Allow me to clarify the point. Assume any statement, like "a cow is in the barn". In order that this statement may be true or false, there must be an interpretation of its meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not sure I agree that there must be an interpretation of its meaning. Rather, I think it would be more precise to say there must be an understanding of its meaning. "Understanding" is something like a mental grasp or comprehension. I often like to refer to understanding as "getting it." When something like "a cow is in the barn" is uttered in relation to a set of particulars like, for instance, a particular cow and a particular barn, we must grasp the meaning of the utterance. In this case, the meaning of the sentence is that there is a particular animal, a cow, spatially located in a particular building, the barn. I think as long as we have something like "understanding" we don't need something like "interpretation" here to do any heavy lifting.
Also, there must be an interpretation of the physical state of the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
In this particular case, I think it would be more correct to say that we must have a *belief* about the world (physical or whatever) rather than an *interpretation* of the world. A belief here meaning something that you hold to be true, whether or not it actually is, in fact, true. In this particular case, you are holding it to be true that there is a particular animal, a cow, in a particular spatial location, inside the structure we refer to as the barn.
If truth is correspondence, then these two interpretations must correspond in order that there is truth. — Metaphysician Undercover
If truth is something like correspondence, I would argue that the correspondence is actually not between the meaning of the sentence and the world, but rather the belief you are holding and the world. I have a belief B about state of the world Y. Now, there is an actual state of the world, F, which we can call a fact about the world. The fact is the way the world actually is. If B matches up with F, then that is the actual correspondence relationship. Now, the fact is not an interpretation. The fact is simply the way the world is. The belief, on the other hand, is also not an interpretation, but rather an opinion about the world that you happen to hold as true. If the two match, then correspondence obtains and the belief is True.
As to whether this is subjective or objective:
The fact is certainly objective. Regardless of what we think about the situation, the cow (Betsy, let's name her), is either in or not in the barn owned by Old McDonald, who has a farm. The fact of the matter is the objective state of affairs. In this particular instance, let's say that Betsy is NOT in Old McDonald's barn; rather, she is actually grazing in Old McDonald's field at Time T.
Now is the belief subjective or objective. Here we get into the issue of intentionality (one of my favorite topics, as a phenomenologist, I might add!)
A belief is a mental state / psychological state. Now, we have to distinguish the existence of the mental state itself, maybe we we can refer to as its form, from its actual content, which is not the same thing. I have many beliefs, and these are all psychological states, so it could be fair to say that they are the world as I perceive it, which means they are subjective.
HOWEVER, the content of the beliefs are assertions about the world being a certain way or not being a certain way. In this example, I hold it to be true that Betsy is in Old McD's Barn. The structure of the belief is subjective, but the content is asserting something objective about the world. Unfortunately for me, what I am asserting does not actually correspond to the way the world really is. The belief fails to obtain. As a consequence, my belief about the world is False. The world is not the way I believe it to be. It does not meet up with my assertion about it.
Interpretation never really needs, and I think, never does ever actually enter the picture here at all.So I think that any argument against the correspondence theory of truth that hinges on the concept of interpretation is doomed to miss the mark.
I welcome and am looking forward to any disagreements or objections you might have to this thinking though. : )