don't contain some sense.