Matrix: schematic universals. How many minds does a bilingual have?

The relationship between ontology, categorization, linguistic expression and meaning is still an open question; and it is probably a problem destined never to receive a definitive solution. It requires, in fact, the analysis of too many variables relative to the dynamic nature of information process. The issue becomes even more complex when considered in light of bilingualism or multilingualism, given that in this case account must be taken of an additional variable. In fact, while it is already difficult to analyze the connection between reference and conceptualization in the case of a monolingual, it is even more so in that of a bi-/multilingual, where the analyst must consider a variety of forms of conceptualization sometimes in conflict with each other, and which may in principle affect both the reference and the conceptualization. The conflict may come about at several levels, for instance when growing up monolingual and then learning a second or third language; learning implicitly and explicitly; being brought up bilingual in the same family or in different settings (for example, the family and the extra-family environment); acquiring different types of language, for example a spoken language and a sign language. The conflict may also concern different components of bilingualism, like proficiency, fluency, forms of low and elite bilingualism, individual pragmatic abilities, and emotional motivations. Finally, the conflict may arise not only on aspects of conceptualization relative to specific grammatical bases but even within an alternative general paradigm, such as the ones underlying the Western languages or the Asiatic languages, with the further variant of bilinguals who live, for example, in highly industrialized Western contexts, or vice versa. Analysis of bi- and multilingualism has then a crucial problem to solve: determining how conceptual representations are organized on the basis of two or more conceptual systems with differing degrees of relational complexity. The paper answers the question whether the mind of a bilingual or multilingual is different from the mind of a monolingual, and underlines the structural difference among different kinds of categories, i.e. ontological, cognitive, and linguistic, avoiding the errors that may derive from imprecise delimitation of their roles. Finally, the paper shows that ‘recognizing’ an item does not mean, by default, applying a taxonomic category or a base category. On that basis, a proposal is made of experiments verifying the existence of pathologies occurring at the very base format of representations.