Consider the following sentences:

"Those spots mean (meant) measles.

"Those spots didn't mean anything to me, but to the doctor they meant measles.”

"The recent budget means that we shall have a hard year."

1. I cannot say, "Those spots meant measles, but he hadn't got measles," and I cannot say, "The recent budget means that we shall have a hard year, but we shan't have." That is to say, in cases like the above, x meant that p and x means that p entail p.
2. I cannot argue from "Those spots mean (meant) measles" to any conclusion about "what is (was) meant by those spots"; for ex-ample, 1 am not entitled to say, "What was meant by those spots was that he had measles." Equally I cannot draw from the statement about the recent budget the conclusion "What is meant by the recent budget is that we shall have a hard year."
3. I cannot argue from "Those spots meant measles" to any conclusion to the effect that somebody or other meant by those spots so-and-so. Mutatis mutandis, the same is true of the sentence about the recent budget.
4. For none of the above examples can a restatement be found in which the verb "mean" is followed by a sentence or phrase in quotation marks. Thus "Those spots meant measles" cannot be reformulated as "Those spots meant 'measles'" or as "Those spots meant 'he has measles.'"
5. On the other hand, for all these examples an approximate re-statement can be found beginning with the phrase "The fact that ..."; for example, "The fact that he had those spots meant that he had measles" and The fact that the recent budget was as it was means that we shall have a hard year."

   Now contrast the specimen sentences with the following:

   "Those three rings on the bell (of the bus) mean that the bus is full."

   "That remark, "Smith couldn't get on without his trouble and strife,' meant that Smith found his wife indispensable."

   1. I can use the first of these and go on to say, "But it isn't in fact full-the conductor has made a mistake"; and I can use the second and go on, "But in fact Smith deserted her seven years ago." That is to say, here x means that p and x meant that p do not entail p.
   2. I can argue from the first to some statement about "what is (was) meant" by the rings on the bell and from the second to some statement about "what is (was) meant" by the quoted remark.
   3. I can argue from the first sentence to the conclusion that somebody (namely the conductor) meant, or at any rate should have meant, by the rings that the bus is full, and I can argue analogously for the second sentence.
   4. The first sentence can be restated in a form in which the verb

   "mean" is followed by a phrase in quotation marks, that is, "Those three rings on the bell mean "the bus is full.'" So also can the second sentence.

   (5) Such a sentence as "The fact that the bell has been rung three times means that the bus is full" is not a restatement of the meaning of the first sentence. Both may be true, but they do not have, even approximately, the same meaning.

   When the expressions "means," "means something," "means that" are used in the kind of way in which they are used in the first set of sentences, 1 shall speak of the sense, or senses, in which they are used, as the natural sense, or senses, of the expressions in question. When the expressions are used in the kind of way in which they are used in the second set of sentences, I shall speak of the sense, or senses, in which they are used, as the nonnatural sense, or senses, of the expressions in question. I shall use the abbreviation "means" to distinguish the nonnatural sense or senses.