Part IV examines some of the difficulties for any theory that people always, or only, infer authorial intentions in the interpretation of literature, legal texts, and artworks. Many scholars maintain that trying to ground interpretation in authorial intentions is both fruitless and excessively limiting. I argue that critics of intentionalism cannot ignore fundamental cognitive processes by which people, including scholars, construct such interpretations. I describe some of the complexities for the concept of authorship and how these problems alter, to some degree, any comprehensive view of intentional meaning. I specifically suggest that criticism need not be limited by the search for authorial intentions, but that our often tacit recognition of intentionality plays a role in the creation of both intentional and unintentional meaning. Once again, acknowledging the diversity of meaningful experiences provides a framework for understanding the place of intentions in the interpretation and evaluation of literature, legal texts, and artworks.