Equivocation
Foundational mechanisms
Structural reformulation
Linguistic influence
Clinical elaboration
Structural principle
Foundational
Clinical application
Mechanism
Theoretical elaboration
Structural limit
Structural function
Linguistic operation
Linguistic operation
Socio-structural context
Equivocation in psychoanalysis designates the structural multiplicity of meaning generated by the signifier and exploited in analytic interpretation. While the term derives from classical rhetoric, where it denotes ambiguity or double meaning, in psychoanalytic theory it acquires a technical sense: equivocation is not merely an accidental feature of language but a constitutive property of unconscious formations. In both Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan, the phenomenon of double meaning—especially in slips, dreams, and symptoms—reveals the workings of the unconscious and grounds the practice of analytic interpretation.
In Freudian theory, equivocation appears in the mechanisms of dream-work, particularly in condensation and displacement, as well as in parapraxes (Fehlleistungen) and jokes. In Lacanian reformulation, equivocation becomes central to the thesis that “the unconscious is structured like a language,”[1] and is theorized in terms of the primacy of the signifier, homophony, and the dimension of lalangue. For Lacan, analytic interpretation does not clarify meaning but operates through equivocation, exploiting the resonances of the signifier to produce a subjective effect.
Equivocation thus occupies a pivotal position in psychoanalysis at the intersection of language, subjectivity, and clinical practice. It mediates between the Symbolic and the Real, structures the relation between subject and Other, and informs the technique of interpretation. Beyond the clinic, the concept has influenced literary theory, philosophy of language, and cultural analysis.
Etymology and Linguistic Background
The term “equivocation” derives from the Latin aequivocatio, from aequus (equal) and vox (voice), signifying a term that “speaks equally” in more than one sense. In classical rhetoric, equivocation designates the use of a word or phrase with multiple meanings, whether deliberately (as in punning) or inadvertently (as in ambiguity). Aristotle distinguished equivocal terms from univocal ones in his Categories, noting that equivocal words share a name while differing in definition.[2]
In medieval logic and theology, equivocation acquired a technical meaning in debates over analogy and divine predication. However, in modern linguistics, ambiguity and homonymy became central concerns of semantics and structural linguistics. Ferdinand de Saussure’s distinction between signifier and signified foregrounded the arbitrariness of the sign and the differential nature of linguistic meaning.[3] Meaning does not arise from intrinsic reference but from the play of differences within the system.
This structural view of language prepared the terrain for Lacan’s reworking of Freud. If the signifier functions through difference rather than stable reference, then the possibility of equivocation is not accidental but inherent. The signifier may produce multiple signified effects depending on its position in the chain (chaîne signifiante). Lacan formalized this by representing the sliding of the signified beneath the signifier:
[math]\displaystyle{ \frac{S}{s} }[/math]
In this schema, the bar indicates the resistance of signification; meaning is never fully stabilized. The “quilting point” (point de capiton) arrests this sliding temporarily, but equivocation persists as a structural possibility.
Thus, from a linguistic perspective, equivocation may be understood as the effect of differential signification and homophony. What psychoanalysis adds is the thesis that such equivocation is not merely semantic but symptomatic: it indexes unconscious desire.
Freudian Foundations
Slips of the Tongue (Fehlleistungen)
Freud’s earliest systematic engagement with equivocation appears in The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901), where he analyzes slips of the tongue, forgetting of names, and parapraxes. These phenomena demonstrate that speech is not governed solely by conscious intention. A slip often reveals a suppressed or repressed thought through substitution, condensation, or phonetic association.
Freud famously remarks:
The mechanism of slips of the tongue and of pen is the same as that of the formation of dreams and of neurotic symptoms; they are the result of a compromise between two intentions.[4]
This “compromise formation” frequently hinges on verbal similarity or double meaning. A speaker intending one signifier inadvertently produces another that sounds similar or contains overlapping semantic material. The slip is not random; it is structured by phonetic and semantic proximity. In such cases, equivocation reveals the interference of unconscious intention.
Freud’s method involves tracing associative chains to uncover the latent thought. The equivocal element—often a pun or phonetic resemblance—serves as the hinge between manifest and latent content. In this respect, Freud already treats language as the medium of unconscious expression.
Dream-Work: Condensation and Displacement
In The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), Freud introduces the mechanisms of dream-work: condensation (Verdichtung) and displacement (Verschiebung). Condensation involves the fusion of multiple latent thoughts into a single manifest element; displacement shifts affect from important ideas to trivial ones.
Freud observes:
Dream-thoughts are condensed to an extraordinary degree, so that a single element of the manifest dream-content may correspond to several elements in the latent dream-thoughts.[5]
Condensation frequently operates through wordplay. A dream image may represent several people whose names share phonetic similarities. The manifest element thus becomes equivocal, containing multiple signifieds within a single signifier.
Displacement further contributes to equivocation by detaching affect from its original object and attaching it to another. A word or image in the dream may function as a substitute because of a linguistic association. Freud notes that dream-work employs the resources of language, including homonymy and metaphorical substitution.[5]
In both slips and dreams, equivocation is not decorative but structural. It constitutes the mechanism through which repressed material gains indirect expression.
Wordplay, Wit, and the Unconscious
Freud’s most explicit treatment of linguistic equivocation appears in Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious (1905). There, he analyzes jokes that rely on double meaning, homophony, and condensation. He identifies techniques such as “double meaning,” “play upon words,” and “condensation with formation of a substitute.”[6]
Freud writes:
The technique of wit is in large measure identical with that of dream-work; it makes use of condensation, displacement, and indirect representation.[6]
Wit demonstrates that pleasure may be derived from the economy of signifiers. A pun condenses two meanings into one word, generating surprise and satisfaction. For Freud, this economy mirrors the processes of the unconscious.
Equivocation, in Freud, thus appears in three principal domains:
- Parapraxes
- Dreams
- Jokes
In each, the unconscious exploits the polysemy and homophony of language. Yet Freud does not formalize this in linguistic terms; his theory remains metapsychological rather than structural-linguistic.
Early Lacanian Reformulation
With Lacan’s return to Freud in the 1950s, equivocation becomes central to the structure of the unconscious. In his 1953 “Rome Discourse,” Lacan declares that “the unconscious is structured like a language,”[1] aligning Freud’s discoveries with structural linguistics.
Lacan reformulates condensation and displacement as metaphor and metonymy, drawing explicitly on Roman Jakobson’s linguistic model.[7] Condensation corresponds to metaphor; displacement corresponds to metonymy.
In Lacan’s algebra:
[math]\displaystyle{ S' \rightarrow S }[/math]
Metaphor substitutes one signifier for another, producing a new signified effect. This substitution inherently generates equivocation: the substituted signifier carries multiple potential meanings.
Lacan emphasizes that interpretation must operate at the level of the signifier. The analyst does not decode a hidden content but intervenes by exploiting the equivocations already present in the patient’s speech. As Lacan states:
Interpretation is not open to all meanings. It is a meaning, and one that effects a cut in the subject.[8]
The “cut” occurs through equivocation. An analytic interpretation often isolates a homophony or double meaning, allowing the subject to hear something new in what was said.
At this stage, equivocation is grounded in the structure of the Symbolic order. The unconscious speaks through slips and puns because it is constituted by the differential relations of signifiers.
Registers and Structural Placement
In Lacanian theory, equivocation cannot be confined to the domain of semantics. It must be situated within the articulation of the three registers: the Symbolic, the Imaginary, and the Real. Each register conditions the status and effect of equivocation differently. While its structural basis lies in the Symbolic, its subjective effects involve Imaginary misrecognition, and its limit points touch the Real.
The Symbolic Dimension
The Symbolic register is the order of the signifier, law, and differential structure. Equivocation is, first and foremost, a property of the Symbolic insofar as language functions through difference rather than identity. As Lacan states, “the signifier represents the subject for another signifier.”[8] The subject itself is an effect of signifying substitution and displacement.
In this framework, equivocation is not accidental ambiguity but an effect of the sliding of the signified beneath the signifier. Lacan formalizes this sliding as:
[math]\displaystyle{ S_1 \rightarrow S_2 \rightarrow S_3 \rightarrow \dots }[/math]
Meaning is never fully present; it is produced retroactively through articulation. The so-called “quilting point” (point de capiton) temporarily arrests this movement, anchoring signification. Yet the anchoring is contingent, and equivocation re-emerges wherever signifiers resonate across multiple chains.
Lacan emphasizes that the unconscious operates through such resonance:
The unconscious is that part of the concrete discourse, in so far as it is transindividual, that is not at the disposal of the subject in re-establishing the continuity of his conscious discourse.[1]
Because the unconscious is structured by the signifier, equivocation is intrinsic to its functioning. A homophony may connect two otherwise distinct chains, producing an effect that exceeds conscious intention. The analytic setting exploits precisely this structural openness.
The Imaginary and Misrecognition
While equivocation originates in the Symbolic, its subjective experience often involves the Imaginary register. The Imaginary is the domain of identification, image, and misrecognition (méconnaissance). When a subject encounters an equivocal signifier, the initial reaction is frequently Imaginary: confusion, embarrassment, or defensive rationalization.
For example, in a slip of the tongue, the subject may insist that “this is not what I meant,” attempting to restore unity to the ego. Yet the equivocation destabilizes the Imaginary coherence of the self. The subject discovers that speech exceeds intention.
This destabilization recalls Lacan’s formulation of the subject as divided:
[math]\displaystyle{ \bar{S} }[/math]
The barred subject ($\\bar{S}$) emerges where the signifier fails to coincide with conscious identity. Equivocation exposes this division. The ego’s claim to mastery is undermined by the surplus of meaning generated at the level of the signifier.
Thus, while equivocation is Symbolic in structure, its immediate effect often appears as Imaginary disturbance.
The Real and Lalangue
In Lacan’s later teaching, equivocation takes on a new dimension in relation to the Real and to lalangue. Beginning in the 1970s, Lacan distinguishes language (as structured system) from lalangue (as jouissance-laden residue of speech). In Seminar XX, he states:
Lalangue serves purposes that are altogether different from that of communication.[9]
Lalangue refers to the materiality of sound, homophony, and the bodily impact of signifiers. Here equivocation is not merely semantic but libidinal. A homophonic connection may carry jouissance independent of intelligible meaning.
In this later framework, equivocation touches the Real insofar as it reveals the impossibility of full signification. The Real is what resists symbolization; yet it insists in the signifier as excess. A pun may suddenly produce anxiety or laughter not because of its conceptual content but because of its resonance with a kernel of jouissance.
Lacan formalizes the relation between subject, signifier, and object a as:
[math]\displaystyle{ S_1 \rightarrow S_2 \quad \begin{matrix} \\ \\ a \end{matrix} }[/math]
The object a—the cause of desire—appears as remainder in the chain of signifiers. Equivocation may bring this remainder into relief, revealing the point at which meaning fails and jouissance emerges.
Thus, across the three registers:
- In the Symbolic, equivocation reflects the differential structure of the signifier.
- In the Imaginary, it destabilizes ego coherence.
- In the Real, it exposes the limit of meaning and the presence of jouissance.
Equivocation is therefore not reducible to linguistic ambiguity. It is a structural feature of subjectivity, articulating the relation between language and the unconscious.
Clinical Implications
Equivocation acquires its full significance within analytic practice. If the unconscious speaks through equivocal formations, interpretation must operate at the level of the signifier rather than at the level of explanatory meaning.
Interpretation as Cut
Lacan repeatedly insists that interpretation does not consist in supplying hidden content. Instead, it intervenes in the signifying chain. In Seminar XI he states:
Interpretation aims at the cause of desire, and not at its meaning.[8]
An analytic interpretation may isolate a word, repeat it, or stress a homophony. The effect is often minimal in semantic terms but decisive structurally. The intervention produces a “cut” (coupure) that reconfigures the subject’s relation to the signifier.
For example, a patient’s phrase containing a double meaning may be returned by the analyst without clarification. The equivocation is thereby amplified. The subject hears something other than what was consciously intended.
This differs fundamentally from suggestion or explanation. Explanation attempts to stabilize meaning; equivocal interpretation destabilizes it. It reactivates the sliding of the signifier and allows new associations to emerge.
Equivocation and the Analytic Act
The analytic act involves more than interpretive wit; it requires precision. Equivocation must not be arbitrary. Lacan cautions against indiscriminate interpretation:
Interpretation is not open to all meanings.[8]
The analyst listens for points where the signifier resonates, where repetition or homophony indicates the presence of unconscious determination. An intervention at such a point may produce a subjective shift.
In this sense, equivocation is ethical. It respects the primacy of the signifier and avoids imposing an external narrative. The analyst does not decode; the analyst punctuates.
Distinction from Suggestion
Freud himself warned against suggestion as a contamination of analytic technique.[10] Equivocal interpretation differs from suggestion because it derives from the patient’s own speech. It exploits the structure of what has already been said.
Where suggestion introduces meaning from outside, equivocation intensifies what is already present in the signifier. It allows the unconscious to articulate itself.
In summary, the clinical use of equivocation rests on three principles:
- The unconscious is structured by the signifier.
- Meaning is not fixed but slides.
- Interpretation operates by producing a cut in the signifying chain.
Equivocation is therefore not a rhetorical flourish but a structural instrument of analytic practice.
Later Developments
In Lacan’s later teaching (late 1960s–1970s), equivocation undergoes a decisive transformation. While earlier formulations emphasized the structural primacy of the signifier within the Symbolic, the later seminars increasingly situate equivocation at the intersection of language and jouissance, introducing the concept of lalangue and reworking the status of interpretation. The emphasis shifts from structure as differential system to structure as knotting of registers, and from meaning to enjoyment.
Seminar XX and Lalangue
In Encore (1972–73), Lacan distinguishes language as communicative system from lalangue as the bodily, jouissance-laden residue of speech. He writes:
Lalangue serves purposes that are altogether different from that of communication.[9]
Whereas language (langue) belongs to the Symbolic order and functions through differential signification, lalangue concerns the impact of signifiers on the body. It refers to the sedimented, idiosyncratic traces of early speech, nursery rhymes, parental utterances, and homophonic associations that leave marks beyond semantic meaning.
In this framework, equivocation no longer operates merely at the level of semantic ambiguity. A homophony may carry jouissance independent of its conceptual content. The effect of an interpretation may therefore derive not from the clarification of meaning but from the activation of lalangue.
Lacan formalizes this shift by reconsidering the status of the signifier. The earlier schema of sliding signification:
[math]\displaystyle{ \frac{S}{s} }[/math]
is supplemented by attention to the signifier as material sound-event. Equivocation reveals that what resonates in analysis is often not meaning but the body’s response to the signifier.
Thus, equivocation becomes the privileged means by which interpretation touches the Real—not as ineffable substance, but as limit-point of symbolization and locus of jouissance.
Sinthome and the Knotting of Registers
In The Sinthome (1975–76), Lacan introduces the concept of the sinthome as a fourth ring stabilizing the Borromean knot. Here, equivocation appears in relation to singular solutions by which subjects knot together the Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary.
The Borromean configuration may be schematized as:
[math]\displaystyle{ R \leftrightarrow S \leftrightarrow I }[/math]
with the sinthome functioning as an additional consistency.
In this topology, equivocation plays a role in how the Symbolic touches the Real. A signifier may serve as sinthomatic anchor—holding together what would otherwise unravel. In some cases, equivocal constructions (e.g., Joyce’s linguistic inventions) function as stabilizing devices.
Lacan remarks in Seminar XXIII that Joyce’s writing demonstrates a particular use of language that compensates for a deficiency in paternal metaphor.[11] Joyce’s proliferation of puns and homophonic play exemplifies a sinthomatic use of equivocation.
Here equivocation is no longer simply a pathway to uncovering repressed meaning. It becomes a structural mode of enjoyment and stabilization.
Discourse Theory
Lacan’s theory of the four discourses—developed in The Other Side of Psychoanalysis—provides another framework for situating equivocation. Each discourse (Master, University, Hysteric, Analyst) organizes relations among four terms: $S_1$, $S_2$, $\\bar{S}$, and $a$.
The basic schema of discourse is:
[math]\displaystyle{ \frac{Agent}{Truth} \rightarrow \frac{Other}{Production} }[/math]
Within this matrix, equivocation may function differently depending on discursive position. In the discourse of the Analyst, the object $a$ occupies the place of agent, allowing equivocation to produce a cut in the subject. In the discourse of the Master, by contrast, equivocation is suppressed in favor of univocal authority.
Thus, later Lacanian theory integrates equivocation into a broader socio-structural account. It is not merely a linguistic curiosity but a mode of discursive operation capable of destabilizing master signifiers.
Debates and Critiques
The centrality of equivocation in Lacanian psychoanalysis has generated both philosophical and clinical debate. Critics have questioned whether the emphasis on homophony and signifier-play risks reducing interpretation to linguistic ingenuity.
Linguistic Critiques
Some linguists argue that Lacan’s use of structural linguistics departs significantly from Saussure’s framework. Saussure’s signifier/signified distinction was methodological rather than ontological; Lacan’s elevation of the signifier to structural primacy represents a reinterpretation rather than a direct application.[3]
Moreover, critics have suggested that psychoanalytic reliance on homophony depends on language-specific contingencies. A pun in French may not translate into English, raising questions about universality. Lacanian analysts respond that equivocation is structural rather than language-bound; while specific homophonies vary, the differential nature of the signifier persists across languages.
Derridean Comparison
Comparisons between Lacan and Jacques Derrida frequently focus on the status of différance and the instability of meaning. Derrida’s deconstruction emphasizes the endless deferral of presence within language.[12] Both thinkers underscore the non-coincidence of signifier and meaning.
However, Lacan situates equivocation within a clinical framework oriented toward desire and jouissance, whereas Derrida’s project remains philosophical. For Lacan, equivocation is not merely textual indeterminacy but an index of unconscious causality.
Anglo-American Reception
In Anglo-American contexts, equivocation has sometimes been interpreted as license for interpretive arbitrariness. Lacanian practitioners have countered that analytic equivocation is constrained by the subject’s discourse and by transference structure.
Freud’s technical warnings against suggestion remain operative.[10] Lacanian interpretation must derive from the patient’s own signifiers. Arbitrary punning devoid of structural grounding is considered a misuse of the concept.
Influence Beyond Psychoanalysis
The Lacanian theorization of equivocation has influenced literary theory, film studies, and philosophy of language.
Literary Theory
Lacan’s reading of texts foregrounds the role of signifier-play and homophony. Literary critics drawing on Lacanian theory analyze puns and narrative ambiguities as sites where unconscious structures emerge. The emphasis shifts from thematic interpretation to structural analysis of signifying chains.
Film Theory
In film theory, equivocation appears in analyses of sound-image relations and narrative ambiguity. The slippage between spoken dialogue and visual representation may produce effects analogous to dream-work, revealing unconscious desire embedded in cinematic form.
Philosophy of Language
Philosophically, Lacanian equivocation intersects with broader questions concerning polysemy, metaphor, and the instability of meaning. Unlike purely semantic accounts, psychoanalysis situates equivocation within subject formation.
Influence Beyond Psychoanalysis
The psychoanalytic theorization of equivocation has had significant impact beyond the clinical setting. Because Lacan situates equivocation at the intersection of language, subjectivity, and enjoyment, the concept has proven particularly influential in literary theory, film studies, and philosophy of language. In these fields, equivocation is not treated merely as rhetorical ambiguity but as a structural effect of signification that reveals the divided subject.
Literary Theory
Lacanian literary criticism frequently treats equivocation as a privileged site where unconscious structures surface within textual form. Rather than interpreting a literary work in terms of thematic content, Lacanian approaches often analyze puns, homophonies, metaphorical substitutions, and gaps in narration as structural effects of the signifier.
The theoretical foundation for such approaches lies in Lacan’s reformulation of Freud’s dream-work as metaphor and metonymy, drawing on Roman Jakobson’s structural linguistics.[7] By aligning condensation with metaphor and displacement with metonymy, Lacan provides a framework for reading literary tropes as homologous with unconscious processes.
In this perspective, equivocation in literature is not merely stylistic ornamentation. It functions as a point where the signifier exceeds stable reference and reveals a fissure in the subject’s position. For example, homophonic play in modernist texts may be interpreted as exposing the instability of identity or desire.
Lacan himself remarks that the unconscious is “the discourse of the Other,”[1] suggesting that textual equivocation may reflect structures beyond individual authorial intention. The critic’s task is not to impose meaning but to follow the play of signifiers and identify where the chain produces surplus effects.
Film Theory
In film theory, Lacanian concepts have been used to analyze the equivocal relation between image and sound. While cinema is not reducible to language, Lacanian theory has emphasized the signifying function of cinematic elements. Ambiguities in dialogue, voice-over narration, and sound-image mismatches may produce effects comparable to dream-work.
The cinematic cut, in particular, has been likened to the analytic cut described in Seminar XI.[8] Just as analytic interpretation isolates a signifier to produce a subjective shift, montage may juxtapose elements in ways that generate equivocal meaning.
The Lacanian notion of the gaze further complicates equivocation in film. The gaze is not equivalent to the eye but marks a point where vision is structured by lack. An image may appear coherent at the Imaginary level while harboring a Symbolic equivocation that destabilizes narrative certainty.
In this sense, equivocation in film analysis often concerns not verbal ambiguity but structural indeterminacy—where the spectator’s position is unsettled by signifying inconsistencies.
Philosophy of Language
Philosophical engagements with Lacanian equivocation often compare it with theories of polysemy and semantic indeterminacy. Structural linguistics established that meaning arises from differential relations within a system rather than intrinsic properties of words.[3] Lacan radicalizes this claim by linking the differential structure of the signifier to subject formation.
Whereas analytic philosophy of language frequently seeks criteria for disambiguation, Lacanian theory foregrounds the persistence of equivocation even after clarification. The subject cannot escape equivocation because subjectivity itself is constituted through the signifier.
Comparisons with Derrida’s notion of différance highlight similarities and divergences. Derrida emphasizes the deferral and dissemination of meaning within textual systems.[12] Lacan, by contrast, situates equivocation within the dynamics of desire and jouissance. For Lacan, equivocation is not only a textual phenomenon but a clinical one.
Cultural and Political Theory
Lacan’s theory of discourse further extends equivocation into social and political analysis. In the schema of the four discourses, master signifiers ($S_1$) attempt to stabilize meaning within a social field. Yet such stabilization is always precarious. Equivocation may expose contradictions within ideological formations.
The discursive structure may be formalized as:
[math]\displaystyle{ \frac{S_1}{\bar{S}} \rightarrow \frac{S_2}{a} }[/math]
Within this structure, the subject ($\bar{S}$) is produced by the master signifier ($S_1$), yet the remainder ($a$) persists. Equivocation may reveal this remainder, destabilizing ideological coherence.
In this respect, equivocation serves as a critical tool. It uncovers points where discourse fails to secure univocal authority, revealing the divided nature of social signification.
See Also
- Signifier
- Unconscious
- Dream-work
- Metaphor (Lacan)
- Metonymy (Lacan)
- Lalangue
- Interpretation (psychoanalysis)
- Sinthome
- Discourse (Lacan)
- Jouissance
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Jacques Lacan, Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English, trans. Bruce Fink (New York: W.W. Norton, 2006), p. 525.
- ↑ Aristotle, Categories, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 1a1–6.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), pp. 65–70.
- ↑ Sigmund Freud, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901), in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 6, trans. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press, 1960), p. 144.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), in Standard Edition, vol. 4–5, trans. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press, 1953), vol. 4, p. 283.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Sigmund Freud, Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious (1905), in Standard Edition, vol. 8, trans. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press, 1960), pp. 44–46.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Roman Jakobson, “Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances,” in Selected Writings, vol. 2 (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), pp. 239–259.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978), p. 136.
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Jacques Lacan, On Feminine Sexuality, the Limits of Love and Knowledge (Encore), trans. Bruce Fink (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998), p. 138.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Sigmund Freud, “Recommendations to Physicians Practising Psycho-Analysis” (1912), in Standard Edition, vol. 12 (London: Hogarth Press, 1958), pp. 109–120.
- ↑ Jacques Lacan, The Sinthome, trans. A.R. Price (Cambridge: Polity, 2016), pp. 23–25.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Jacques Derrida, “Différance,” in Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 1–27.