 Further, note that the sentence “Socrates was wise”, which expresses &lt;Socrates was wise&gt;, contains a proper name (“Socrates”). And, suppose that this directly refers to Socrates. By contrast, “Plato’s finest teacher was wise”, which expresses &lt;Plato’s finest teacher was wise&gt;, contains a description (“Plato’s finest teacher”). We might suppose that this doesn’t directly refer to Socrates, nor does it determine him in all possible contexts. Consider, for example, the possible scenario in which Socrates never encountered Plato. In this context, Plato’s finest teacher would have been a distinct individual and the corresponding description “Plato’s finest teacher” would pick out that individual. As such, &lt;Plato’s finest teacher was wise&gt; would not be about Socrates and the truth of the proposition wouldn’t depend upon any facts about him. What unites both cases is reference; what divides them is the direct or indirect character of how the expressions refer. Typically, reference is construed as a relation that obtains between language and reality (between linguistic items and things in the world). [See the entry on  reference.]  And, again: for two things to be so related, both things (both relata) must exist.