In ordinary communication, in interpreting a note from one’s spouse or an instruction manual, say, the goal is normally to identify what the speaker or author meant or intended to communicate, as opposed, for example, to what the words literally mean or what a reasonable person with certain assumptions would take the speaker to have intended to communicate. In other words, one is successful in interpreting in ordinary communication just to the extent that one accurately recovers what the speaker intended to communicate.[26] A reasonable interpretation in a conversational setting is therefore one that is reasonably calculated to recover the speaker’s communicative intentions given the audience’s beliefs about the speaker and the situation. On the other hand, if one is engaged in a different enterprise – playing a word game, trying to decide whether a witness committed perjury (see Bronston v. United States), interpreting a poem, or working out the impact on the law of the enactment of a provision – what is reasonable might be quite different. Textualists do not clearly address what a reasonable reader is supposed to be seeking in part because they have not recognized the issue, saying things that point in different directions.