Preface
I’m grateful to the linguists who read the previous version of the article. In the current drafting I tried to take their comments into account and to answer the questions raised. The most important are:
It was not quite clear to us precisely  what does your proposed new level of information and analysis consist of ”. – The proposed level of information consists of operational states and their structures. The operational states are bits of nonsemantic operational information and form operational structures. The questions that would allow a better understanding of what it is would be: how is this information used (what is its role) and how can it be detected. Here is the summery of the responses one can find in the current drafting of the article. The main role of operational information is to form a basis of grammatical meanings, but it needs the following clarifications: 1) Just as a word form can be polysemous, one grammatical meaning can combine several operational structures. 2) Depending on the kind of relationship constituting operational information, it serves not only as a basis of grammatical meanings, which needs a special technique to be detected, but is also incorporated in operations such as negation and determines detectable quantitative and elective characteristics of some information units.
The argument from aphasia over recall of names is unconvincing, unless naming and meaning are seen as the same thing. As noted above, ‘information’ is used in a variety of contexts and senses, so the relation of information and meaning is left opaque, and there is still no sense of how linguistic conventionality or diversity might be accounted for ”. – The message of the example with aphasia is that the patient possessing the notion of the thing can’t remember theword which means the notion that enables naming . But even if this example is unconvincing, the other three arguments are not contested and therefore are sufficient to recognize disconnecting the meaning from the word. The choice of the proposed notion of information not available in linguistics is based upon the phenomenon of disconnecting meaning from the word in speech: The meaning detached from the word ceases to be meaning but remains information. For that “meaning”, I introduce the term information unit .
One would like to know  what has ‘quantity’, ‘boundaries’, and ‘electivity’ in the ‘initial state’, and  what are the initial and derived states of the operations ”. – If the derivative quantitative state can be determined as including, the initial state remains undetermined. It can, in turn, include another state or no state but always accompanies the derivative state. That’s what makes it involved in quantity. Similarly, if the derivative elective state can be determined as substituting, the initial state remains undetermined. It can substitute another state or no state but the substituting state is formed through it. That’s why both states are characterized by electivity. Quantity and electivity are universal characteristics of the perceived world. One can explain the difference between the two with minimal number of notions (in order not to “multiply entities without necessity”) through the use of derivative elements generated in operations from the initial ones. The elements brought out from the operations become static (I call them operational states ) and constitute bits of nonsemantic information.
Actually, ‘hyponymization’ seems to be confused with ‘specification’, when  oak is taken to ‘hyponymize’  tree- oak is a hyponym of  tree, but in  oak tree specifies the type of tree as a member of the subsets. Let alone the problem of different noun-noun relations as in  fruit tree, forest tree, … ” – In all these cases the only thing that matters in our approach is the behavior of the information of the word tree . In each case, regardless of whether the accompanying word means a species (oak tree ), a variety (fruit tree ) or affiliation (forest tree ) of the tree, the information of the word tree undergoes the operation of hyponymization.
The analogy between the perception of physical objects and purported mental objects or states is unclear at best. What is the ‘value’ of a mental ‘object’? ” – The example with perceived objects is provided to confirm that the inherent characteristic of quantity is the property to be accumulated: The smaller is included in the larger. The article deals only with information (not with a mental object) and, unlike the parameters of a real object, which reflect its quantity, the information parameters (operational states) are attached to it but don’t reflect its value.
The ‘linguistic readings’ used to reveal the allegedly previously unobserved parameters look remarkably like semantic analyses involving implicatures. – The linguistic reading, shown on the example of Russian transitive words, is intended precisely to represent the unobservable operational structures in a linguistic form. A complex operational structure can be represented by lexical meanings provided that their parameters reproduce the quantitative and elective relations of the structure. The lexical meanings reproducing the relations of a complex structure create a linguistic reading, which is independent of semantic analysis and not limited to it.
The central idea of the article remains the existence of an operational information level. My observations, such as disconnecting the meaning from the word in speech and the distinction between meaning and information, have a great importance for the implementation of this idea.