Occam’s razor approach is used to disclose the true nature of head-to-head transduction of linguistic meaning. An evaluation of an infelicity showed it to be a name rather than a phenomenon (Occam). It is a metonymic description of actual exchange of linguistic forms taking place during communication. Occam-style reliance on the sensorium alone is sufficient to repudiate the implication that linguistic meaning is a thing. Alternatively, biocognitive theory (Maturana, Kravchenko et al.) points to interpretation of correlations of signals and bodily responses to them as the key to the mechanism of communication. As such correlations are memorized, an individual system of a language arises. It provides for compe tent use of linguistic forms, coupled with a varying range of other bodily signals, to orient the partner to autopoiesis, i.e. his|her sense generation on the basis of commensurate knowledge and linguistic expertise. On such view, the need to adapt to environment, both current and expected, is seen as the stimulus as well as raison d etre of communication. By feedback, the organism s living in language (languaging) is a major factor of its survival in the long run. As far as communicative mechanism is concerned, the speaker organizes a relationship between him/herself as sender and his/her niche to make sure that suitable signals – oral and written language forms, gestures, intonation, body language, etc. are released. Such objects do not become signals for a living system until the latter is prone to respond to them in order to continue to develop. Thus, the recipient interprets and understands the interaction between him/herself and his/her niche, which includes them. Since exchange of information arises as autopoiesis occurring in either partner, any idea of information as being a thing which enters or leaves the body to effect understanding should be considered void (or redundant in Occam’s terminology).