Changes

--- \ The functions of language 45 subject. Here is an example: imagine th<+t you were [[born]] a hunchback. You may consider that a calamity and be in despair. On the [[other]] hand, like [[Shakespeare]]'s Richard III, it may [[help]] you to hide your [[ambition]], or it may help you to obtain the [[love]] of [[women]] who are touched by your handicap. (We [[know]] that in certain [[feminine]] positions the handicap of the other is a condition for desire.) So you may possibly put your hunchback to use in many and various ways.l The same [[thing]] is [[true]] with all biological data. To put this in [[another]] way: biological 'facts' become [[signifiers]]. Language, even for the non-[[speaking]] [[infant]], is already there in the [[world]] before he is born. He is born into a world of language. It is often said that the conversation between his [[parents]] before he is born may be the most important [[discourse]] concerning him the (unborn) [[child]] will ever have. . Lacan believed that the human [[being]] in [[particular]] is born premature; that is to say, he is dependent for a long [[time]] on the [[environment]] and on other beings to grow - for an especially long time if you compare him with [[animal]] [[species]]. A [[baby]] cries. From the beginning the [[satisfaction]] of biological urgencies necessitates the calling of the other. In that [[sense]] the biological urge is already modified because it is clear that what has begun to be more important than the satisfaction of thirst is that the other respond to the call. What is more important than the satisfaction of [[material]], biological [[needs]] is the desire for [[recognition]] and love. In Chapter 2, I mentioned the fact that in the 1930s Lacan was much influenced by the work of Roger [[Caillois]]. By using examples from stick insects and the praying mantis, Caillois suggested that these [[creatures]] were seized by the [[image]]. Drawing on his work, Lacan argued that the human being (later, he was to use the phrase 'the [[speaking being]]') is captivated by the image or [[imago]]. There is a constituting image which determines what will be perceived. Our [[seeing]] is determined by [[images]]. It is not that we see but that we are seen by the imaging [[structure]]. Rather like these insects, we are seized by the image and this has a toxic effect. The human subject is [[alienated]] and is in bondage to the image. This is an interesting argument because later, in his second period ([[1948]]-1960) Lacan was to argue that language has this effect. Human subjects are caught, grasped, by the [[signifier]]. It is not the image but the [[word]] that has a toxic effect. The speaking being is poisoned by language. 46 [[Jacques Lacan]] Traditionally, language has been conceived as an [[instrument]] for [[communication]], mastered by subjects fully [[conscious]] of what they are doing when they [[speak]]. In contrast, the [[Lacanian]] view of language centres round the [[lack]] of [[mastery]] of the speaking subject ([[slips of the tongue]], and so forth). In this view of language, the subject is formed in a [[process]] which turns the small animal into a human child. The subject is seen as constituted by language and it appropriates the world through language. In a Freudian perspective, says Lacan, man is [[nothing]] but the subject caught in, and tortured by, language.2 ~ noLacan's emendation of Saussure Lacan is against the [[idea]] that communication is a transferral of [[concepts]] from one [[mind]] to another, an [[exchange]] of tokens which already have their meaning clearly stamped upon them/}Ie rejects the view of language as a [[representation]] of pre-given objectSl Lacan believes that the (contractual nature of language) requires that, in order for two subjects to [[name]] the same [[object]], they must recognise each other as [[recognising]] the same object, thereby transcending the [[struggle]] for possession. ~eech, argues Lacan, is always an inter-[[subjective]] pact~Lacan stresses that sp~ech is not simply a conveyor of infor~ation, but establishes a relation between [[speaker]] and hearer. ,In accordance with the [[dialectic]] of recognition the very being of the subject is dependent upon its recognition by other subjects.' Lacan has always been cohcerned with language <;lnd speech; ( [[Saussurean]] [[linguistics]], on the other hand, did not become part of his theory until the 1950s) He believes that the essential property of language is the involvement of an interlocutor - one who takes part in a dialogue. Before it comes to [[signify]] something,Qanguage signifies for someone even though the interlocutor may be [[imaginary]]) It implies, then, a signifying [[intention]] on the part of the subject. [[Intentionality]] can be expressed iri one of two modes. Either it is expressed but not [[understood]] by the subject (in which [[case]] it has to be interpreted), or it is masked by the mechanisms of [[negation]] and [[disavowal]]. It was in about~948) a few years after the Second World War, that ~acan began to focus his attention on the use of Saussurean

In the first [[three]] preparatory chapters, on [[Freudian]] [[psychoanalysis]], [[surrealism]] and [[philosophy]], I have often alluded to language. In this chapter I [[want]] to focus on [[Lacan]]'s constantly changing (and [[complex]]) view of language, and show how he draws on the [[work]] of [[Saussure]], [[Jakobson]], Levi-[[Strauss]] and [[Heidegger]]. Some of the topics I will discuss include: Lacan's emendation of Saussure's [[theory]], the importance of [[metaphor]] and [[metonymy]], the [[relationship]] betweeh language and [[human]] [[subjectivity]], and the [[meaning]] of '[[full]]' and 'empty' [[speech]].  In his attempt to define a new way of studying human phenomena Lacan was deeply influenced by the' methods of [[phenomenology]]. This is a method of [[philosophical]] enquiry elaborated by Edmund [[Husserl]] and, more recently, by Jean-[[Paul]] [[Sartre]] and Maurice [[Merleau-Ponty]]. The [[phenomenological]] method concentrates on the [[subjects]]' own account of themselves. They are not seen as [[objects]] of investigation, but instead as sources of meaning. The facts of [[desire]] are as [[real]] to the [[subject]] as the facts of [[nature]] viewed by positive [[science]].  I want to begin by saying something [[about]] the relationship between [[biology]] and language, on how the [[biological]] is always [[interpreted]] through language. Among Lacan's contemporaries both Sartre and Mer1eau-Ponty were concerned to refute the bio10gism and scientism of [[Freud]]'s work, and both turned to the same sources as Lacan in [[order]] to support their critiques: the [[thought]] of [[Hegel]] and Heidegger. In Lacan's (phenomenological) view biological facts [[exist]] in psychoanalysis but only in so far as they are mediated through language and speech. Biological facts do not exist apart from the meaning that is given to [[them]] during the [[history]] of the 44 the functions of language 47 45 subject.  Here is an example: imagine that you were [[born]] a hunchback. You may consider that a calamity and be in despair. On the [[other]] hand, like [[Shakespeare]]'s Richard III, it may [[help]] you to hide your [[ambition]], or it may help you to obtain the [[love]] of [[women]] who are touched by your handicap. (We [[know]] that in certain [[feminine]] positions the handicap of the other is a condition for desire.) So you may possibly put your hunchback to use in many and various ways.The same [[thing]] is [[true]] with all biological data. To put this in [[another]] way: biological 'facts' become [[signifiers|signifiers.]] Language, even for the non-[[speaking]] [[infant]], is already there in the [[world]] before he is born. He is born into a world of language. It is often said that the conversation between his [[parents]] before he is born may be the most important [[discourse]] concerning him the (unborn) [[child]] will ever have. Lacan believed that the human [[being]] in [[particular]] is born premature; that is to say, he is dependent for a long [[time]] on the [[environment]] and on other beings to grow - for an especially long time if you compare him with [[animal]] [[species]]. A [[baby]] cries. From the beginning the [[satisfaction]] of biological urgencies necessitates the calling of the other. In that [[sense]] the biological urge is already modified because it is clear that what has begun to be more important than the satisfaction of thirst is that the other respond to the call. What is more important than the satisfaction of [[material]], biological [[needs]] is the desire for [[recognition]] and love.  In Chapter 2, I mentioned the fact that in the 1930s Lacan was much influenced by the work of Roger [[Caillois]]. By using examples from stick insects and the praying mantis, Caillois suggested that these [[creatures]] were seized by the [[image]]. Drawing on his work, Lacan argued that the human being (later, he was to use the phrase 'the [[speaking being]]') is captivated by the image or [[imago]]. There is a constituting image which determines what will be perceived. Our [[seeing]] is determined by [[images]]. It is not that we see but that we are seen by the imaging [[structure]]. Rather like these insects, we are seized by the image and this has a toxic effect. The human subject is [[alienated]] and is in bondage to the image. This is an interesting argument because later, in his second period ([[1948]]-1960) Lacan was to argue that language has this effect. Human subjects are caught, grasped, by the [[signifier]]. It is not the image but the [[word]] that has a toxic effect. The speaking being is poisoned by language. Traditionally, language has been conceived as an [[instrument]] for [[communication]], mastered by subjects fully [[conscious]] of what they are doing when they [[speak]]. In contrast, the [[Lacanian]] view of language centres round the [[lack]] of [[mastery]] of the speaking subject ([[slips of the tongue]], and so forth). In this view of language, the subject is formed in a [[process]] which turns the small animal into a human child. The subject is seen as constituted by language and it appropriates the world through language. In a Freudian perspective, says Lacan, man is [[nothing]] but the subject caught in, and tortured by, language. Lacan's emendation of Saussure is against the [[idea]] that communication is a transferral of [[concepts]] from one [[mind]] to another, an [[exchange]] of tokens which already have their meaning clearly stamped upon them. He rejects the view of language as a [[representation]] of pre-given objects. Lacan believes that the (contractual nature of language) requires that, in order for two subjects to [[name]] the same [[object]], they must recognise each other as [[recognising]] the same object, thereby transcending the [[struggle]] for possession. Speech, argues Lacan, is always an inter-[[subjective]] pact. Lacan stresses that speech is not simply a conveyor of information, but establishes a relation between [[speaker]] and hearer. ,In accordance with the [[dialectic]] of recognition the very being of the subject is dependent upon its recognition by other subjects. Lacan has always been concerned with language and speech; ( [[Saussurean]] [[linguistics]], on the other hand, did not become part of his theory until the 1950s) He believes that the essential property of language is the involvement of an interlocutor - one who takes part in a dialogue. Before it comes to [[signify]] something, language signifies for someone even though the interlocutor may be [[imaginary]]). It implies, then, a signifying [[intention]] on the part of the subject. [[Intentionality]] can be expressed in one of two modes. Either it is expressed but not [[understood]] by the subject (in which [[case]] it has to be interpreted), or it is masked by the mechanisms of [[negation]] and [[disavowal]]. It was in about 1948 a few years after the Second World War, that Lacan began to focus his attention on the use of Saussurean linguistics in psychoanalysis)6n . In 1953 Lacan gave a paper in Rome ('the [[Rome Discourse]]'), 'The function and field of speech and language', which is the foundingxftatement founding sftatement of psychoanalysis as a theory of the speaking subject.4r.t It is in this paper that Saussure first emerges as a major influence in Laean's [[thinking]] and where he contends that {he the human subject is determined by langua~ language. Lacan was indebted to [[Ferdinand de Saussure]]'s [[concept]] of the [[sign]]. Saussure argued that there is the signifier, which is an acoustic image, and the [[signified]], which is a concept. In the sign, a signifier and a signified collide and are bonded. Their relationship is an [[arbitrary]] one, but once this bonding has taken [[place]] the sign becomes a fixity. In Saussure the components of the sign are thought of as symmetrical and interdependent. Lacan questions the symmetry and equilibrium between signifier and signified in Saussure. What Lacan does is to reverse Saussure's [[algorithm]] and make it S/s (Signifier over signified).5 The bar separating the two [[symbols]] stresses the cleavage between them. Note that the signified is below the signifier; in Lacan's account the signified does '[[slip]] beneath' the signifier and successfully resists our attempts to locate and delimit it. For Saussure, [[words]] are [[signs]], combinations of signifiers and ~ifiedsignified."& To Lacan, however, signifiers are contrasted with signD LWhile signs. While signs refer to [[absent]] objectsl(for example, Man Friday's footprint in the sand indicates hispresence on the island),)"Slg-nifiers signifiers do not refer to Object~objects but to the [[chain]] of language.lThey They do refer, but~o to other signifiers. en the The signified seems ffiilally finlally to be - within reach, it dissolves in 0 yet m~e signifie~another signifier. Lacan often uses ~ a metaphor of 'the signifying chain7/the chain. The chain is 'Yhat that limits the speaker's [[freedom]]~ et the chain is mt;tnle; anyone of its [[links]] can provide a point of-attachment to other chains. The [[signifying chain]] of speech comprises the\'rings of a necklace that is a ring in another necklace made of ring !]In Lacan's view the characteristic sensations of 'being a person' or 'having a [[personality]]' come from the [[self]]-perpetuating imperative that propels the signifying chain. Lacan, then, has emended Saussure in several ways. While Saussure emphasised the co-[[presence]] of signifier and signified, Lacan always gives primacy (priority or precedence) to the signifier. He stresses the point that the signifier has an [[active]], colonising [[power]] over the signified. It 'anticipates' the signified. He says that [[sentence]] openings like 'I shall never ... ', 'All the