Difference between revisions of "Code"
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | 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> | |
| − | However, [[Lacan]] draws an important distinction between the concepts of [[language]] and [[code]].<ref> | ||
[[Code]]s are the province of [[animal]] [[communication]], not of [[intersubjective communication]]. | [[Code]]s are the province of [[animal]] [[communication]], not of [[intersubjective communication]]. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
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>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.</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.</ref> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category:Dictionary]] | [[Category:Dictionary]] | ||
Revision as of 04:23, 24 June 2006
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.[1]
Codes are the province of animal communication, not of intersubjective communication.
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]
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p84
- ↑ Lacan, 1973b
- ↑ 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.
