Language and Dialogue 5:2 (2015), 224–246. doi 10.1075/ld.5.2.02col issn 2210–4119 / e-issn 2210–4127 © John Benjamins Publishing Company Disagreement and the speaker’s point of view Juan J. Colomina-Almiñana Te University of Texas at Austin Tis article defends an intentionalist solution to cases of disagreement. Unlike conventionalist approaches, the paper shows that the truth-value of some sen- tences is shifed and relative to the concrete way the assertion is made. Unlike relativist accounts, it argues that cases of subjective meaning are just apparent, and really express normative content as included in embedded sentences. Te paper advocates for a solution based on what I call the speaker’s point of view, which understands disagreement as expressing the speaker’s perspective in conversation about a particular matter without constraining the truth-value of the sentences of our natural language. Consequently, the speaker’s utterance is a speech act necessarily related to the interlocutor’s utterance, which is another speech act, since only by integrating the level of the communicative function into a dialogic interaction the real meaning of the utterances can completely show up. Keywords: Disagreement, dialogic stance, speech act, speaker intention, perspective, meaning, truth-value, truth-conditions I know noble accents And lucid, inescapable rhythms; But I know, too, Tat the blackbird is involved In what I know. (W. Stevens, Tirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird, 1938) A number of scholars have argued that the linguistic meaning of a sentence is suf- fcient to determine the truth-conditions of an utterance. Ten, a proposition has one and only one truth-value independently of the context of utterance. Tis is to say, truth-utterance is invariant context-by-context. Every time two speakers ut- ter conficting sentences about the same situation then, one and only one of them is speaking truthfully and the other one is at fault. Otherwise, if both expressed propositions are true, the two sentences are about diferent situations and they are not defnitely contradictory. Nevertheless, everyday conversation (what usually