Abstract

The assumption that language is an element of the cognitive system, fulfilling specified information collection and processing functions, bears consequences for the understanding of meaning. The paper demonstrates that we should rather speak of a beam of informational functions fulfilled by meaning, rather than of a single meaning, the same one in all situations of ex-pression use. Each of the functions identified in the paper provides a different input into the final meaning assigned to each individual expression use. The proposed solution helps understand that meaning has both conventional and contextual meaning, is both universal and individual, is both structural infor-mation and information acquired via current processes, without falling into the trap of traditional contradictions.