Whenever I am presented with a new idea, my first inclination is to head directly for all the cases that it cannot intrinsically handle, or in other words, the exceptions. The exceptions cannot “disprove” the theory. The theory's value is not in its rightness or wrongness, but rather, the quality with which it allows you to hedge your bets on the rode to discovery, and of course with the greatest efficiency. A theory's greatest test will be its willingness to self-correct and adapt, when a good guess proves untenable.
The best example that I can give to an ontological exception, is when a material object actually itself refers like a word to some meaning or value, a symbol like a flag, or a trophy. Here you can plainly see that what makes the object lingual, is immaterial.
But as objects can be made lingual, so language can be made material, but the reduction of one to the other causes a certain loss of information, both ways. The theory must then concede the argument that it is on some basic level, considering the immaterial negligible (verbal force/evaluation/meaning). It might even be said that the negligible is immaterial. Ha.
I've always been more interested in the verbal properties of language, but there are instances when the material properties of language express themselves verbally, in much the same fashion as machines act as producing objects, objects which can cause events.
Here, $This sentence is false$, has the mechanical property of being able to re-enter itself by infinite, metanymic substitution.
“This sentence” = “This sentence is false”
So, we can substitute the entire sentence for the part which represents the whole. After one re-entry we get “This sentence is false is false.” After two, “This sentence is false is false is false is false,” and this substitution will cause the number of “is false's” to double each iteration.
In this case the materiality of the sentence is expressed through a recursive re-entry, which allows the result of the last iteration, to be re-entered into the next operation. Thus this sentence is a linguistic representation, of the function, f(n) = 2^N, where N represents the amount of supplementations that have been enacted.