One calls "reformulation" an intervention of the speaker who consists in repeating in other words and in a more concise or more explicit way, which the subject has just expressed and
that so that one obtains the agreement of this one.
In this way, one obtains the first three very significant results
- the speaker is certain nothing to introduce the different one, of interpretative, suggestive in the communication which it has just listened to.
- the subject is certain, if it is recognized in reformulation, to be in good way to render comprehensible itself and it is thus resulted in expressing itself more.
- the speaker made the proof that it listened and included/understood what was offered to him.
For the speaker:
- It is a question of recognizing, to some extent, the feelings or the significances which the subject has just
- It is a question of recognizing, to some extent, the feelings or the significances which the subject has just formulated.
- It is a question of letting the person develop her point of view in maintenance.
- It is a question of accepting the subjective contents of what the subject has said, even if he is unpleasant, i.e. has just agreed to consider that he has just emitted a subjective point of view, this point of view having to be
- It is a question of defining the situation described by the person in term of responsibility for its share, i.e. not by showing it of the described situation, but by showing him that she expresses her point of view and that we
understand it like such. Concerning the possibility of error: What does it occur when the speaker "is mistaken", which is announced automatically by
the dissension of the person on reformulation ?
The subject is explained again and the speaker has once again the possibility of making a success of his effort of
To reformulate while counting on the agreement of the subject to enable us to evaluate if reformulation is good or insufficient, supposes a general design of the conscience and human aptitudes. That supposes that the subject is really regarded as the person who more "with the current" of the problem, is informed of the situation and practically the only one to test her case in all her existential depth, economic or social, therefore only knows to him perfectly what it speaks. Let us say already that the speaker, in the good attitude (attentive listening, absence of preconceived ideas, authentic desire to
understand) made here confidence on the subject with regard to the way in which this one tests the situation
It is not possible other to know how a person tests an event, a situation, a difficulty or a problem to ask him and try to reconstitute the most completely possible her point of view. This confidence in the other on the truth of its problem is justified. Conversely, think of the many times where, trying to expose
your opinion or the reasons of a decision to an interlocutor, you met, like principal obstacle, impossibility of obtaining that other listening, that the other
understands, whereas you could express very well what you had to say…
That supposes that the human behavior has a direction and a specific logic. The emotional, behavioral, verbal reactions are of close connection with the lived significances and these significances are organized in system in the
private universe of each one of us.
Thus, to understand a behavior, it is to understand the significances which it implies on the level even perception of the things, beings and events, it is to restore these significances in the whole of lived of the person.
That supposes that the subject is able to recognize the reflection of what it has just said. All is thus founded on the capacity to become aware truly self and of its problem. The effectiveness results some automatically thereafter.
That supposes a design of the human one, whose base is not only the faith in capacities of reflexion and relations social and professional basically positive but also the faith in the capacity of final self-regulation of the subject by