THE PROBLEM OF REPRESENTATION

How is it possible for signs to point? How is it possible for signs to point to what is not there? These questions are extremely general ones about intentionality, the property of “aboutness” or “ofness” whereby one part of the world (a sign such as the words “the stoplight” or “The stoplight is red”) represents some other part of the world (e.g., an object such as a particular traffic signal or a state of affairs such as the traffic signal's being red).

How is it possible for signs to point? The obvious fact that signs point to something other than themselves is puzzling because it is difficult to see how to avoid a threatened regress of interpretations: an ordinary sign, for example, the linguistic sign “plus” or “Playful,” can be interpreted in various possible ways. Linguistic signs, after all, are arbitrary. The linguistic sign “Playful,” as uttered by me on a particular occasion, may be interpreted by my hearer as the name of a particular gray cat or as an attribution of the quality of playfulness to the creature in front of me or even (nonstandardly) as a sign for the color gray. Once we notice this, we feel the need to find something that will single out just one of the possible alternative interpretations in order for signs to succeed in pointing to something beyond themselves.