Difference between revisions of "Code"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Roman Jakobson===== | ||
[[Lacan]] borrows the term "[[code]]" from [[Roman Jakobson]]'s theory of [[communication]]. | [[Lacan]] borrows the term "[[code]]" from [[Roman Jakobson]]'s theory of [[communication]]. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Jakobson]] presents his opposition "[[code]] vs [[message]]" as an equivalent of [[Saussure]]'s ''[[langue]]'' vs ''[[parole]]''. | [[Jakobson]] presents his opposition "[[code]] vs [[message]]" as an equivalent of [[Saussure]]'s ''[[langue]]'' vs ''[[parole]]''. | ||
| + | =====Jacques Lacan===== | ||
| + | =====Code and Language===== | ||
However, [[Lacan]] draws an important distinction between the concepts of [[language]] and [[code]].<ref>{{E}} p84</ref> | 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]]. | [[Code]]s are the province of [[animal]] [[communication]], not of [[intersubjectivity|intersubjective]] [[communication]]. | ||
| + | =====Index and Signifier===== | ||
Whereas the elements of a [[language]] are [[signifier]]s, the elements of a [[code]] are ''[[indices]]''. | Whereas the elements of a [[language]] are [[signifier]]s, the elements of a [[code]] are ''[[indices]]''. | ||
The fundamental difference is that there is a fixed bi-univocal (one-to-one) relationship between an [[index]] and its [[referent]], whereas there is no such relationship between a [[signifier]] and a [[referent]] or between a [[signifier]] and a [[signified]]. | The fundamental difference is that there is a fixed bi-univocal (one-to-one) relationship between an [[index]] and its [[referent]], whereas there is no such relationship between a [[signifier]] and a [[referent]] or between a [[signifier]] and a [[signified]]. | ||
| − | 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> | + | 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>{{L}} 1973b</ref> |
| − | + | =====Ambiguity of Definition===== | |
[[Lacan]] is not always consistent in maintaining this opposition between [[code]] and [[language]]. | [[Lacan]] is not always consistent in maintaining this opposition between [[code]] and [[language]]. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 25: | ||
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 [[signifier]]s available to the [[subject]].</ref> | 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 [[signifier]]s available to the [[subject]].</ref> | ||
| − | |||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Revision as of 05:34, 18 August 2006
Contents
Roman Jakobson
Lacan borrows the term "code" from Roman Jakobson's theory of communication.
Jakobson presents his opposition "code vs message" as an equivalent of Saussure's langue vs parole.
Jacques Lacan
Code and Language
However, Lacan draws an important distinction between the concepts of language and code.[1]
Codes are the province of animal communication, not of intersubjective communication.
Index and Signifier
Whereas the elements of a language are signifiers, the elements of a code are indices.
The fundamental difference is that there is a fixed bi-univocal (one-to-one) relationship between an index and its referent, whereas there is no such relationship between a signifier and a referent or between a signifier and a signified.
Because of the bi-univocal relation of indices and referents, codes lack what Lacan regards as the fundamental feature of human languages: the potential for ambiguity and equivocation.[2]
Ambiguity of Definition
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.</ref>
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p84
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. 1973b
