If the words have not mental meanings that are applied to external objects, the preference for such an explanation of language has sill some reasons.
One of them is the reluctance to the indeterminacy of a language that acquires significance according to the supposed infinite contextual variations.
Or, it is the preference for solipsism. However, it is not the full explanation, because the solipsistic interpretation does not value the power of bearing meanings of words in our own mind without any consideration of their power of being related to the external objects. These objects are obviously known by any individual and put the solipsism out for encountering the space of community and communication.
Moreover, no one is interested in other people’s solitude. The singularity is repugnant to the members of the large community, too. Also, the first things to be forgotten about others are their moments or states of solitariness.
Therefore, we may presuppose that ‘the mental meanings/ external objects’ explanation is motivated by the attempt to abolish the strict individuality together with the solipsism. We have not to be confused by the fact that such explanation has been advanced by the philosophers, who are almost ‘naturally’ bent to solipsism. Because a simply behavioral survey may easy to discover that the solipsistic attitudes are often eager to deny themselves. Thus, the solipsistic view is rather the victory over the solipsism.
When we are moved to the external objects by that explanation, we are driven away from the possibility of questioning about our identity while living our contexts of life. In other words, the only identity of a living being vanishes.