yes, it's interesting article by Davidson, in which Davidson overemphasized the need to adapt theory to a particular set of circumstances. To get a passing theory you need a prior theory, and all Truth and Interpretations is about the latter. The text should be read together with the section of Truth and Interpretation that deals with the problem of convention and illocutionary force, and metaphor (on which the realm of semantics has almost nothing to say, i agree with that). Rorty was inclined to see in this Davidson/Derrida, which is of course a preposterous description, but it's the result of Davidson's own fault. I think Davidson has a valid point there in the sense that, to language, there is a part that is not couched in terms of general theory, or rules. but in terms of idiosyncratic features, linguistic individualism of sorts. Barbara Johnstone published a great book on that with no reference to Davidson. I think Otto Jespersen somewhere stated that language combines elements of the general and the particular (individual style etc.). Interestingly, in a conversation with Quine Davidson said that we interpret not language, but persons. Again, an overemphasis, but it gives you some clue about what he intended to say. Frankly, it's extremely difficult to reduce, for instance, the process of (legal or textual) interpretation to a process of application of rules. In that I agree with Davidson. However, I do not think that the process is erratic or subjective or not bound by standard epistemological criteria such as truth, relevance, simplicity and coherence.

thanks. I considered that direction - including Durkheim etc. That's fine except it's more about society at large. Thanks also for the lyrics. I use all cultural products, including some lines by Bachmann in A most wanted man (2014).

well, some authors do not like to be treated like that .:) Esp. if one writes more in an explanatory mode. I personally would not like anyone to project any arbitrary image into my writings. I recommend Umberto Eco, Interpretation and Overinterpretation, which revolves mostly on his own 'The name of rose'. Eco's thinking as well evolved from the 'death of the author' view (Roland Barthes) to a more moderate view which leaves open some moderate space to a projection of reader's intentions into the author's text (through intentio operis - or, the semantic intention of the work itself). Hope this is useful.