William James and the linguistic technique of psychotherapists.
In his lectures on the ‘self’, William James drew attention to meaning potential that few linguists have evaluated, or even noticed. Our dual experiences of self could be demonstrated, according to James, by the ME / I contrast where the linking relationship between the two forms of first person (let us say the relevant ‘verb’) would be akin to ‘represents’. In the functional linguistics of MAK Halliday, this contrast, relatively unobtrusive in the words that we utter, reverberates throughout the organization of languages. In English, we have two questions that bring the contrast into focus: ‘Which am I?’ versus ‘Which is me?’. These are not redundant – the I version seeks your Role in the scheme of things (eg your part; or even your position in a team), while the ME asks how the person can recognise herself in the Manifestations of the world (viz. Is that me? in a photograph).
The impressive spectrum of interactional methods that are emphasised in the Conversational Model, although diverse, can be organised around the idea of an empathic ‘pressure’ to reconcile the I with the ME; the potential to mean with the actual trace of a life history; a conception of living with its realizations. My claims here will be exemplified by the details of collaborative work between a team from Westmead and linguists at Macquarie University (originally supported by an NHMRC grant).
