Graeme Forbes attribution adverts, aia the hidden ‘so to a part- culax one of the ways of thinking of the relevant STP. For example, ‘Superman is an extraterres- ‘wal? and ‘Chrk Kent comes from somewhere other than Earth’ refer t the sime STP, the same complex of objects and properties. But as complement clauses in atitude aseripions, they can invoke different ways of thinking of that STP. According 10 the analysis, an attribution's ccomraplement clause provides a “labeling” by the ascriber of a putative way of thinking employed by the subject of the attribution: the words of the clase are “linguistic counterparts” ofthe subject's thought constituents (this does sot mean the subject uses those same words). Thus we may understand (2a) Lois believes shat Superman isan extra terrestrial (Gib) The situation-rype of Superman's being an extraterrestrial is such that Lais believes her so-abeled way of thinking of it ‘The Iogophor ‘so in (8b) refers to the entire phrase ‘Superman's being an extraterrestrial’, and ‘hus substitution for both ‘Superman’ and ‘extrax terrestrial’ is blocked, just as substitution for “Gioorgione’ is blocked in (3). So (84), interpreted s(8b), does not ental that Lois believes that Clark ‘Kent comes ffom somewhere other than Earth; see Forbes 1990, 1993 for further discussion of the details of this account. (8b) permits no substicution at all im the complement clause of (82). A reading of (8) that permits substitution throughout can be obtained by replacing ‘her so-abeled” in (8b) with ‘some’: (Bo) The situation-type of Superman's being fan extraterrestrial is such that Lois believes some way of thinking of it. It suffices for the truth of (Be) that Lois believe that Clark Kent comes from somewhere other than Earth, termediate readings of (8a) may be obtained bby adjusting what the ‘so! refers to (its exten) However, explicitly exhibiting the extent of the D ‘so requires some notation, which we introduce in series of steps. According co (8b), at the level ‘of logical form (8a) contains an “articulated term” (Richard 1993) for an STP formed by raising the ‘complement clause out of its surface postion and rewording appropriately J will use square brackets ‘Tan ‘T and the actual wording of the comple- ment clause to form such definite descriptions. ‘Thus in place of “the situation-type of Super ‘man's being an excraterresiial” Twill wai “(Superman is an extraterrestrial!’ If We use a colon for “s such tha’, then 252 firs approxima- tion, (8) becomes (9s) [Superman is an extraterrestrial]: Lois Delieves her so-labeled way of thinking of ite, ere‘e" ia variable to mark the binder oft’, and in the final formula, (9) below, it will simply replace the pronoun, ‘Next, 25 mentioned a few sentences back, dif {erent interpretations of (Ba) can be obtained by varying the extent of the ‘so', so we need some device for indicating exactly how much of the articulated term for the STP is in its extent. I will use angle brackets for this purpose. Comic ‘ated attitude attributions might involve more than one ‘So’, in which case there would be a reed for variable subscripts om the ‘So's and on the angle brackets specifying their extents, but in ‘our examples there is only ever one ‘so’. To specify the extent of the 'so' in (93), therefore, we simply (05) [Superman is an exraterestsh Lois believes her sorabeled way of thinking oF ty ‘with no further variable subscripts. It is exactly the ‘material within angle brackets that isin substitu tion-resisting position. Finally although ics nor completely necessary forthe purposes of this paper, we may standardize 2 regimentation of such phrases 25 (8) Leis believes her solabeled way of thinking of i {will not argue the point here, but the weatment of definite descriptions as restricted quantifiers seems ‘to me co be superior to their treatment as singular terms (the square bracket notation for STP terms