I like these – I’m not so keen on these
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131
And there you have it, in front of your very eyes and with nothing up my
sleeve. You saw that the cards were arranged into a line according to that
construct without words, and before your interviewee changed his or her
facial expression. So, it’s possible to have constructs without words, or any
other sort of symbolic expression.
Ah! But is it possible to communicate constructs without some form of symbolic
expression? Well, no: notice the function of the smile and the grimace in
hinting at what the construct might be, and for indicating which pole was
preferred.
That’s fair enough: you can’t communicatewithout symbols.But before we go on, let’s
examine that assumption about the need for symbolisation. Before the act of communication,
is it possible to have constructs without relying on some form of symbol?
Opinions differ on this. Some people point out that to construe is to differentiate (‘in
what way are two the same and one different?’), and that differentiation involves
choice, some of it deliberate and explicit, but some of it less so and without any
symbols being involved. They argue that choice is defined as a selection between
alternatives, and that selections can be made without awareness. The pupil of your
eye dilates more when you see an attractive person than an unattractive one, for
example, and this is an act of construing asmuch as if it were consciously and deliberately
made. In linguistics, Saussure (1915/1983) provides an early, systematic
exposition of the argument that it is simple contrast (between a sign and all the signs
not beingused to expressthe thingbeingsignified), bereft of deliberation, whichlies at
the heart ofmeaning.
Otherswould suggest, in contrast, that symbolisation hasto exist beforeawareness.It
is essential in order to engage in the organisation and reorganisation, called ‘information
processing’, required for the processes of memorisation, storage, and recall.
Something which represents an attractive face as distinct from an unattractive face
has to be processed, or stored in memory, and what is that something other than a
symbol? It certainly isn’t the face itself.
Both viewpoints would concede that, regardless of all this, attractiveness lies in the
eye of the beholder and that all beholders differ in their experience! In other words,
that what matters just as much in a representation is the background, history, and
personality of the person making the distinction.
And both parties would certainly agree that the medium in which symbols are
expressed need not be verbal. We’ve all encountered algebra; and those who are
familiar with mathematical logic will be aware of other non-verbal symbol systems in
which deduction, reasoning, and hence the recognition of similarities and contrasts,
are possible.What’s being said, then, is that it’s certainly possible to have non-verbal
constructs, but that theexistence of someformof symbolsystem, verbalorotherwise,
is essential for any work to be done.
Thank you! Now, to summarise all of that in practical terms. There’s no doubt
that verbal symbolisation is particularly efficient. Also, non-verbal construing,
as in the case of the photographs above, is only possible because the people
doing the construing are old enough to have developed language already. This
enables them to represent, or encode, the distinctions and similarities which
make up a construct more effectively than if they’d never learnt a language.
Yes, that’s plausible.Kelly talked about pre-verbal construing in this exact sense. It is
construing, it does occur, but it’s inchoate. It’s not expressed in consistent verbal
symbols and is thereby ‘primitive’ in nature (Kelly,1955/1991: 465).
Okay. Now, let’s go back to communication. In order to be sure about what the
construct is, even if the interviewee has been proceeding without words, you
have to question your interviewee. Suppose, for example, the photographs
were arranged into two heaps which grouped the paintings as follows:
Those in which colour, Those in which colour, composition,
composition, and form are used – and form are used to show what
to convey the essence of a people, places, events, and things
concept, mood, or idea look like
You’d then have a fair notion that the construct in question is