This article questions the possibility – claimed both by philosophical hermeneutics and by semiotics – of founding interpretation on a neutral criterion, one that accounts for the processes of both determining meaning, and its dissemination, authorizing, in turn, the resulting interpretative practices. It thus becomes possible to contain this apparently neutral criterion under the heading of ‘context’. This article suggests that the latter notion is insufficient in itself. Hermeneutics and semiotics indicate this insufficiency by the stance of a ‘dialogism’ that ought to intervene as the ultimate foundation of the interpretative context. We will begin by following this ‘dialogism’ in Gadamer and Peirce, until it becomes problematic. Then, we will show that this problematic aspect cannot be avoided, unless one evokes a kind of “dialogical capitalism”, where meaning is subject to a negotiation that, ultimately, guarantees its objectivity. Lastly, we will propose to rethink dialogue with the notion of ‘interruption’, in a way that meaning would no longer be derived from the experience of a so-called intersubjective agreement, but would, rather, appear as the experience of de-linkage itself – the structure of the relationship with the ‘other’ – insofar as this experience is taken to construe the foundation of any dimension of meaning.