24,656
edits
Changes
no edit summary
When reading [[lacan]] in English it is therefore essential to be aware of which term is used in the original French; most of the time the French term will be ''[[langage]]''.
==One==
Between 1936 and 1949 references to [[language]] are sparse, but they are significant; already in 1936, for example, [[Lacan]] emphasizes that [[language]] is constitutive of the psychoanalytic experience,<ref>{{Ec}} p.82</ref> and in 1946 he argues that it is impossible to understand [[madness]] without addressing the problem of [[language]].<ref>{{Ec}} p.166</ref>
[[Lacan]]'s comments on [[language]] at this time do not contain any references to a specific linguistic theory, and instead are dominated by philosophical allusions, mainly in terms derived from [[Hegel]].
Thus [[language]] is seen primarily as a mediating element which permits the [[subject]] to attain recognition from the other.<ref>{{E}} p.9</ref> ABove and beyond its use for conveying information, [[language]] is first and foremost an appeal to an interlocutor; in [[Jakobson]]'s terms, [[Lacan]] stresses the connative function above the referential. Thus he insists that [[langage]] is not a nomenclature.<ref>{{Ec}} p.166</ref>
Above and beyond its use for conveying information, [[language]] is first and foremost an appeal to an interlocutor; in [[Jakobson]]'s terms, [[Lacan]] stresses the connative function above the referential.
Thus he insists that [[langage]] is not a nomenclature.<ref>{{Ec}} p. 166</ref>
==Two==
From 1950 to 1954 [[language]] begins to occupy the central position that it ill hold in [[Lacan]]'s work thereafter.
There are a few allusions to [[Saussure]],<ref>{{S1}} p.248</ref> but in his famous "[[Rome Discourse]]" [[Lacan]] establishes an opposition between ''[[parole]]'' and ''[[language|langage]]'' (and not, as [[Saussure]] does, between ''[[parole]]'' and ''[[language|langue]]''.<ref>{{L}}. "''Fonction et champ de la parole et du langage en psychanalyse.''" 1953a. In {{E}} p.237-322. ("The function and field of speech and language in psychoanalysis.") In {{E}}. p.30-113</ref>
==Three==
Between 1955 and 1970 [[language]] takes center stage and [[Lacan]] develops his classic thesis that "the unconscious is structured like a language."<ref>{{S11}} p.20</ref>
==Four==
From 1971 on, the shift from [[linguistics]] to [[mathematics]] as the paradigm of [[science|scientificity]] is accompanied by a tendency to emphasize the poetry and ambiguity of [[language]], as is evident in [[Lacan]]'s increasing interest in the "[[psychotic]] [[language]]" of [[James Joyce]].<ref>{{L}}. "Joyce le symptôme." 1975a. In Jacques Aubert (ed.), ''Joyce avec Lacan''. Paris: Navarin, 1987.</ref>
[[Lacan]] coins the term ''[[language|lalangue]]'' (from the definite article ''la'' and the noun ''[[language|langue]]'') to refer to these non-communicative aspects of [[language]] which, by playing on ambiguity and homophony, give rise to a kind of ''[[jouissance]]''.<ref>{{S20}} p.126</ref>
The term "[[language]]" now beocmes becomes opposed to ''[[language|lalangue]]''.
''[[language|Lalangue]]'' is like the primary chaotic substrate of polysemy out of which [[language]] is constructed, almost as if [[language]] is some ordered superstructure sitting on top of this substrate:
<blockquote>"Language is without doubt made of ''lalangue''. It is an elucubration of knowledge (''savoir'') about ''lalangue''.<ref>{{S20}} p.127</ref></blockquote>
==Lacanian Psychoanalysis==
==Symbolic and Imaginary Dimensions==
One common misconception of [[Lacan]] is that [[language]] is synonymous with the [[symbolic]] [[order]].
The [[imaginary]] axis ''a'''-''a'' is [[language]] in its [[imaginary]] dimension, the wall of [[language]] which interrupts, distorts and inverts the [[discourse]] of the [[Other]].
In [[Lacan]]'s words, "language is as much there to be found in the Other as to drastically prevent us from understanding him.<ref>{{S2}} p.244</ref>
==Languages and Codes==
[[Lacan]] distinguishes between [[language]]s and [[code]]s; unlike [[code]]s, in [[language]] there is no stable one-to-one correspondence between [[sign]] and [[sign|referent]], nor between [[signified]] and [[signifier]].
It is this property of [[language]] which gives rise to the inherent ambiguity of all [[discourse]], which can only be interpreted by playing on the homophony and other forms of equivocation (''l'équivoque'').
==See Also=={{See}}* [[Code]]* [[Discourse]]* [[Linguistics]]* [[Signified]]* [[Speech]]{{Also}}
==References==
