When considering the links we make while grasping language , a question that arises is; what is the outcome of words that don’t produce images? Well, we certainly can form such outcomes, since in language generally we can say that 'bonjour' means 'hello', and 'hello' is a greeting. At the end of this thought process we terminate at an image which has been made indirectly from the first word. We have gone through a thought process that begins whenever we think of the word 'bonjour'. We then think "that means 'hello'.", and then link that word 'hello' with the image of a greeting. This, we do till it starts to stick in our minds, some words being easy to make the indirect link with. Others not so. Where as the first method of natural language produced direct parallel words to accompany the image or idea, now we are caught up in a more complicated situation in which we have to think of two words of which we form a link between to gain the image for both words.
With a lapse of memory such as does occur in conversation, the link may be quickly broken so that we are trying to recall what the word was that meant 'hello', and that brought to mind the image of a greeting?
Yet, where we wish to get to in any language is the place we have managed to with our native tongue. That is this direct correspondence between the word and the image which we have already spoken about. We want to get to a point where the middle man is no longer any part of the procedure. Why then do we include this man in the first place?! Is he needed? Well perhaps with some things the answer initially must be yes. But we want to lose him as quickly as possible. What we would rather be the case, is to use this middle man(our mother tongue) to explain the meaning of a certain image, and as soon as that image is made clear, we must then dispose of it and use the new word to conjure up that image. And not if we can help it, the word that means that image. This appears more important when it comes to verbs.