I make no claims about how narrow or wide the differences might appear between human beings within these basic parameters. No 'gap is bridgeable' to everyone's satisfaction. Having said that, Wittgenstein's complaint against present-day philosophers of language would almost certainly be that they search too hard for 'essences' try to hard to simplify the complex facts of language use. We have to distinguish natural and non-natural meaning. An example of natural meaning is 'dark, heavy clouds mean rain', or 'the petrol cans in the burn out warehouse mean that an arsonist has been at work'.
Human actions have a natural meaning too.
The motorist's sheepish smile as we get out of our cars to examine the damage to our bumpers means that he is fully aware that the collision was his fault. Not only that, but one can exploit the fact that a certain action will be understood to have a certain natural meaning in order to convey information. Non-natural meaning, by contrast, is something very specific. In saying certain words, I intend to convey something to another person via his recognition that it is the words rather than the saying of them that he is to focus on. This is putting the matter deliberately vaguely.