Meaning arises as the result of language-reality relationship, i.e., when language comes into contact with the world. The word by itself has no meaning. It possesses meaning when it stands for something. For example, when we ask someone what the number 'one' is or what the symbol '1' means? In such an occasion, we always refer to an object. But why is it so? Frege answers this question in a convincing manner. He argues that the number 'one' is not nothing. Suppose it were, would not the word 'one' be meaningless? It raises a further question: i.e., if it is not-nothing, then what is it? It must be something. In other words, it must be about something. What is proposed here is that 'meaning' is essentially suggest a one-to-one relation between words and its corresponding objects. This solution gives rise to a further issue, i.e., how do we understand the meanings of words which do not correspond to objects? For example, words like 'clarity', 'colour', 'honesty', 'brevity' do not correspond or refer to any object. Although they do not stand for any object yet we understand the meanings of these words when we use those in our language. But, how is it possible? Frege answers that "the meaning of an expression is not only a corresponding object but also a corresponding concept" (Parkinson, 1988, 26). For example, consider a sentence "The number 4 is blue". Here, the number '4' as such does not correspond to any object. There is no object called '4'. It is purely a thought- what Frege calls objective thought. Thus, it is a concept.

The notion of meaning is thus intrinsically related to the notion of understanding. Understanding an utterance involves understanding its meaning. To understand a speaker's utterances means to understand the meanings of words and/or sentences uttered by the person. Therefore, meaning is an inalienable aspect of language.