uncanny

Freud's vocabulary in "The Uncanny" is of note: in the very first sentence he uses the word "impelled" instead of compelled. Hmm. Alliterates with the "i" in "investigates" but the "c" in "compelled" would have been, well, more compelling and sharp. Impel, however, means to urge or encourage while compel means to take action as a result of pressure or coercion; impel is very similar in meaning to compel but suggests even more strongly an inner drive to do something and often a greater urgency in the desire to act. Therefore, Freud's word choice here is very particular. He says "It is only rarely that a psycho-analyst feels impelled to investigate the subject of aesthetics, even when aesthetics is understood to mean not merely the theory of beauty but the theory of the qualities of feeling." Even in these rare instances, the pscyho-analyst does not have the strong inner drive or feel great urgency in investigating the subject of aesthetics.

At any rate, Freud's vocabulary throughout this essay is formal and dignified, yet his tone is personal. "The Uncanny" is written in a sort of running style. Freud seems to be thinking aloud--he knows what he's going for as a main point, but his sentences are loose and conversational. Notice this conversational, yet simultaneously reasonable and persuasive tone (almost a bit like Plato/Socrates in the Republic, yeah?):

Two courses are open to us at the outset. Either we can find out what meaning has come to be attached to the word 'uncanny' in the course of its history; or we can collect all those properties of persons, things, sense-impressions, experiences and situations which arouse in us the feeling of uncanniness, and then infer the unknown nature of the uncanny from what all these examples have in common. I will say at once that both courses lead to the same result: the uncanny is that class of the frightening which leads back to what is known of old and long familiar. How this is possible, in what circumstances the familiar can become uncanny and frightening, I shall show in what follows. Let me also add that my investigation was actually begun by collecting a number of individual cases, and was only later confirmed by an examination of linguistic usage. In this discussion, however, I shall follow the reverse course.

The first sentence of this passage is rather short. It begins the rhythm of the paragraph: TWO courSES are Open to US at the OUTset. Kind of iambic, actually. The placing of the commas, semicolons, and colons in the middles of the following sentences are also a part of this rhythm; when read aloud, these pauses come naturally and occur at just the point in the sentence when an audience would want to quickly internalize what was just thrown at them. Ie: "I will say at once that both courses lead to the same result: (quarter beat pause) the uncanny is that class of the frightening which leads back to what is known of old and long familiar." This pause sets up Freud's rhetorical punchline; its a anticipatory lag before the climax. He does this again in the following sentence: "How this is possible, (eighth beat pause) in what circumstances the familiar can become uncanny and frightening, (sixteenth beat) I shall show in what follows."

In addition to the persuasive tone Freud uses in this essay, I think that to an extent it also has an instructional tone. Take for example, his extensive definition and translations of the word "uncanny" in Latin, Greek, Spanish, etcetc and finally in German (which has many definitions).