To conclude, the idea of neo-Husserlian approach to meaning combined with Searle’s Background Hypothesis seems to be promising. However, there are several questions that need to be answered. The main problem seems to be the postulated restriction of the hypothesis by adding intentional elements and an abolition of its requirements for a hearer. It would be then a new hypothesis, and rather more Husserlian than Searlian. These requirements may impair the triadic relation of intentional reference, which has to remain triadic if we do not want to come back to idea of a Cartesian mind.
I have raised four objections to Beyer’s claim about the restriction of the Hypothesis, concerning the problem of indexicals, the distinction between literal and contextual meaning, semantic and social externalism, and understanding as an epistemic triangle. In the first objection about the use of indexical “I” we have asked whether we could really grasp the literal meaning of the indexical “I” if we didn’t have a background of self-identification. I have argued that in the proper use of the pronoun “I” we need a special, non-intentional background. The second objection concerned the problem of whether a hearer, who does not grasp the contextual meaning, grasps only the sense of utterance but not its literal meaning. Answering this question, I claimed that in some approaches—such as, for example, the Dummetian version of Frege’s sense and meaning—a subject who does not know the truth-conditions of some sentence does not understand the sentence. The third and fourth objection concerned the restricted role of the hearer in the act of communication. I raised a doubt about whether it is possible to identify false experts and to recognize incompetent language users if the hearer (interpreter) lacks a non-intentional background. I claimed that to do this, the relation of intentionality must contain three elements: speaker, hearer, and world, where both hearer and speaker have equal access to the background. The relation of intentionality has been considered to be strongly connected with the model of understanding, where speaker and hearer make one unified structure of intentional directness. In such an account, the requirements of the Background Hypothesis cannot be restricted solely to producers, as Beyer would have it.