The main purpose of this paper is to analyze and try to reply to the criticisms that John Searle advances against the quinean thesis of the indetermination of translation. I will try to show that Searle's objections leave aside an aspect of quine's philosophical countenance, which appears to be of vital relevance when the latter treats the problem of significations. I will show that quine's theory of meaning, and his objections to the very notion of meaning -as traditionally conceived of-, stem from the espousal of a Naturalistic countenance of knowledge whose major trait, at least for what concerns us, is its pragmatic factor.