or 3. since the understanding of these last sentences is based on an understanding of their respective parts, including the 1st, and on the importance of how these parts are combined. However, since Stevenson`s theory of meaning states that moral sentences are used to express the attitudes of a spokesman – that is, used with expressive delocalutional force – and because moral sentences are often used as parts of more complex sentences, without such expressive force, as in sentences 2 and 3. Stevenson did not provide a theory of minimally appropriate meaning for moral sentences. Not all linguistic attempts to coordinate or regulate attitudes are rational. Often, according to Stevenson, we try to shape attitudes through linguistic means other than presenting reasons. For example, we often try to influence or coordinate parameters by calling or emphasizing only the purely emotional element of words, or perhaps by using metaphor, intonation, speech or rhythm connectivity, etc. These are all non-rational, but still linguistic, methods of regulating and coordinating attitudes that Stevenson calls “conviction”: given that beliefs and attitudes play an essential role in Stevenson`s adult emotivism, one has the right to inquire about the nature of these psychological conditions – what these respective attitudes are. Stevenson provides a rather thin report on the nature of different psychological states and therefore provides few details about the nature of faith and attitude….