Changes

It is important to note that the English word "[[language]]" corresponds to two [[French ]] [[words]]: ''[[langue]]'' and ''[[langage]]''.

These two words have quite different [[meanings ]] in [[Lacan]]'s [[work]]: ''[[langue]]'' usually refers to a specific [[language]], such as French or [[English]], whereas ''[[langage]]'' refers to the [[system ]] of [[language]] in general, abstracting from all [[particular ]] languages.

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]]''.

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 [[linguistics|linguistic theory]], and instead are dominated by [[philosophy|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>

From 1950 to 1954 [[language]] begins to occupy the central [[position ]] that it will hold in [[Lacan]]'s work thereafter.

In this period, [[Lacan]]'s [[discussion ]] of [[language]] is dominated by references to [[Heideggerian]] [[phenomenology]] and, more importantly, to the [[anthropology]] of [[language]] ([[Anthropology|Maus, Malinowski, and Lévi-Strauss]].

There are also occasional references to [[rhetoric]], but these are not elaborated.<ref>{{E}} p. 169</ref>

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>

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>

[[Lacan]] takes up [[Saussure]]'s [[theory ]] that [[language]] is a [[structure]] composed of differential elements, but whereas [[Saussure]] had stated this of ''[[language|langue]]'', [[Lacan]] states it of ''[[language|langage]]''.

[[Lacan]] then proceeds to criticize the [[Saussure]]an [[concept ]] of [[language]], arguing that the basic unit of [[language]] is not the [[sign]] but the [[signifier]].

[[Lacan]] then argues that the [[unconscious]] is, like [[language]], a [[structure]] of [[signifiers]], which also allows [[Lacan]] to formulate the [[category ]] of the [[symbolic]] with greater precision.

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]]'s own style reflects this [[change ]] as it becomes ever more densely populated with puns and neologisms.

<blockquote>"Language is without [[doubt ]] made of ''[[lalangue]]''. It is an elucubration of [[knowledge]] (''[[knowledge|savoir]]'') [[about ]] ''lalangue''.<ref>{{S20}} p. 127</ref></blockquote>

[[Lacan]] criticizes the way that other forms of [[psychoanalysis]], such as [[Kleinian psychoanalysis]] and [[object-relations theory]], tend to play down the importance of [[language]] and emphasize the "non-[[verbal ]] communication" of the [[analysand]] (his "[[body ]] language," etc.) at the expense of the [[analysand]]'s [[speech]]).

This is a fundamental error, according to [[Lacan]], for [[three ]] main reasons.

:1. Firstly, all [[human]] [[communication]] is inscribed in a [[linguistic]] [[structure]]; even "body language," is, as the term implies, fundamentally a [[form ]] of ''[[language]]'', with the same [[structure|structural features]].

:2. Secondly, the [[whole ]] aim of [[psychoanalytic treatment]] is to articulate the [[truth]] of one's [[desire]] in [[speech]] rather than in any other medium; the [[fundamental rule ]] of [[psychoanalysis]] is based on the [[principle ]] that [[speech]] is the only way to this [[truth]].

One consequence of [[Lacan]]'s emphasis on [[language]] is his recommendation that the [[analyst]] must attend to the [[formal ]] features of the [[analysand]]'s [[speech]] (the [[signifiers]]), and not be sidetracked into an empathic attitude baseed on an [[imaginary]] [[understanding ]] of the [[content ]] (the [[signified]]).

This is, however, not correct; [[Lacan]] argues that [[language]] has both a [[symbolic]] and an [[imaginary]] [[dimension]].

<blockquote>"There is something in [[the symbolic ]] function of human discourse that cannot be eliminated, and that is the [[role ]] played in it by [[the imaginary]]."<ref>{{S2}} p.306</ref></blockquote>

[[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'').