 The potential for such a reasonable disagreement (even among people who understand the language of the lawmaker equally well) is to be found in the complex pragmatic considerations discussed in section 2.3 above, concerning the effect of a lawmaking communicative act. Consider that if we tried to adhere to the content-retrieval theory, we would have to say that the relevant dispositions of speakers have to be contextualised: because the context affects speakers’ dispositions, we would have to ask whether they are disposed to apply the word to a chicken coop with wheels, in the context of the application of the word ‘vehicle’ in a statutory provision making it an offence to use a vehicle without tires, for the purpose of protecting road surfaces... And once we ask the dispositions of speakers in that proper context, it becomes obviously absurd to think that there should be any legal force in their dispositions to decide the very question that the Court had jurisdiction and duty to decide.