 Kripke’s discussion has resulted in a vigorous debate about whether meaning really is normative, as well as about how the normativity of meaning is best understood. For a defence of the claim that meaning is normative, see Whiting 2007, 2009, 2016 (note that Whiting focuses on the idea that meaning facts engender permissions to apply words correctly and obligations not to apply them incorrectly, though both the permissions and the obligations are defeasible). For criticism of the view that meaning is normative, see Fodor 1990, Glüer and Pagin 1998, Glüer 1999, Wikforss 2001, Boghossian 2005, Miller 2006, Hattiangadi 2006, 2007, and Glüer and Wikforss 2009. (See also the entry on the  normativity of meaning.)  Some philosophers seek to carve a middle ground between the normativist and the anti-normativist positions—for instance, by claiming that meaning facts are essentially justificatory (Gampel 1997), or that they have hypothetical implications that are essential to them, thus being fundamentally unlike natural facts, which may be hypothetically normative only accidentally (Verheggen 2011; Chapter 2 of Myers and Verheggen 2016). Hannah Ginsborg proposes a novel conception of normativity as more basic than rules (Ginsborg 2011b, 2012, forthcoming), which we shall briefly discuss in the last section.