The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles).
{{Top}}codes|code{{Bottom}}
code (code) =====Roman Jakobson=====[[Lacan ]] borrows the term '"[[code' ]]" from [[Roman Jakobson]]'s[[theory]] of [[communication]].
theory of communication. [[Jakobson ]] presents his opposition "[[code]] vs [[message]]" as an equivalent of [[Saussure]]'s ''[[langue]]''code vs mes-''[[parole]]''.
sage' as an equivalent of Saussure's langue vs parole. =====Jacques Lacan==========Code and Language=====However, [[Lacan ]] drawsan important [[distinction]] between the [[concepts]] of [[language]] and [[code]].<ref>{{E}} p. 84</ref>
an important distinction between [[Code]]s are the concepts province of LANGUAGE and code (see E[[animal]] [[communication]],not of [[intersubjectivity|intersubjective]] [[communication]].
84). Codes =====Index and Signifier=====Whereas the elements of a [[language]] are [[signifier]]s, the province elements of animal communicationa [[code]] are [[indices]]. The fundamental difference is that there is a fixed bi-univocal (one-to-one) relationship between an [[index]] and its [[referent]], not of intersubjectivewhereas there is no such relationship between a [[signifier]] and a [[referent]] or between a [[signifier]] and a [[signified]].
communication. Whereas =====Ambiguity and Equivocation=====Because of the bi-univocal relation of [[indices]] and [[referent]]s, [[code]]s [[lack]] what [[Lacan]] regards as the elements fundamental feature of a [[human]] [[language are SIGNIFIERs]]s: the potential for ambiguity and equivocation.<ref>{{L}} (1973b) "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|L'Étourdit]]", ''[[Scilicet]]'', no. 4, the ele1973. pp. 5-52</ref>
ments of a [[Lacan]] is not always consistent in maintaining this opposition between [[code are indices (see INDEX)]] and [[language]]. The fundamental difference is that
there is a fixed biIn the [[seminar]] of 1958-univocal (9, for example, when presenting the [[elementary cell]] of the [[graph of desire]], he designates one-to-one) relationship between an index point as the [[code]], which he also designates as the [[place]] of the [[Other]] and itsthe battery of [[signifier]]s.
referentIn this [[case]], whereas there it is no such relationship between a clear that the term "[[code]]" is [[being]] used in the same [[sense]] as the term "[[language]]," namely, to designate the set of [[signifier and a]]s available to the [[subject]].
referent or between a signifier and a signified. Because of the bi-univocal==See Also=={{See}}* [[Communication]]* [[Index]]||* [[Intersubjectivity]]* [[Language]]||* [[Signified]]* [[Signifier]]{{Also}}
relation of indices and referents, codes lack what Lacan regards as the==References==<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><references/></div>
fundamental feature of human languages[[Category: the potential for ambiguity andPsychoanalysis]][[Category:Jacques Lacan]][[Category:Linguistics]][[Category:Dictionary]][[Category:Language]][[Category:Symbolic]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Terms]][[Category:OK]]
equivocation (see Lacan, 1973b). Lacan is not always consistent in maintaining this opposition between codeand language. In the seminar of 1958-9, for example, when presenting theelementary 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 asthe term 'language', namely, to designate the set of signifiers available to thesubject.__NOTOC__
