If the sentence—radical approach is as flawed as the numerous preceding examples make it look to be and truth cannot be accorded a central place in the analysis of meaning, what formulation can possibly supply the desired generality and systematicity? Here we come full circle. I began this investigation with the most commonplace observation: speakers express thoughts and convey information by means of language, which is to say, by uttering sentences in virtue of which they represent things as being a certain way. Dummett observes that "learning to use [language] as a medium of discourse involves coming to grasp it as a means of representing reality" (1991: 106). Rundle suggests that in asserting something a speaker "purports to represent things as they are" (1979: 106). Soames declares that "the central semantic fact about language is that it carries information about the world," adding that "a sentence … represents the world as being a certain way … " (1989: 575). At this level of generality there hardly looks to be room for disagreement; but, while the word— world connection is surely welcome, if a reduction to truth is rejected, the hope of elucidating meaning in such general terms might be frustrated by their seeming triviality.