REVIEW 2

  •  
  • 120
  • 4
  • 1
  • English 
Nov 22, 2018 09:34
REVIEW 2
The starting point of the article is the conceptual representation is always independent from the language of the speaker and that there needs a mediation between the lexicon one employs and the representation of the concept.
It is hard to figure out the need for such a postulate.
A more simple explanation could derive from the observation that thoughts are always expressed by the means of language and that language always mirrors thoughts.
Such a way to proceed is not baseless but it probably derives from Cartesian philosophy and rationalism. This perspective implies abstraction and deletion of contexts; in other words, tabula rasa and Cartesian plan.
It also implies that there is a need for a single conceptualization of a word, for instance carpenter; when it is clear that we can have a carpenter and a falegname (in Italian) and they do not need to be one the double of another. Probably they share features -like many words withing a single target language- but they are not equivalent.
The fact that a second language learner tries to bend a meaning of a word towards the already known, it does not imply that we have only one conceptual representation and that one substitute another. It simply says that we use something that we know as a clue to grasp something that we don`t know. But this does not happen only with second language learners, even kids or people that change social status use the pre-existing knowledge to understand new concepts and ideas.There is dynamic between the known and the unknown that doesn`t necessary indicate one single representation of reality. To my knowledge, translation doesn`t mean doubling, but rewriting. In literature, for example, we create something new, the so-called original is only the starting point. The translation is usually something you add to the original, not something that substitute it. The original is context-bound in infinite different ways.
Therefore, it needs to be proven that there are two languages, one active and another inhibited. It would be like saying that for playing tennis I need to inhibit my football skills. The research seems to postulate a need to reach an univocal idea of a single thing; however our representation of reality vary according to different stimuli, and the idea of 'rose' vary on the basis of the pragmatic function it has in a discourse.