After all, what more is there to understanding the meaning of that sentence than knowing when it will be true, and when false. Frege's distinction seems to show the way out. There is a sense component there, but it is somehow shrouded by natural language, and requires analysis to discover it. Such paraphrasing might bring out the meaning, but it may also be that further analysis is required, even beyond 'natural language'. The force component is perhaps the type of sentence we had originally, or some part of the paraphrase.
Different theorists break it up in different ways.
Thus Austin said that every utterence has an 'illocutionary force', which is the speech-act actually performed by its production. Kenny is quite unusual in distinguishing between only two types of force. Sentences are all 'fiats' or 'assertions'. Which they are is to be discovered by 'matching them up to the world' to see which is right or wrong. They are definitions.