Communication is me taking an idea in my head, considering you the listener and our shared context, and deciding which outward signals will invoke that same idea in your head. The full meaning of a statement is NEVER completely contained in the words themselves; they are selected in empathetic prediction merely as triggers of hidden assumed shared state unique to various speaker/listener pairings.

As children, we blindly associate phrases to situations in which those phrases were heard, and attempt to map them in our outward communication, often to comical effect. It's a cargo cult model of communication, since at that stage we don't understand how those phrases were originally constructed under specific intention & purpose.

The meaning of words and phrases will change over time and location, as we have new experiences which text associates. Certainly as humans we can understand and continually update multiple simultaneous contexts in which things are said, and from which version an utterance is invoking its meaning.

These issues are why I don't see the direct text-to-text model of machine translation getting beyond a certain ceiling of usefulness. Text fundamentally refers to out-of-band human experiences, in very inconsistent associations.