Exemplication vs. Representation...is there a difference?

Inspired by Monday's in class conversation, I was curious to see the literal definitions of the two words we discussed. According to Merriam-Webster, exemplify typically means 1: to show or illustrate by example <exemplifying those virtues> 2 : to make an attested copy or transcript of (a document) under seal 3 a : to be an instance of or serve as an example : embody <she exemplifies the qualities of a good leader> b : to be typical of <a dish that exemplifies French cuisine>.  Represent, on the other hand has a vast array of definitions (represent [verb] definition) most of which compare a representation to a sign, symbol, depiction, example, or something/things having a specified character or quality. Furthermore, representation can be broken down into the subcategory of "collective representation": a symbol that articulates and embodies the collective beliefs, sentiments, and values of a social group. 

It seems to me that Nelson Goodman's argument here is hugely a play on the English language.  He delves into the very specific, various, often opposing meanings that any given word, words of "string of words" can have. The fact that there is no single set dialect for all of humanity, that every culture across the globe, or, even narrower, individuals sitting side by side, have various slang terms and hold different mental meanings of the same word(s), makes proving Goodman's point to be valid a daunting, if not impossible task. 


Do you think that Goodman's argument is a valid play with the English language or that his fight between What and When, between Representation and Exemplification is a losing battle?