The question about what an utterance literally says has raised two different answers: first, a response that appeals to context-derived elements to determine what has been said. On the other hand, a response that supports only the inclusion of elements linked to linguistic items. The first view is held by Recanati, Bach and Perry. The second one is held by Stanley, Szabo & Cappelen and Lepore. In this paper we will consider the contributions of Recanati and Stanley, who have held a heated debate where various examples which serve to support their proposals and refute the contrary views. One such example is raised by Recanati on the case of it rains. In this paper we will analyze if that example actually refutes Stanley's position.