Source of realms of meanings of a sentence.

Consider this sentence - Jack gave a book to John.

In any sentence, we focus on only one aspect of (the meaning of) each word, for weaving the words into the meaning of the sentence as a whole, at a time. 

For example, the word ‘Jack’ has so much to it – he is a man/male, a human being, a body, a working professional, a Christian etc. Out of all this, all that we focus on is Jack, the basic human being with a body. Take 'book'. It is a solid physical object. It is a store of knowledge. It’s a tool/resource for formal education (say, it’s a text book or something). Out of all these, here, we take the aspect – a solid physical object.

How do we take these aspects? We happen to look at nearby words to a word while reading, and the sense in which we take them influences our semi-arbitrary (suitable though in a sense) choice of aspect of the word for weaving it into the meaning of the sentence. For example, the 'gave' almost immediately preceding 'book' tells us to take the book in the sense of a physical object being transported in space. This is because 'gave' is essentially/primarily seen as a physical action. Of course, upon more reflection, the nearby word to 'book, 'gave', is seen as a "general (physical or abstract) transfer" of anything, and that may give the book the sense of a knowledge-store-house, resulting in the net meaning of the sentence being taken as - Jack transferred a lot of knowledge to John. That's another way of weaving the aspects of the words into the whole meaning of the sentence. 

Or the 'to' dictates us to take the sense of the ownership or control of the book now being going to John, making us take John in the sense of a controller or owner (among his many aspects, same as Jack's). Whatever signal the mind takes upon first impression of a word decides the influence on the other words.

Minsky's realms (dominion, physical, etc.) of a sentence, mentioned in Chapter 6 of The Emotion Machine, stem from this.