It is in this process of constructing the coherence theory of epistemic justification, and developing the theory in an elaborative manner, where I think the limitations of language and discourse becomes apparent and where precisely because of these limitations, Bonjour struggles to sufficiently characterize a strong and robust theoretical framework. To further visualize this, I think it is helpful to invoke the analogies that have been used in Dr. Perez' class to represent foundationalism and cohenrentism. Foundationalism is represented by the image of a pyramid where the base of the pyramid represents the basic or foundational beliefs and the upper parts represent the direction towards hidden assumptions and other beliefs. On the other hand, coherentism is represented by the image of a raft or a mesh wherein beliefs are interlinked with each other to form an overall coherent system of beliefs. My conjecture is that the limitations and the infrastructural constraints of the elements of language and discourse are biased in terms of adequacy towards the construction of a foundationalist theory rather than towards the construction of a coherentist theory. This is because the manner by which discourse through language is carried out is intrinsically linear. Thus when discourse through language is employed in the construction of a philosophical theory, the philosopher likewise inevitably carries out the construction of the theory in a linear fashion. In constructing the theory, particularly in a manner that is analytic, the theorist presents preliminary arguments, then proceeds to develop and elaborate on these arguments, then proceeds to address difficulties and weaknesses, then presents more premises and arguments to support these premises, and so on. Discourse through language proceeds in this sequential and linear manner and such a methodological approach towards constructing a theory is intuitively closer in form to a foundationalist theory rather than to a coherentist theory.