I have always thought that nouns and adjectives were not very relevant to
PCP. If a person is a form of movement, as Kelly suggests, then verbs are
more likely to be appropriate ways of describing construing...it is a
process. Spence McWilliams has done some interesting work on the
invitational mode of living and Kelly was concerned himself about the
"hardening of the categories" all of which makes me wonder whether nouns
and adjectives would be better ignored...I am not a linguist, but I am
interested in language and the processes it represents.
---------
From: pcp-request
To: pcp
Subject: Re: Person as scientist
Date: 22 March 1998 00:45
Lindsay,
I'm glad you asked, but I think your question won't get a simple answer. If
a person is "like" a scientist (analogy), then we assume an interpretation
of "scientist" is accepted, and "person" is understood by comparison. But
if a person "IS" a scientist (metaphor), then the directions of
interpretation seem two way: we may learn something about what it is to be
a scientist when we study construct formation, and we may learn something
about what it is to be a person to study the form of self-conscious
construct formation practiced by the scientist.
By the way, I'd also like to ask if there are any linguists out there. I'm
an amateur linguist, and would like to use PCP to study both what a person
means by the words used in their constructs, and what constructs are
labeled by those words. Let me start with a question about whether PCP only
works with nouns and adjectives. Must we have an "object" for a construct?
What about processes? Can we study a person's concept of "running" without
nominalizing it?
Bob Parks
>Hi all,
>could someone shed some light on Kelly's view of the person as a (an
>incipient)
>scientist.
>
>Is this an "analogy" or a "metaphor"? Are there any linguists out there?
>
>Regards
>Lindsay Oades
>Wollongong
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%