In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK NOTICES 1005 port from the many insightful observations on language by Freud (particularly in Chap. VI of The interpretation of dreams). Some of these have been explored further by Robin Lakoff (rev. of M. Edelson, Language and interpretation in psychoanalysis, in Lg. 54.377-94, 1978). But clearly we need a more explicit statement ofwhat is meant by 'structure' and by 'language '. Freud himselfnotes that dreams are not structured like language, in that they lack logical connectives. The essays here are less concerned with formal patterns and more with the relation between language and the speaker (rather misleadingly referred to as the 'subject', from sujet parlant 'speaker'), and with how meaning is established in a discourse. For example, Thorn's other essay shows how Freud's use of 'Verneinung' and its intended senses can be established from context. MacCabe's article on discourse takes issue with the schemata for analysing discourse used by linguists, especially Benveniste and Harris. Other papers discuss Chomsky's use of syntax and the problem of innateness (Paul Henry); the conception of the self (Charles Larmore ); Lacan's account of images and subjective reality (Jacqueline Rose); and a Lacanian interpretation ofFreud's well-known case study of the Wolf Man (T. Cutler). Much material of general interest is found in these essays, which are more successful than most similar work in conveying the major ideas and interesting features of this school of thought, and in pointing out some of the less obvious areas of convergence with linguistics. [Alice Davison, University of Illinois, Urbana.] Nukespeak: The selling of nuclear technology in America. By Stephen Hilgartner et al. Harmondsworth, England, & New York: Penguin, 1983. Pp. xiv, 282. $6.95. [First published by Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1982.] 'Nukespeak' is the language of nuclear development —the language of the nuclear power industry, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Departments of Defense and Energy. The authors of this book describe it as the 'language of the nuclear mindset'. This mindset assumes, a priori, that nuclear technology is necessary and efficient—and, taking those assumptions as axioms, artificially constrains policy choices and debate. The authors include in their definition notjust the distortion inherent in nuclear jargon, but also the broader rhetorical, bureaucratic , and public-relations strategies of the nuclear technology interests. They show that the approach of the nuclear mindset to public information and debate is mainly characterized by three things: the use of euphemism and manipulative imagery, the suppression of frightening words and information, and the restriction of debate to a 'technically qualified' elite (determined by the nuclear interests themselves). Nukespeak does an excellent job of integrating the discussion of linguistic manipulation with analysis of the wider policies and tactics of the nuclear interests. Throughout the book, the authors give examples of euphemism and euphoric imagery created by pro-nuclear writers and publicists (slogans such as 'humanitarian bombs' and 'energy too cheap to meter', and descriptions of AEC employees who rebut antinuclear speakers as 'truth squads'). This is supplemented with a comprehensive review of public -relations policies and projects. (Among the gimmicks cited are the Boy Scouts of America Atomic Energy Merit Badge, public relations films such as The atom and Eve and Gofission, and a 'nuclear acceptance campaign' strategy prepared in the 1970's by one of the nation's leading polling firms.) The flip side of euphemism is the elimination of frightening words and phrases, e.g. poison curtain, hazard, and burn. The discussion of this practice is complemented by an account of the abuses of the government's classification and secrecy system. It is also related to the discussion of rhetorical strategies intended to mislead the press and the public. An interesting example ofthe latter concerns the classification of nuclear waste-storage tanks used by the Hanford Reservation, a waste-storage tank farm in southern Washington. In the 1970's, Hanford had four categories oftanks: 'active' (those with no known flaws), 'inactive' (those not used for storing unsolidified waste), 'questionable-integrity ' (those showing either unexplained liquid level drops or heightened dry-well radiation, but not both), and 'confirmed leakers'. Active and inactive tanks were classified as 'sound'; confirmed leakers and questionable-integrity tanks were 'unsound'. This...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 1005-1006
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.