§51. In describing language-game (§48) I said that the words "R", "B", etc. "corresponded to the colours of the squares". But what does this 'correspondence' consist in; in what sense can one say that certain colours of squares "correspond to these signs"? For the account in (48) merely set up a connexion between those signs and certain words of our language (the names of colours).—Well, it was presupposed that the use of the signs in the language-game would be taught in a different way, in particular by pointing to paradigms. Very well; but what does it mean to say that in the technique of using the language "certain elements correspond to the signs"?—Is it that the person who is describing the complexes of coloured squares always says "R" where there is a red square; "B" when there is a black one, and so on? But what if he goes wrong in the description and mistakenly says "R" where he sees a black square—what is the criterion by which this is a mistake?—Or does "R"s standing for a red square consist in this, that when the people whose language it is use the sign "R" a red square always comes before their minds?
In order to see more clearly, here as in countless similar cases, we must focus on the details of what goes on; must look at them from close to.


  1. There is no metaphysical 'correspondence' between 'R' and the colour of the square. All there is is a collection of various, quite disparate, detailed patterns of communal human behaviour in the ordinary FoL, including saying various things, pointing, teaching, recording, labelling, images coming into our minds... When we ordinarily say "'R' correspondsOL to that colour" we meanOL some indeterminate combination of the things in this collection.