A Statement In Isolation

If someone said, "Michael never has a problem with angry outbursts," there is no singular thing that must be meant by the words, and not even simply due to the inherent arbitrariness of language (any word could have any meaning based on the speaker's intention).  Sometimes, when it comes to individual words or phrases, it is clear that a certain meaning is probable based upon societal norms of language and conversation.  There are two quite different things that the provided statement about Michael could literally suggest, however, even at a more straightforward level: either that Michael never struggles with angry outbursts or that he has no ideological or personal hesitation with expressing his anger openly and perhaps very loudly.  How different these two meanings are!

But how could one actually tell from the statement alone which meaning is intended?  I do not simply mean that one must look to logic in addition to the words so that in this exact way it is not the statement alone one is looking to (this is still obviously correct), but that one cannot tell at all from hearing or reading the words which meaning is more likely.  In this case, another statement must offer clarity, or one would have nothing to directly point to one intended meaning or the other.  Oh, you still cannot know what another person means even with elaboration from the speaker or in the case much less ambiguous statements, since someone's words ultimately mean whatever they mean by them, however pragmatically ineffective their communication might be in light of their community's linguistic norms.

Context is always necessary to illuminate statements like the one in view here about Michael not having a problem with getting angry.  More specifically, preceding or following statements are the best at providing whatever maximum degree of clarity language can convey (though without being telepathic, one still cannot know with absolute logical certainty what those statements mean rather than what they very much appear to mean).  When it comes to in-person communication or pre-recorded words as opposed to written words, additional factors like tone of voice can point towards layers of intended meaning like sarcasm or sincerity—it is just that this cannot eliminate all ambiguity.

So, according to the sentence in quotation marks, does Michael never outwardly erupt in anger or does he is prone to explode with anger?  It remains unclear to an extent with or without separate clarifying statements, but the sentence in isolation is incapable of even pointing to either aforementioned literal meaning.  The true flexibility of language is almost invisible to a person until they rationalistically assess the nature of language and certain individual statements, perhaps after reading or hearing specific phrasing that prompts them to see just how explicitly vague many statements actually are in isolation, including those about things besides hyper-abstract philosophical concepts.

The sentence about Michael not having a problem with angry outbursts is but one example of something relevant to all communication using language, something more overt in some instances than in others.  You cannot truly know someone else's meaning from their words alone.  With examples like the statement about Michael, you cannot know from the words which particular meaning is even most probable!  The meaning of its own words is the only linguistic meaning a being not connected to other minds would ever have total access to.  Pay attention to the words others use without making assumptions, and example after example should manifest before long.