Is there a bifurcation in ordinary empirical description vocabulary vs vocabularies where there isn’t a good correspondence between parts of the sentence and parts of the world? -E.g. “Jupiter has moons” vs “The universe is infinite” and “Love is the only law”
Representationalists can either 1.) postulate objects represented by the latter claims (e.g. love) or 2.) consider such sentences that don’t fit the representational mould as defective/inferior.
These latter claims definitely have a meaning though, as observable by the reason relations they stand in.