Re: Language and non verbal constructs

Gary Blanchard (
Tue, 04 Jun 1996 08:37:01 -0700

Dear John-

Thanks for your message about language, constructs, pre-vebal, etc.

I am glad to offer what I can on this matter, some in the form of
questions. Here we go:

>John wrote:
> Over recent weeks I have been reading some threads which all appear to
> pre-suppose that language is the most important means of creating or
>defining a construct.
> Whilst I would not wish to argue about the importance of language as a
>means of communication and the vital role it plays in defining our
>interactions I would like clarification on how the group perceives th
>interplay between language and non verbal constructs.
> Kelly cited "pre-verbal" constructs (althought here I must admit I
>prefer Tom Ravenette's re-definition as "non verbal" constructs) - those
>for which we have no word to describe. I (rightly or wrongly) equate
>these to the Jungian construct of the Archetype. These constructs have
>a deeper underlying meaning, possibly more basic, more primal (if you
>will excuse mixing pop psychological metaphors).
> How do these non verbal constructs fit in to the theory that language
>defines everything? We have knowledge that even ancient people with a
>supposed basic language structure (if any) had a fairly complex set of
>constructs around a belief system - wall paintings, rock carvings etc.
> Gary Replies: 1. What do you mean by 'language'?
2. If something is 'pre-verbal,' by which one means
'outside of / beyond language,' then how do we know of
its existence? How do we consider / view / think
about it? How does it presence itself to us?
3. If something is, indeed, 'outside of language,' can
we humans even be aware of it? Example: A dog

I look forward to hearing from you, and continuing this conversation.

PS: A website to check out,on language, perception, etc. in fable form: