The intuitions driving contextualism are better explained by pragmatic mechanisms like Gricean implicature operating on invariant semantic content, as Hawthorne and Stanley argue in the invariantist literature.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Gricean implicature(as used in philosophy of language): A meaning that a speaker suggests indirectly, without actually saying it outright—like when someone asks 'Do you have any plans tonight?' and really means 'Want to hang out?' Named after philosopher Paul Grice, who studied how people communicate beyond just the literal words they use.
Hawthorne and Stanley(as leading philosophers in the invariantist debate): John Hawthorne and Jason Stanley are contemporary philosophers who argue for invariantism—the view that word meanings don't actually change with context, and apparent changes are explained by how we use language pragmatically.
Invariant semantic content(in contrast to context-dependent meaning): The fixed, unchanging literal meaning of words themselves, regardless of context (the core meaning you'd find in a dictionary).
Invariantism(as the opposing view to contextualism): The philosophical position that the meaning of words stays the same across all contexts; what seems to change is just how speakers use those fixed meanings in conversation.

Based on where you are in your exploration