The widespread acceptance that legal interpretation seeks the meaning of a statute or constitutional provision most likely reflects some combination of 1) a lack of clarity about the sense in which the term “meaning” is being used; 2) misunderstandings about what linguistic meaning is; 3) a conflation of a provision’s linguistic meaning with its contribution to the content of the law (its contribution, for short); 4) and an assumption that a provision’s contribution is its linguistic meaning.[6] See Berman and Toh 2013, 547. Even sophisticated theorists who carefully distinguish between different kinds of linguistic meaning fail to distinguish between a provision’s linguistic meaning and its contribution to the content of the law.[7]