The problem of the title is basically the question of the whole book, so it makes sense to start there. Must We Mean What We Say? could also be titled, "Can we even mean what we say?" The idea of meaning is the most complex idea of the whole book, because there is no getting around language's ability to communicate, but the meaning of language might have complexities that go beyond truth values.
In other words, there is no simple solution to the problem of language. Humans are animals, first and foremost, and like animals, they communicate by using sounds and gestures, according to instinctual intentions that are native to the human psychology, apparently. That much is just obvious science. The arena where the philosophy gets tricky is the human usage of words.
Words convey content, but the question of where the meaning really lies is one that has baffled generations and generations. Still, the question haunts philosophers everywhere. For Cavell, the main goal of understanding language is to prevent linguistic issues that might arise from committing someone's intentions to the words they use. If Cavell is right, then the most important aspect of any communication is the behavior, the intention, not the actual meaning of the words. He focuses on connotation instead of denotation.
