Defending speaker intention in a model of the hearer's meaning

Hansen and Terkourafi present a compelling challenge to traditional models of meaning that privilege speaker intention as the primary determinant of communicative success. Their proposed alternative model, which centers on the hearer's interpretation while rendering speaker intention theoretically redundant, offers a valuable corrective to intention-centric approaches. While we concur with Hansen and Terkourafi's general critique of traditional models of meaning as overly reliant on speaker intention, we identify three limitations in their argumentation. First, their critique relies on an unnecessarily restrictive conceptualization of intention as an opaque and inherently inaccessible mental state. Second, existing research in both psychological and cultural studies provides robust counterevidence to claims about intention's inaccessibility. Third, the very evidence they cite regarding the indeterminacy of speaker intention in distinguishing “what is said” from “what is meant” can be reinterpreted to underscore the significance of speaker intention. Furthermore, we maintain that speaker intention plays a crucial role in shaping the hearer's interpretation, particularly when it comes to accounting for conversational roles. In conclusion, we argue that a comprehensive model of meaning needs to integrate both the speaker’s and the hearer’s roles, recognizing their interdependence in the communicative process.