de dicto

1. Introduction

The Latin expression de dicto (“of the saying” or “concerning what is said”) designates a family of readings in which logical, modal, or psychological operators—such as necessity, possibility, belief, knowledge, obligation, or time—are taken to apply to an entire statement or propositional content, rather than to an individual object or thing mentioned within that statement. In both medieval and contemporary logic, such readings are contrasted with de re (“of the thing”) interpretations.

At a de dicto level, what is evaluated as necessary, believed, or true is a whole dictum, proposition, or sentence-like item: for example, “that every human is an animal” or “that the morning star is bright.” The distinction is therefore closely tied to how philosophers understand the nature of propositions, the semantics of intensional contexts, and the relation between language, thought, and reality.

Historically, the de dicto / de re contrast crystallized in medieval scholastic logic, especially in discussions of modal statements, future contingents, and theological issues such as divine foreknowledge and omnipotence. Figures such as Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus employed the terminology to mark subtle differences between attributing a mode to a whole enunciation versus to a subject or predicate taken in itself.

In modern philosophy of language and logic, the term de dicto is used (often without detailed reference to its medieval background) to classify one side of scope ambiguities involving quantifiers and operators. Within possible‑world semantics and related frameworks, de dicto readings involve operators taking wide scope over a proposition, typically modeled as a set of worlds or an intension.

The notion is also central to analyses of propositional attitudes such as belief and desire, where it regulates the difference between beliefs about objects under certain descriptions and beliefs about those very objects themselves. Across these contexts, de dicto serves as a technical label for a specific way of connecting modes, attitudes, and evaluative notions to what is said, thought, or asserted as a whole.

2. Etymology and Linguistic Origins

The phrase de dicto is built from the Latin preposition dē and the ablative of dictum. In classical and post‑classical Latin, dē commonly means “from,” “down from,” or, more abstractly, “about, concerning.” Dictum is a nominalization of dīcere (“to say, speak”), and can mean “a saying,” “an utterance,” “a remark,” or “that which is said.”

Morphological structure

In medieval scholastic Latin, the fixed prepositional phrase de dicto emerges as a technical term. It no longer simply means “about the saying” in an everyday sense, but “considered as to the dictum” or “at the level of what is said/propositionally.” This reanalysis depends on the semantic extension of dictum from concrete utterances to more abstract items such as enuntiatum or propositio—entities that can bear truth and modality.

Relation to parallel expressions

Scholastic authors use related constructions built on dē plus a noun to mark different “respects”:

Within this family, de dicto occupies the slot “with respect to the dictum,” often coordinated explicitly with de re to express a contrast in how a modal or intentional predicate is taken.

Semantic narrowing

While dictum in classical Latin can denote witty sayings, legal maxims, or any remark, scholastic usage narrows its field toward logical and semantic roles. Over time, “what is said” becomes aligned with the content of a sentence or proposition, so that the etymological sense of de dicto as “about what is said” underwrites its later technical sense as “propositionally” or “at the level of propositional content.”

3. Pre-Philosophical Latin Usage of dictum and de

Before its scholastic technicalization, the vocabulary underlying de dicto appears in a wide range of ordinary and literary Latin contexts. The meanings of dictum and dē in these earlier usages provide the linguistic background against which the later logical term was coined.

Dictum in classical and late Latin

In classical authors such as Cicero, Seneca, and Quintilian, dictum has several primary senses:

In these settings, a dictum is a concrete saying or expression, rather than an abstract proposition. Nonetheless, it already functions as something that can be quoted, evaluated, praised, or criticized, laying a basis for later treating dicta as bearers of truth.

Prepositional uses of de

The preposition dē in pre-philosophical Latin marks topics or sources:

• Topical use: de amicitia (“about friendship”)
• Reportive use: dicere de aliquo (“to speak about someone”)
• Source/derivation: de monte (“from the mountain”)

In combinations like de istis dictis (“about those sayings”) or de hoc dicto (“concerning this remark”), dē already serves to locate discourse with respect to certain speech events or texts.

From ordinary collocation to technical term

Scholars generally hold that the scholastic phrase de dicto develops out of such ordinary prepositional constructions. Before it becomes a systematic logical label, phrases of the form de dictis or de dictis philosophorum (“about the sayings of the philosophers”) are used in commentaries and encyclopedic works to signal discussion of reported claims.

Only later, in the scholastic period, is the collocation stabilized as a term of art, with dictum coming to denote not merely an utterance but also the content of a statement considered as something that can be necessary, possible, believed, or known. The pre‑philosophical usage thus furnishes the lexical materials and general “aboutness” structure that are then refined into the technical contrast between de dicto and de re.

4. Scholastic Formation of the de dicto / de re Distinction

In medieval scholastic logic, the pairing de dicto / de re becomes a systematic tool for analyzing modal and related propositions. Its formation is closely connected to the scholastics’ engagement with Aristotle’s De Interpretatione and Prior Analytics, as mediated through Boethius and earlier commentators.

Emergence in modal discussions

Commentators on Aristotle’s modal syllogistic faced the problem of how to interpret sentences like “Every human is necessarily an animal.” Two readings were distinguished:

• A reading where necessity applies to the whole saying (“it is necessary that every human is an animal”) – later classified as de dicto.
• A reading where necessity is attached to the subject’s nature (“every human is such that it is necessary that he be an animal”) – classified as de re.

This contrast allowed scholastics to refine modal inferences, since different readings yield different syllogistic properties.

Integration with logical vocabulary

To articulate the distinction, scholastic authors introduced or adapted a cluster of notions:

By the 13th century, discussions explicitly classify certain interpretations of modal sentences as “secundum quod est de dicto” (according as it is de dicto) versus “secundum rem” (according to the thing).

Theological and metaphysical motivations

The distinction also crystallizes under pressure from theological and metaphysical questions. In analyzing divine foreknowledge and omnipotence, scholastics needed to distinguish:

• Necessities of propositions (e.g., “that God is just is necessary” de dicto), from
• Necessities of things or natures (e.g., “God is necessarily just” de re).

Debates about future contingents (whether future free acts are already necessary) likewise encouraged careful separation of claims about the truth of dicta from claims about the modal status of events or objects.

By the late Middle Ages, the de dicto / de re contrast is an entrenched part of the logical toolkit, regularly invoked in commentaries, disputations, and treatises on modality, signification, and theological predication.

5. De Dicto in Medieval Logical Theory

Within medieval logical theory, de dicto readings are systematically used to classify and analyze propositions in which a mode or qualification is applied to a whole enuntiatum or dictum. These readings play a central role in scholastic treatments of modality, time, and intentionality.

De dicto and modal propositions

Medieval logicians treat statements such as “It is necessary that every human is an animal” as paradigmatically de dicto when the modal term (necessarium, contingens, possibile) is taken as predicated of the dictum:

"

Necesse est hominem esse animal
“It is necessary that man is an animal.”

On a de dicto reading, what is necessary is the whole saying “man is an animal.” Logical properties (conversion, distribution, syllogistic validity) are then studied under this construal. Authors like Peter of Spain classify modal propositions according to whether their modalities are taken de dicto or otherwise, with detailed rules for each case.

Relation to temporal and future‑contingent logics

De dicto analysis extends to temporal operators and the problem of future contingents. In propositions like “It will be the case that sea battle will occur,” scholastics distinguish:

• De dicto: the truth of the whole dictum is temporally located or qualified.
• De re: the event itself is said to have some temporal or modal property.

De dicto treatments allow some authors to maintain that future-tense propositions can be presently true (as dicta) while the corresponding events remain metaphysically contingent.

De dicto in intentional and epistemic contexts

In contexts of belief, knowledge, and intellection, medieval theorists commonly treat the object of a mental act as a dictum or cognitum. A statement like “Socrates knows that he is sitting” is read de dicto when knowledge is said of the propositional content (“that Socrates is sitting”), understood as an enuntiatum that can be known, doubted, or believed.

This fosters a conception of de dicto attitudes as relations between minds and dicta, linked to theories of species and intentional objects.

Logical machinery: supposition and syncategoremata

De dicto readings are also tied to the theory of suppositio and to treatments of syncategorematic terms (e.g., modal and quantificational expressions). Medieval logicians analyze how such terms contribute to the overall dictum and how their position in the sentence determines whether the mode is to be taken de dicto or de re.

Different schools offer differing formal accounts of when a proposition is to be parsed de dicto, but they share the core idea that a de dicto proposition is one where a mode or operator is attributed to a complete “that‑clause”‑like content construed as a single logical unit.

6. Thomas Aquinas: Composite and Divided Sense

In Thomas Aquinas’s logical and theological writings, the de dicto / de re distinction is articulated chiefly through his contrast between sensus compositus (composite sense) and sensus divisus (divided sense). This framework underpins his treatment of modalities and predications about God and creatures.

Composite sense and de dicto

In sensus compositus, a sentence containing a modal or qualificatory expression is understood with the mode applying to the whole composite of subject and predicate. This corresponds to a de dicto reading. For example, when Aquinas discusses statements like:

"

“It is necessary that God is just,”

the composite sense takes necessity as attributed to the complete dictum “God is just.” The truth-evaluated item is the entire enunciation considered as one unit. Aquinas uses this reading extensively in analyzing necessary truths about God and in determining how certain theological propositions can be unconditionally true.

Divided sense and de re

In sensus divisus, by contrast, the mode is taken as predicated of the subject or predicate in separation, thus mapping onto a de re reading. The same sentence, “It is necessary that God is just,” can be understood as asserting that God, taken in himself, is such that justice belongs to him necessarily. The proposition is then about the nature of God as an object, not primarily about the dictum.

Aquinas employs the divided sense especially when discussing essential and accidental properties of substances and in distinguishing what belongs to Christ, for instance, insofar as he is human or divine.

Function in Aquinas’s theology and logic

In works such as the Summa Theologiae and his commentaries on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, Aquinas appeals to this duality:

Aquinas uses the distinction to navigate delicate theological issues, such as reconciling divine simplicity with the multiplicity of predicates (e.g., “God is just,” “God is wise”). Composite‑sense (de dicto) readings allow predicates to be affirmed as necessary truths without implying composition in God, while divided‑sense (de re) readings track the metaphysical grounding of these truths in the divine essence.

Interpreters differ on how closely Aquinas’s composite/divided senses should be aligned with later formal de dicto / de re semantics, but his usage is widely regarded as a key medieval formulation of the distinction.

7. Scotus and Later Scholastics on De Dicto Modality

John Duns Scotus and subsequent scholastics develop the notion of de dicto modality in ways that respond both to earlier Thomistic frameworks and to emerging concerns about necessity, contingency, and divine freedom.

Scotus on de dicto necessity

Scotus emphasizes the difference between:

• Necessity attached to a dictum or propositio (de dicto), and
• Necessity grounded in a res or nature (de re).

For Scotus, many truths of science and theology are necessary as dicta—for instance, “that every triangle has three angles” or “that God is triune” can be said to be necessarily true propositions. Yet Scotus also distinguishes these from necessities founded in a thing’s formal nature, drawing on his doctrine of the formal distinction.

In modal terms, a proposition may be necessary de dicto even where the existence of the things it speaks about is contingent. The necessity pertains to the conditional truth of the dictum, not directly to the existence or properties of the res.

Contingency, divine will, and de dicto

Scotus is particularly concerned with divine freedom. He argues that many truths about God’s creative acts are contingent de re (God could have willed otherwise), but once God wills a world order, certain propositions about that order can be taken as necessarily true de dicto, given the divine will as a condition.

This leads to refined distinctions among:

Later scholastic developments

Later scholastics, including Francisco Suárez, Gabriel Biel, and various 15th–16th‑century commentators, systematize these themes. They often distinguish:

• Necessitas consequentiae (necessity of the consequence) – frequently linked to de dicto necessity: given the antecedent, the consequent follows of necessity as a dictum.
• Necessitas consequentis (necessity of the consequent) – often aligned with de re necessity: the thing signified is itself necessary.

Some authors place stronger emphasis on the logical side of de dicto modality (as pertaining to implication and consequence), while others treat it as a kind of necessity borne by truths in the divine intellect.

There is considerable debate in the secondary literature on how exactly Scotus’s and later scholastics’ de dicto modalities should be mapped onto modern possible‑worlds frameworks. Nonetheless, they agree in using de dicto to mark cases where necessity or other modes are primarily ascribed to propositions or dicta, not directly to the natures of things.

8. From Dictum to Proposition: Early Modern and Analytic Shifts

Between the late scholastic period and the rise of analytic philosophy, the underlying notion associated with de dicto shifts from a medieval dictum or enuntiatum to the more familiar proposition of early modern and contemporary logic.

Early modern transformations

In early modern logic and metaphysics, authors such as Descartes, Leibniz, and the Port‑Royal logicians speak less of dicta and more of judgments and propositions. While the Latin phrase de dicto is not always used, the conceptual contrast between:

• Modes applying to judgments or propositions (propositiones), and
• Modes applying to things,

is preserved in discussions of necessary truths, eternal truths, and contingent existents.

Leibniz, for example, distinguishes truths of reason (necessary, grounded in the principle of contradiction) from contingent truths of fact. This encourages viewing necessity as something that can attach to propositional contents. Although Leibniz does not systematically employ the label de dicto, later interpreters often describe his necessary truths as necessary de dicto in contrast with de re necessity grounded in the essences of substances.

From logical grammar to abstract propositions

As logic develops in the 17th–19th centuries, especially through algebraic and symbolic approaches, attention turns from grammatical structures to abstract logical forms. The bearer of truth and modality is increasingly conceived as an ideal proposition, independent of any particular language. This abstraction parallels the medieval move from concrete dicta to more content-like entities, but in a more explicitly formal framework.

Analytic philosophy and explicit revival

In early analytic philosophy, Gottlob Frege introduces the distinction between sense (Sinn) and reference (Bedeutung), treating the thought expressed by a sentence as the primary bearer of truth. Though he does not use the term de dicto, later analytic philosophers interpret Fregean attitude ascriptions (e.g., “A believes that p”) as ascribing a relation to such thoughts, in a clearly de dicto manner.

By the mid‑20th century, especially in the work of Ruth Barcan Marcus, Saul Kripke, and others, the terminology de dicto and de re is explicitly reintroduced and stabilized within formal modal logic. The traditional dictum is now typically recast as a proposition, a formula, or an intension in a logical language. De dicto interpretations are defined structurally in terms of scope and quantification (for example, as cases where a modal operator has widest scope over an embedded formula).

This shift from dictum to proposition thus represents both a continuity of the core idea—modes applying to what is said as such—and a conceptual reconfiguration within a new semantic and formal apparatus.

9. Formal Semantics: Scope, Quantifiers, and De Dicto Readings

In contemporary formal semantics and modal logic, de dicto readings are characterized primarily in terms of operator scope over formulas and the interaction between modal operators and quantifiers.

Scope-based characterization

Let □ represent necessity, ◇ possibility, and ∃, ∀ existential and universal quantification. A statement such as:

"

“Necessarily, there exists a doctor who is kind”

can be formalized in two main ways:

On the de dicto interpretation, what is necessary is a propositional content—that somehow or other there is a kind doctor. On the de re interpretation, the necessity is tied to a particular individual.

Possible‑worlds semantics

Within possible‑worlds frameworks:

• A proposition is modeled as a set of possible worlds or as a function from worlds to truth values.
• A de dicto necessity □φ is true at a world w if and only if φ is true at all worlds accessible from w.

De dicto readings thus treat the modal operator as acting on a whole proposition; the variables and quantifiers within that proposition can range over different individuals in different worlds, depending on the model (constant vs. varying domains, rigid vs. non‑rigid designators).

Interaction with quantifiers

De dicto/de re ambiguities arise whenever quantifiers and modal operators can be arranged in different scope orders. Typical patterns include:

Formal semantic theories explore how natural‑language syntax, context, and pragmatic factors influence which scope pattern is selected or favored.

Extensions beyond necessity and possibility

The same scope‑based approach is applied to:

• Temporal operators (e.g., “It will always be that…”),
• Deontic operators (obligation, permission),
• Epistemic operators (knowledge, belief in modal treatments).

In each case, a de dicto reading is one where the operator takes a proposition as its argument (wide scope), while a de re reading is captured by having quantifiers or terms with scope outside the operator.

Alternative formal frameworks—such as intensional type theory, situation semantics, or dynamic semantics—offer different technical implementations, but they typically preserve this core characterization of de dicto readings as operator‑wide‑scope evaluations of propositional contents.

10. De Dicto in Propositional Attitude and Intentional Contexts

In the analysis of propositional attitudes—belief, desire, knowledge, hope, fear, and related states—de dicto readings describe cases where an attitude is directed toward a propositional content or “that‑clause” as such, rather than toward an object under a specific mode of presentation.

De dicto attitude ascriptions

A standard example is:

"

“Lois believes that Superman can fly.”

On a de dicto reading, this ascribes to Lois a belief in the proposition expressed by the embedded clause “Superman can fly,” considered as a whole dictum. The focus is on the content of the belief, sometimes modeled as:

• A set of possible worlds where that content is true,
• A structured proposition,
• A Fregean thought (Sinn).

Under this reading, substitution of co‑referential terms (e.g., “Clark Kent” for “Superman”) may fail to preserve truth, highlighting the intensional character of such contexts.

Contrast with de re attitudes

By contrast, a de re attitude ascription, such as:

"

“Lois believes of Clark Kent that he can fly,”

is analyzed as attributing a belief about a particular individual, possibly under some descriptive guise, with the quantification over that individual taking wide scope over the attitude operator.

In formal semantics, de dicto attitudes typically correspond to representations like:

• Bel(Lois, p) where p is a proposition,

while de re attitudes involve additional structure, such as:

• ∃x [x = Clark ∧ Bel(Lois, (x can fly))],

or more sophisticated relational models.

Theoretical motivations and debates

Philosophers and linguists appeal to de dicto readings to explain:

• Opacity: failure of substitutivity of co‑referential terms in belief, desire, and knowledge reports.
• Cognitive significance: how an agent can rationally hold different attitudes toward propositions that are, extensionally, equivalent.
• Attitude content individuation: whether beliefs should be individuated by propositions (de dicto focus) or by relations to objects and modes of presentation (de re focus).

Different approaches—Fregean, Russellian, possible‑worlds, and neo‑Russellian—offer divergent accounts of how exactly de dicto contents are structured and how they interact with mental states.

Some theories, especially in philosophy of mind, question whether all attitudes are best cast in de dicto terms, emphasizing object‑involving or de re mental content. Others treat de dicto and de re readings as complementary, both needed to capture the full range of intentional phenomena, with de dicto readings remaining central for modeling propositional attitudes in formal semantics and cognitive science.

11. Conceptual Analysis: Objects, Contents, and Possible Worlds

The notion of de dicto sits at the intersection of several key conceptual distinctions: between objects and contents, between language and thought, and between actual and possible situations. Different philosophical frameworks analyze de dicto in correspondingly different ways.

Objects vs. contents

De dicto attributions are typically taken to involve a relation to a content—a dictum, proposition, thought, or sentence meaning—rather than directly to an object. Conceptual questions arise about:

• What kind of entity a “content” is,
• How such entities are individuated,
• How they can be shared across speakers and times.

Competing views include:

Each view interprets “that‑clauses” and de dicto readings in its own terms, while preserving the idea that something content-like is the primary bearer of truth and modality.

Possible worlds and intensions

In possible‑worlds semantics, de dicto propositional contents are often modeled as:

• Sets of possible worlds where the content holds, or
• Intensions: functions from worlds (and possibly times) to truth values.

Under this view:

• A de dicto necessity □p is truth of a proposition at all accessible worlds.
• A de dicto belief is often formalized as an agent’s doxastic accessibility relation plus a set of worlds representing the believed content.

This framework allows fine‑grained analysis of how the same object can appear under different descriptions across worlds, and how de dicto vs. de re distinctions map onto scope and rigidity.

Language, thought, and representation

Some theories treat de dicto primarily as a linguistic phenomenon—concerning how sentences are parsed and how operators take scope—while others regard it as reflecting deep facts about thought and representation.

Questions include:

• Whether the objects of belief and other attitudes are publicly shareable propositions or more idiosyncratic mental representations.
• How context, indexicals, and demonstratives affect the de dicto content expressed.
• Whether contents should be narrow (individuated by internal cognitive states) or broad (sensitive to the environment and reference).

Different answers yield different conceptions of what “what is said” amounts to in a de dicto reading.

Overall, conceptual analysis of de dicto revolves around identifying the nature and structure of the entities to which modes and attitudes are applied, and clarifying how these relate to objects, properties, and possible circumstances.

12. Related Concepts: De Re, Sensus Compositus, and Suppositio

The notion of de dicto is best understood in relation to several connected concepts that structure medieval and modern logical theory.

De re

De re (“of the thing”) readings contrast with de dicto by ascribing modality or attitudes to objects rather than to whole dicta or propositions. In both medieval and contemporary logic:

The interplay between de dicto and de re is central to analyses of essential vs. accidental properties, object‑involving beliefs, and counterpart theory.

Sensus compositus and sensus divisus

As seen in Aquinas and others, the distinction between sensus compositus (composite sense) and sensus divisus (divided sense) is closely related:

• Sensus compositus typically corresponds to de dicto: the mode is applied to the subject–predicate complex as a unity.
• Sensus divisus typically corresponds to de re: the mode is applied to the subject or predicate separately, often reflecting intrinsic properties of the res.

These notions provide medieval authors with a semantic and conceptual tool to mark how a single sentence can be understood in different ways, with different logical and theological implications.

Suppositio

The medieval theory of suppositio concerns the way in which terms stand for, or refer to, things in propositions. It plays an important role in specifying when a reading is de dicto or de re:

• In a de dicto reading, the supposition of terms contributes to forming the dictum that is then modalized or believed as a whole.
• In a de re reading, the supposita (the things stood for) are themselves the bearers of modal status or are the objects of attitudes.

Different types of supposition—such as personal, simple, and material—allow scholastics to distinguish, for example, between talking about a term, about the nature signified, or about instances, which in turn affects whether a modal or intentional predicate is understood as de dicto or de re.

Other related notions

Additional concepts intersect with de dicto:

• Syncategorematic terms (e.g., modal, quantificational, and temporal operators) that do not stand for things but modify dicta.
• Intentional species and cognita, in medieval theories of mind, as possible bearers of de dicto attitudes.
• Modern notions such as rigid designation and individual concepts, which help formalize de re readings in contrast to de dicto ones.

Taken together, these concepts form the broader theoretical network within which de dicto receives its logical and philosophical significance.

13. Translation Challenges and Interpretive Strategies

Translating de dicto from scholastic Latin into modern languages raises several difficulties, due to changes in logical vocabulary and in theories of meaning and content.

Ambiguity of dictum

The Latin dictum ranges over:

• Concrete sayings or utterances,
• Reported statements (e.g., dicta of authorities),
• Abstract enuntiata or propositional contents.

When medieval authors speak of modes applying de dicto, it is often unclear whether they intend:

• A linguistic entity (a sentence or enunciation),
• A semantic one (a proposition or content),
• A mental item (a cognitum in the mind).

Translators must decide whether to render de dicto as “of the saying,” “of the proposition,” “propositionally,” or to leave it untranslated.

Non-equivalence with modern “proposition”

Modern “proposition” can correspond to:

• A set of possible worlds,
• A structured object built from individuals and properties,
• A Fregean thought.

Medieval dicta are often tied more closely to linguistic formulations and to theories of signification and supposition. Equating dictum with “proposition” risks projecting contemporary assumptions onto historical texts.

Some scholars therefore advocate:

Each approach has advantages and drawbacks regarding readability and historical fidelity.

Capturing the de dicto / de re contrast

Another challenge lies in conveying the contrast between de dicto and de re in languages where there is no direct equivalent prepositional idiom. Translators tend to:

• Retain the Latin pair de dicto / de re as technical terms,
• Supplement them with glosses such as “with respect to the proposition” vs. “with respect to the thing,”
• Use footnotes or brackets to clarify how this relates to scope or to composite/divided sense.

Historical vs. systematic readings

Interpreters also face methodological choices:

• Some prioritize historical accuracy, stressing that medieval de dicto is rooted in theories of enuntiatio, suppositio, and intentionality that differ from modern semantics.
• Others emphasize systematic continuity, mapping medieval discussions onto contemporary de dicto / de re debates for purposes of philosophical comparison.

The resulting translations and commentaries may therefore differ in how strongly they assimilate medieval dictum to modern content or proposition. Scholars often advise readers to be attentive to these interpretive choices when engaging with translated texts.

14. Applications in Metaphysics, Theology, and Epistemology

The de dicto / de re distinction, and specifically de dicto readings, have been employed in various philosophical domains to resolve or clarify puzzles.

Metaphysics

In metaphysics, de dicto interpretations help distinguish:

• Necessary truths de dicto, such as logical or conceptual truths (“Necessarily, all bachelors are unmarried”), from
• Necessary properties de re, such as essential attributes of objects (“This particular substance is necessarily extended,” on some views).

By attributing necessity to propositions rather than directly to objects, philosophers can account for the apparent necessity of certain statements without committing to strong essentialist claims about things. In debates about essence, identity across possible worlds, and modality de se, de dicto readings figure in efforts to separate claims about our descriptions from claims about the world’s structure.

Theology

Medieval and early modern theology makes extensive use of de dicto distinctions. Applications include:

The de dicto perspective allows theologians to articulate differences between the modal status of truths in God’s intellect and that of created realities.

Epistemology

In epistemology, knowledge and justification are frequently analyzed as relations to propositions. De dicto readings dominate:

• Standard formulations of knowledge as justified true belief that p,
• Discussions of logical omniscience in epistemic logic,
• Analyses of what agents know under various descriptions.

The de dicto stance supports models in which epistemic states are represented by sets of possible worlds, belief sets, or information states, each corresponding to a body of propositional contents.

At the same time, some epistemologists highlight de re knowledge (e.g., “knowing a person,” “knowing who did it”) as not fully captured by de dicto frameworks. Debates arise over whether de dicto knowledge is fundamental, with de re knowledge reducible to it, or whether de re epistemic relations require distinct treatment.

Across these domains, de dicto readings provide a flexible tool for separating claims about truths or dicta from claims about objects and their natures, enabling finer‑grained modal, theological, and epistemic analyses.

15. Contemporary Debates and Logical Formalizations

In current philosophy of language, logic, and metaphysics, de dicto continues to figure prominently in both technical systems and conceptual disputes.

Formal treatments in modal logic and semantics

Modern logicians offer several formalizations of de dicto:

• Standard possible‑worlds semantics, where de dicto modality is treated via operator scope over propositions (as sets of worlds).
• Two‑dimensional semantics, which distinguishes between primary and secondary intensions; de dicto readings are sometimes associated with one dimension, depending on the theory.
• Hyperintensional frameworks, such as structured propositions or truthmaker semantics, aiming to capture distinctions finer than equivalence across worlds. Here, de dicto contents may be modeled as structures sensitive to logical form or grounds.

Debates concern whether standard possible‑world models can fully capture all de dicto nuances, especially in cases of cognitive significance or belief revision.

De dicto vs. de re in attitude reports

Lively discussion surrounds the analysis of attitude ascriptions:

• Some approaches (e.g., certain neo‑Russellian and Millian views) hold that propositional contents are fundamentally object‑involving and that traditional de dicto readings may not accommodate all intuitive data.
• Others, inspired by Fregean or information‑sensitive semantics, maintain that de dicto contents are best understood as modes of presentation, and that de dicto readings are indispensable for modeling rational inference and communication.

In formal linguistics, questions arise about the interplay of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in generating de dicto / de re ambiguities, with some theories proposing that the distinction is primarily structural, and others suggesting more dynamic or context‑driven accounts.

Essentialism, counterpart theory, and de dicto modality

In metaphysics, Kripkean essentialism and Lewisian counterpart theory offer different tools for handling de dicto and de re modality. Issues include:

• Whether de dicto necessity (e.g., “Necessarily, the winner of the race is the winner of the race”) can be reduced to de re facts about individuals and their counterparts.
• How rigid designators and names affect the availability of de dicto vs. de re readings.

Some positions argue that de dicto modalities are primary, with de re modalities analyzed via quantification into modal contexts; others invert this priority.

Computational and dynamic approaches

In logic and computer science, de dicto readings appear in:

• Epistemic and doxastic logics, where knowledge and belief operators are applied to formulas, producing de dicto epistemic claims.
• Dynamic epistemic logic and belief‑revision systems, modeling how agents update sets of de dicto propositional attitudes in response to new information.
• AI and knowledge representation, where propositions (often in a logical language) are the basic units of storage and manipulation.

Here, the de dicto framework is often taken as default, though there is growing interest in explicitly representing de re knowledge and beliefs about particular individuals and objects.

Overall, contemporary work continues to refine both the formal apparatus and the conceptual interpretation of de dicto, particularly in relation to de re readings, hyperintensional distinctions, and the structure of cognitive and informational states.

16. Legacy and Historical Significance

The concept of de dicto, originating in medieval scholastic logic, has had a lasting impact on the development of logical theory, semantics, and the philosophy of language.

Historically, the de dicto / de re distinction:

• Provided scholastics with a powerful tool for modal analysis, enabling them to disentangle complex issues in future contingents, divine foreknowledge, and essential vs. accidental predication.
• Informed their work on signification, supposition, and mental representation, contributing to a nuanced understanding of how language relates to thought and reality.
• Shaped discussions of theological predication, especially in Aquinas and Scotus, where careful attention to whether a mode is said of a dictum or a res underpinned key doctrinal formulations.

In the long run, the legacy of de dicto is visible in:

Although terminology and theoretical frameworks have evolved—from dictum to proposition, from sensus compositus to scope—the core insight that some modes and attitudes target what is said as a whole has remained central.

Current historical scholarship continues to explore the variety and subtlety of medieval uses of de dicto, often revealing ways in which these early discussions prefigure, or differ importantly from, later analytic conceptions. As a result, the study of de dicto serves not only as a technical tool within logic and semantics, but also as a bridge linking contemporary debates to their medieval and early modern antecedents.