You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
DISCUSSION: Dr. Rudolph M. Loewenstein spoke of the necessity to distinguish linguistic theory that may be applied to psychoanalysis from psychoanalytic concepts and hypotheses themselves. Flexible use of the linguistic concept of 'naming' to find out more about a number of immediate reactions of patients to interpretations could be of value. The analyst's task of transforming action into thought (Freud) or reaction into knowledge through language (Werner) is
repeatedly impeded by phenomena and fantasies that may act as resistances. In linguistic terms, if the analyst were simply to 'name' the phenomena or fantasies without adding some sentences that would formulate the conflicts involved and the functional and dynamic purposes of the resistances, no greater control over drives, defenses, and superego demands would be achieved.
Dr. William I. Grossman pointed out that the linguistic label and the idea of the object named undergo complex development; he objected to the implication that the learning of names for physical objects is identical with learning to distinguish inner experiences and mental states. Dr. Milton Horowitz stressed that the analyst does not simply find a name for the preconscious mental contents when he makes an interpretation; he provides the patient with a verbal model for discharge with which the patient identifies. The linguistic model of the mental apparatus suggested by Dr. Shapiro is only one pathway made available by the culture for drive-discharge.