< What are the typical alternatives to "to be" when students do this exercise?
Might participants discover that one can effectively say, "He
frequently attacks or attempts to intimidate people whom he encoutners," rather
than, "He IS aggressive." Or, "I made an anger display," rather than "I was
(or I BECAME) angry?" -- focus on actors and observers in context rather than
on THE FORM (Stephen Pepper's category) of the person under observation.
< I have been intrigued with the fact that the classic rep grid seems confined
< to portraying only "to be" type relationships among the respective clusters of
< elements or constructs. It would seem that grid procedures are needed which
< would portray "to have" (territory) . . .
Does TO HAVE convey the same ontological orientation as does TO BE?
For example, "He HAS an aggressive personality." Or "I HAVE a bad temper"
(TEMPER -- does that neatly reflect formism??? Right out of Empedocles!!)
How about, "He HAS a bad case of schizophrenia?""
< But it seems perhaps that you are taking "to be" in another direction. Toward
< subjenctive? From absolutistic to probabilistic/possibilistic? I don't know.
In trying to master a foreing language, a native American/English
speaker undoubtedly will experience considerable difficulty learning the
several varients of TO BE (as in Italian, STARE and ESSERE), and will fare far
worse with the subjunctive conjugations. We simply cannot make the easy
transition from the certainties of IS to the completely different mood MIGHT
BE. "I hope that he HAS arrived," in contrast to the subjunctive, "I hope that
he MIGHT HAVE arrived," where, in the user of the foreign language clearly
distinguishes the two moods by using very different verbs.
If we "think" in constructivist frameworks, we should find ourselves
using language which expresses tentativeness as we frame our observations.
Any comment???
Jim Mancuso
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%