Verbatim quote · from the corpus

“In the proposed scenario, the linguistic or symbolic sign that represents the central object does not anticipate but aborts and replaces the act of appropriation. Even if the originary sign is not itself an aborted gesture of appropriation, it effectively substitutes for it: it designates the object–directs the interlocutor’s attention toward it–yet unlike the indexical sign, it is not linked to an attempt to appropriate it. On the contrary, in communicating the significance of the presence of its referent to the other participants, the linguistic sign also communicates the fact that the emitter does not intend to appropriate the object. This originary sign is an ostensive , the simplest form of linguistic utterance, emitted in the presence of its referent. In the context of communication thus defined, the collective emission of the sign poses a pragmatic paradox : (1) it designates its object as worthy of attention, and therefore of appropriation; (2) by this very fact, it sacralizes the object, making it inaccessible to appropriation by any member of the group. The pragmatic paradox generated by the originary ostensive precedes and is the source of the pragmatic paradoxes discussed by Watzlawick et al. in Pragmatics of Human Communication (Norton 1967).”

— Eric Gans, The Fundamental Paradox of Signification · Saturday, February 20th, 2010 · Chronicles of Love & Resentment