What distinguishes 'symptomatic' communication from 'symbolic' communication?

The correct distinction lies in the nature of the underlying elements that each type of communication represents. Symptomatic communication is characterized by its reliance on signs and conditions that often occur in real-world contexts—these can be emotional responses or physiological indicators that suggest a particular meaning or state of being. For instance, someone blushing may signal embarrassment, even if there is no explicit verbal communication about their feelings.

In contrast, symbolic communication involves the use of symbols—such as words, gestures, or images—that have agreed-upon meanings within a particular culture or context. This type of communication is intentionally constructed and understood, making it a more structured form of conveying messages. For example, the word "dog" symbolizes a particular species of animal that people who share the same language understand.

This distinction highlights how symptomatic communication can emerge from spontaneous, often involuntary reactions, whereas symbolic communication is a deliberate act of conveying meaning that requires a shared understanding between the communicators.