When a speaker communicates with someone, she wants to convey some kind of content tothe hearer. For the communicational act to be successful, the hearer will have to grasp thiscontent. Human communication seems, in this way, to rely on content sharing. RelevanceTheory is a pragmatic theory aiming at giving an account of the mechanisms underlyinghuman communication. Herman Cappelen and Ernie Lepore have argued that RelevanceTheory implies that content sharing is impossible. This thesis is an attempt to defendRelevance Theory against this claim.I start by arguing that Cappelen and Lepore's argument is imprecise, and suggest amodification of their claim. Specifically, I make some adjustments to what they call 'TheNon-Shared Content Principle'. According to Cappelen and Lepore, it is the commitment tothis principle that makes Relevance Theory imply that content sharing is impossible.I then show that Cappelen and Lepore's argument relies on the idea that the propositionexpressed must be given by the semantics of the language alone, without any intrusion fromthe context. I argue that this is impossible; The hearer needs some contextual guidance to beable to grasp the proposition expressed. With that in mind, I argue that even though theproposition expressed is not determined by semantics alone, this does not mean that ahearer will be unable to grasp it.Finally, I argue that one does not necessarily need to grasp the same proposition forcommunication (and content sharing) to be possible. In most cases, people can understandeach other without grasping the same proposition, as long as they grasp propositions thatare similar to a certain extent. I argue that this is because communication is not aboutconveying one specific proposition, but about conveying a 'point'.