 The challenge of the sceptic makes perspicuous the fact that a non-semantically described pattern is compatible with indefinitely many interpretations. Does the appeal to the normative domain help us rule out the sceptic’s alternative hypotheses? Given that, arguably, on a partly reductionist picture of the sort that Brandom proposes, utterances are, ultimately, nothing more than “normatively constrained noise- or mark-makings” (Whiting 2006: 11), that is, non-semantically described performances that stand in normative relations to other non-semantically described performances, it does not seem that we have the resources to single out as privileged a particular interpretation or standard of correctness. Similarly, a normative pattern that instantiates how one ought, in the primitive sense proposed by Ginsborg, to go on with respect to an expression seems to be consistent with more than one semantic interpretation of that expression. It might be thought that Ginsborg could appeal to the non-semantically characterized disposition in order to fix the meanings of the relevant expression. However, we have already shown in  section 4  that dispositionalist accounts face very serious obstacles (see Verheggen 2015; Chapter II of Myers and Verheggen 2016, and Miller 2019 for more discussion of the failure of dispositionalism in relation to Ginsborg’s view). So, the proponent of the less austere approach to meaning owes the austere non-reductionist an account of how the extensionality condition might be met. (See Haddock 2012 and Sultanescu 2021 for more discussion of Ginsborg’s view, and Rosen 1997, McDowell 2002, Hattiangadi 2003, and Whiting 2006 for more discussion of Brandom’s view.)