 Radical contextualism is sometimes seen as a challenge to compositionality, more precisely, to  (C\(_{\textit{occ}}\));  cf. Cohen (1986), Lahav (1989), Fodor (2001). It shouldn’t be. An effective argument from context-dependence against  (C\(_{\textit{occ}}\))  would need to show that there is at least one complex expression in L whose occasion meaning varies with context, while the occasion meanings of its constituents all remain the same. The usual considerations against compositionality typically omit the second part. Take for example Searle’s observation that “[t]he sort of thing that constitutes cutting the grass is quite different from e.g., the sort of thing that constitutes cutting a cake” (Searle 1980: 222). What follows from this? Nothing more than the fact that the occasion meaning of ‘cut’ is sensitive to a feature of the context in which it is used, in particular, to its linguistic environment. This is fully compatible with  (C\(_{\textit{occ}}\)).  