In a series of recent papers,' Hilary Putnam has persuasively argued for the view that there is a semantic division of labor. In this paper, I assess some of Putnam's claims, indicating some difficulties and arguing for some emendations to and revisions of the things that he has said about language. I try to show that there is a much broader variety of authorities than Putnam has indicated and that their role is more diversified. Decisions, discoveries and recognition abilities are distinguished for semantic purposes. Furthermore, I argue that the existence of alternative authorities requires a theory of meaning that preserves a traditional core about the relation between sense and reference. I abandon the use of stereotypes and substitute meaning specifications, but I heartily support Putnam's attack on concepts and his appeal to a division of linguistic labor.