Re: lots of questions

Hello E,

I believe you are the first student who has ever actually read Dr. Enfield's  paper! Or in any case, you are the first one to ask questions about it. I will copy your questions, and try to reply.

If I correctly understood I think the article's saying that 

1 when learning a language (native or foreign) we make hypothesis on a word's meaning, revise for some time and if there's no big problem communicating we just assume that it is the word's correct meaning

Indeed.

2 because people don't usually point out our mistakes (as long as they get what they meant) there are chances that each would keep different 'ideas' on the same word 

Right

3 but the conclusion is that words, meanings will somehow, ultimately converge in fuction and unless we're linguists there's no need for probing slight differences on individual's understanding of words

Almost. I think Dr. Enfield's point is that meanings "converge" only as much as necessary to avoid direct contradictions in everyday usage. So the convergence is approximate: sufficient, but not absolute.

I get that people's understanding of a word would differ at some point when examined thoroughly. If it's what Frege called 'idea' (although he said that it's not necessary) would it be ever possible for an individual to get the objectively correct 'sense', 'which transcends any individual's mental representations and which is collective property'? 

Well, neither Dr. Enfield, not myself would agree with Frege here. There is no objectively correct sense. Sense is a cognitive phenomenon, invested in individual understandings. 

If yes, how? (by... studying the whole speaker populations..?) and if no, how do we know there's this thing called 'sense'? (is it just a theory like 'idea' in Platonism?)

So, my answer would be "no", and as to knowing about a Platonic ideal "sense", I don't think there is any such thing! The closest we might come to that would indeed be a detailed semantic analysis of the individual meanings of an entire speaker population, averaged out to "best fit" with everybody, but clearly such an undertaking is (a) completely impossible; (b) entirely irrelevant to everyday language functioning (and hence of no interest to anybody); and (c) even if we managed to do it, the "objectively correct 'sense'" that we came up with would not actually correspond to anything in the real language (as used between between real speakers) and would not "exist" anywhere except in the academic paper we published to talk about it!

I've already asked too many questions

(Not at all! As I said, you are the first student to respond to this paper. It has been online in this course for 3 years... Nick Enfield is a good friend of mine: we were at University together in Australia, and I think he has an excellent understanding of language and languages, which is why I put his paper on my course page. You are asking intelligent question that are making me think! There is no need at all to 'apologise!!' Quite the reverse!  :-)  )

so to briefly summarize, after reading the paper I happened to wonder a lot about language and people ('s consciousness?). Like the example of the word "carry" in the paper, I see that various manners of carrying existed first and then words are formed (in Kri), so maybe a thing, that a word refers to is prior to the word itself. but then I was thinking if it's really possible to think, to develop rather complex thoughts without language or words/ if it's just in a language's boundary that we could form an idea, or even sense. (questions like 'could we really feel reminiscent if the word didn't exist?') and I continued on thinking randomly, of nonverbal communications and if it's possible for someone to have two mother tongues etc. 

anyway *my question is, do those things have anything related to linguistics? and could you recommend me some books or any reading materials for biginners like me? -whether they answer my question or not. 

My major is management, this is the first time I study anything like this and.. I just really enjoyed reading the paper (eventhough I found the conclusion a little disappointing) and would like to know more what this study's about. :)

These kinds of questions are central to linguistics, and frequently form the basic points of divergence between major ideas in the field. Can one form complex thoughts without language? I would say "yes", although is is certainly true that language allows a particular kind of thinking that would be considerably more difficult without it (linear reasoning). Some linguists would claim that any kind of structured thought is impossible without language. I am not of that opinion (neither is Dr. Enfield). Is it possible for someone to have two mother tongues? Yes. Not only possible, but normal. Most of our species is multilingual. Those of us who come from developed countries (from your name, I take it you are probably South Korean?, so this applies to you) tend to be monolingual, because we grew up in highly organised stable national groups with typically one "national" (or dominant) language. But most humans are natively multilingual. We are the minority.

As to texts, my recommendations will naturally be biased towards my own particular beliefs, but it seems to me that the kinds of questions you are posing indicate an interest in what is going on in our heads when we use language, which is a "cognitive" orientation.

I would recommend the following:

R. W. Langacker: "Concept Image and Symbol" (1991) - I have a copy that I could lend you...  If you undertake to look after it, and to give it back when you are finished!

R. W. Langacker: "Cognitive Grammar - An Introduction" (2008) - There is  copy in the University Library (in English)

Ron Langacker is the founder of the Cognitive Grammar approach to linguistic analysis. He worked at the University of California San Diego (he is now retired).

For a more Neurocognitive orientation (with slightly more interest in the actual physiological functioning of the brain, and how that functioning might correlate with notions of linguistic structure), I would recommend the writings of Professor Sydney Lamb, such as

S. Lamb: "Pathways of the Brain" (1999) - I have a copy of this too.

S. Lamb: "Language and Reality" (2006) - I have not read this myself, but I don't really need to to know that I will agree with it in almost all points. Prof. Lamb was my doctoral thesis advisor, and his work has strongly influenced my own thinking on these questions...

If you enjoyed Dr. Enfield's paper, I could put you directly in touch with him if you want, and I'm sure he would be happy to send you copies of other papers of his that might correspond to your interests.

In any case, I welcome your questions, and appreciate the quality of your reflection (and of your English!)

            M. Harrison