@fresco,
That assertion is what is open for debate...you cannot use the word interaction and simultaneously say that language is not representational although given your words I am sure you donĀ“t understand why...
A representation is not the thing, but that is a trivial truth if that was what you meant...a representation is just the proportional representative transcriptional form that reports to something without being that something, a reaction, which is a true phenomena in itself...(and a natural one)
....what it seems to me is that you are willing to debate the roots of causality but that is beyond the point and arises from confusion...correlation between language (a form in itself) and the phenomena to which it intends to refer to suffices as a necessary association for what truth is meant to report, given our own nature being the natural realm from which such necessity is established through language...there is simply no way of justifying the opposite without good reason...(nor beyond human reason)
The apprehension that language builds in is here seen as a reaction to phenomena, a form upon a form...the true value of its correspondence arises or emerges from its natural spontaneous necessity...it is an a priori fact.