The [[Lacan]] borrows the term '"[[code]]' derives " from [[Roman Jakobson]]'s theory of [[communication]].
The term '[[code]]' derives from [[Roman Jakobson]]'s theory of [[communication]]. -- [[Jakobson]] presents his opposition '"[[code ]] vs [[message' ]]" as an equivalent of [[Saussure]]'s ''[[langue]]'' vs ''[[parole]]''.
However, [[Lacan]] draws an important distinction between the concepts of [[language]] and [[code]].<ref>{{E}} p84</ref>
[[Code]]s are the province of [[animal]] [[communication]], not of [[intersubjectivity|intersubjective ]] [[communication]].
Whereas the elements of a [[language]] are [[signifier]]s, the elements of a [[code]] are ''[[indices]]''.
Because of the bi-univocal relation of [[indices]] and [[referent]]s, [[code]]s lack what [[Lacan]] regards as the fundamental feature of [[human]] [[language]]s: the potential for ambiguity and equivocation.<ref>Lacan, 1973b</ref>
<ref>-- [[Lacan ]] is not always consistent in maintaining this opposition between [[code ]] and [[language]]. In the [[seminar ]] of 1958-9, for example, when presenting the [[elementary cell ]] of the [[graph of desire]], he designates one point as the [[code]], which he also designates as the place of the [[Other ]] and the battery of signifiers. In this case, it is clear that the term 'code' is being used in the same sense as the term 'language', namely, to designate the set of signifiers available to the subject[[signifier]]s.</ref>
==Message==In this case, it is clear that the term "[[Of Structure code]]" is being used in the same sense as an Inmixing the term "[[language]]," namely, to designate the set of an Otherness Prerequisite [[signifier]]s available to Any Subject Whateverthe [[subject]].</ref>
Somebody spent some time this afternoon trying to convince me that it would surely not be a [[pleasure]] for an English-speaking audience to listen to my bad accent and that for me to speak in [[English]] would constitute a risk for what one might call the transmission of my [[message]]. Truly, for me it is a great case of [[conscience]], because to do otherwise would be absolutely contrary to my own concept of the [[message]]: of the [[message]] as I will explain it to you, of the [[linguistic]] [[message]]. Many people talk nowadays about messages everywhere, inside the organism a hormone is a message, a beam of light to obtain teleguidance to a plane or from a satellite is a message, and so on; but the [[message]] in [[language]] is absolutely different. The message, our message, in all cases comes from the [[Other]] by which I understand "from the place of the Other." It certainly is not the common [[little other|other]], the [[little other| other]] with a lower-case <i>o</i>, and this is why I have given a capital <i>O</i> as the initial letter to the [[Other]] of whom I am now speaking.
==See Also==
* [[Language]]
* [[Signifier]]
* [[Signified]]
* [[Index]]
* [[Referent]]
==References==
