In his paper ‘Two Notions of Utterance Meaning’, Petr Koťátko criticises Davidson’s conception of the relation between meaning and intention. He ascribes the following view (D) to Davidson: “If S makes an utterance in order to perform a certain speech act, he intends and expects that act to be assigned to the utterance in A’s interpretation”. Koťátko’s objection to (D) is that a speaker can intend to be misinterpreted. The present paper discusses this objection. It is argued that Koťátko’s main example of such an intention fails. It is also argued that although there can be cases that would be adequately described as examples of intending to be misinterpreted, they are not of the
kind needed for an objection against (D).