80

The author examines the relevance of the distinction between interpretation and construction, specifically in child analysis. She suggests defining the status of interpretation not by its form but by its effect on both the psychic apparatus and the analytic process. The form of interpretation will be considered as a tool for facilitating communication with the patient, constituting a specific vocabulary that corresponds to his level of symbolisation. As an avenue of reflection, some clinical examples suggest different modes of interpretation for the language of the body and the act from those for the language of role play, as well as working on the spaces and limits of identity, in particular with parents.