In summary, I have distinguished three levels of meaning, the first of which (general meaning-function) is a matter of linguistic convention, while the second level (respective meaning) is truth-conditional and partly dependent on the first, purely semantic level, but also dependent on the reference or extension determined by the intentional state actually given voice to. This intentional state has its intentional object (the reference of the corresponding utterance) fixed epistemically, in accordance with the modified principle of knowledge maximization. Furthermore, this epistemic reference-fixing depends on the informational states (or dossiers) of the producers only. Only the producers need to possess the kind of background that Searle wrongly takes to be required for all speakers or hearers capable of giving voice to or grasping the respective meaning in question, the grasping of which then serves as the basis for accessing the third, purely pragmatic level of meaning (namely, what is implicated).
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this paper were presented to audiences in Göttingen and Erfurt, whom I thank for helpful discussion. For helpful comments and suggestions I would like to thank the editors and three anonymous reviewers. I am particularly grateful to Adriana Pavic for her detailed comments and suggestions.