Strawson in Response to Russell on Referring [Sean Wammer]

1.
"'Mentioning", or "referring", is not something an expression does; it is something that some one case use an expression to do" (Strawson 1950, 326).

2.
Strawson is trying to distinguish between a sentence itself and the use of a sentence. When you say "the king of France," Strawson claims it is not the case the expression itself refers to a non-existent entity (like Russell wants to claim). Instead, the expression only refers to someone (or nobody) when you use the expression.
This is an improvement because it allows us some freedom with our domain of existence (or world if you wish). When I say, "Harry Potter is a special wizard," I use the expression "Harry Potter" to refer to the character that does indeed exist in the fictional world that J.K. Rowling wrote about, so the intuitive truth value of "True" we want is preserved for this example.

3.
Is it possible for a speaker to intend to use an expression in two distinct ways, such as with poetry, symbolism, or satire, and if so, what is the truth value associated with such an expression's usage?

--Sean Wammer