Changes

=====Translation=====It is important to note that the English word "[[language]]" corresponds to two [[French]] [[Languagewords]] occupies an important position in : ''[[langue]]'' and ''[[Lacanian psychoanalysislangage]], usually regarded as its most distinctive feature''.

==Language as a Structure==The word These two words have quite different [[meanings]] in [[Lacan]]'s [[languagework]]: '' used by [[Jacques Lacanlangue]] '' usually refers to the general a specific [[structurelanguage]] of , such as French or [[languageEnglish]], that is, whereas ''[[langage]]'' refers to the [[system]] of [[language]] in general, abstracting from all particular [[languageparticular]]slanguages.

[[=====Jacques Lacan]] =====It is concerned with fundamentally the general [[structure]] of [[language]] (the ''[[system]] of [[languagelangage]] in general) (''langage''), (rather than the differences between particular languages (''langues'[[langue]]s''))that interests [[Lacan]].

==Development in Lacan's Thought===Psychoanalytic Experience=====Four broad phases can be discerned 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 long process of [[developmentpsychoanalytic]] [[experience]] ,<ref>{{Ec}} p.82</ref> and in 1946 he argues that it is [[impossible]] to [[understand]] [Lacan[madness]]'s thinking on without addressing the nature problem of [[language]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 166</ref>

===ONE===[[Lacan]] argues that 's comments on [[language]] is constitutive of the at this time do not contain any references to a specific [[psychoanalytic experiencelinguistics|linguistic theory]], and instead are dominated by [[philosophy|philosophical allusions]], mainly in [[terms]] derived from [[Hegel]].<ref>{{Ec}} p.82</ref>

Thus [[Languagelanguage]], understood in terms derived from [[Hegel]] rather than [[linguistic theory]], is seen primarily as a mediating element which permits the [[subject]] to attain [[recognition ]] from the other.<ref>{{E}} p. 9</ref>

Above and beyond its use for conveying information, [[Languagelanguage]] is first and foremost an appeal to an interlocutor; in [[Jakobson]]'s terms, [[Lacan]] stresses the connative function above the referential.

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

[[Language]] is thus seen as [[structure|structuring]] the [[law|social]] [[law]]s laws of [[exchange]], as a [[symbolic]] [[pact]], etc.

In his famous There are also occasional references to [[Rome Discourserhetoric]] [[Lacan]] posits a basic opposition between ''[[parole]]'' and ''[[langage]]'', but these are not elaborated.<ref>{{E}} p. (see [[speech]])169</ref>

[[Lacan]] refers to It is in this period that the names [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] and [[Roman Jakobson]] come to the fore in [[Lacan]]'s [[Works of Jacques Lacan|work]].

Following =====Structural Linguistics=====[[SassureLacan]], takes up [[Saussure]]'s [[Lacantheory]] argues that [[language]] is a [[structure ]] composed of differential elements, but whereas [[Saussure]] had stated this of ''[[language|langue]]'', [[Lacan]] states it of ''[[language|langage]]''.

''[[Languagelanguage|Langage]] '' becomes , for [[Lacan]] , the single paradigm of all [[structurestructures]].

===Lacan and Language===[[Lacan]] then proceeds to critcize 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 basic unit [[unconscious]] is, like [[language]], a [[structure]] of [[languagesignifiers]], which also allows [[Lacan]] is not to formulate the [[signcategory]] but of the [[signifiersymbolic]]with greater precision.

In 1969 [[Lacan]] argues that the [[unconscious]] is, like develops a concept of [[languagediscourse]], as a [[structure]] kind of [[signifierdiscourse|social bond]]s.

=====Psychotic Language=====From 1971 on, the shift from [[linguistics]] to [[Lacanmathematics]] asserts that "as the unconscious paradigm of [[science|scientificity]] is structured like 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>{{S11L}} p.20"[[Joyce]] le symptôme." 1975a. In Jacques Aubert (ed.), ''Joyce avec Lacan''. [[Paris]]: Navarin, 1987.</ref>

=====''Lalangue''=====[[Lacan can formulate ]] coins the category term ''[[language|lalangue]]'' (from the definite article ''la'' and the noun ''[[language|langue]]'') to refer to these non-communicative aspects of the symbolic with greater precision[[language]] which, by playing on ambiguity and homophony, give rise to a kind of ''[[jouissance]]''.<ref>{{S20}} p.126</ref>

In 1969 Lacan develops a concept of discourse as a kind of social bondThe term "[[language]]" now becomes opposed to ''[[language|lalangue]]''.

===''Lalangue''===[[Lacanlanguage|Lalangue]] coins the term ''is like the primary chaotic substrate of polysemy out of which [[lalanguelanguage]]'' to refer to non-communicative aspects of is constructed, almost as if [[language]] which, by playing is some ordered superstructure sitting on ambiguity and homophony, give rise to a kind top of''[[jouissance]]''.<ref>{{S20}} p.126</ref>this substrate:

All <blockquote>"Language is without [[humandoubt]] made of ''[[communicationlalangue]] ''. It is inscribed in a an elucubration of [[linguisticknowledge]] (''[[structureknowledge|savoir]]'') [[about]] ''lalangue''.<ref>{{S20}} p.127</ref></blockquote>

The whole [[aim]] of [[psychoanalytic]] [[treatment]] =====Lacanian Psychoanalysis==========Language in Analytic Treatment=====It is to articulate the emphasis placed by [[truthLacan]] of one's ian [[desirepsychoanalysis]] in [[speech]] rather than in any other mediumthat is usually regarded as its most distinctive feature.

The [[fundamental ruleLacan]] criticizes the way that other forms of [[psychoanalysis]] is based on , such as [[Kleinian psychoanalysis]] and [[object-relations theory]], tend to play down the importance of [[language]] and emphasize the "non-[[verbal]] communication" of the principle that [[speechanalysand]] (his "[[body]] is language," etc.) at the only way to this expense of the [[analysand]]'s [[truthspeech]]).

This is a fundamental error, according to [[SpeechLacan]] is the only tool which the , for [[analystthree]] hasmain reasons.

Any :1. Firstly, all [[analysthuman]] who does not understand [[communication]] is inscribed in a [[linguistic]] [[structure]]; even "body language," is, as the way term implies, fundamentally a [[speechform]] and of ''[[language]] work does not understand '', with the same [[psychoanalysisstructure|structural features]].

==Quotes==<blockquote>Properly speaking this :2. Secondly, the [[whole]] aim of [[psychoanalytic treatment]] is a redundancy because "to articulate the [[truth]] of one's [[desire]] in [[speech]] rather than in any other medium; the [[structuredfundamental rule]]" and "as a of [[languagepsychoanalysis]]" for me mean exactly is based on the same thing. [[Structureprinciple]]d means my that [[speech]], my is the only way to this [[:category:terms|lexicontruth]], etc. :3. And thirdly, [[speech]] is the only tool which is exactly the same as a [[analyst]] has; therefore, any [[analyst]] who does not understand the way [[speech]] and [[language]]work does not understand [[psychoanalysis]] itself. And that is not all<ref>{{E}} p. Which 40</ref> One consequence of [[Lacan]]'s emphasis on [[language]]? Rather than myself it was my pupils is his recommendation that took a great deal the [[analyst]] must attend to the [[formal]] features of trouble to give that question a different the [[analysand]]'s [[speech]] (the [[meaningsignifiers]]), and to search for not be sidetracked into an empathic attitude baseed on an [[imaginary]] [[understanding]] of the [[content]] (the formula [[signified]]). =====Symbolic and Imaginary Dimensions=====One common misconception of a reduced [[Lacan]] is that [[language]] is synonymous with the [[symbolic]] [[order]]. What are the minimum conditions This is, they ask themselveshowever, necessary to constitute not correct; [[Lacan]] argues that [[language]] has both a [[languagesymbolic]] and an [[imaginary]]? Perhaps only four <i>signantes</i>, four [[signifydimension]]ing elements are enough. It is a curious exercise which  <blockquote>"There is based on a complete error, as I hope to show you on the board something in a moment. There were also some [[philosophersthe symbolic]]function of human discourse that cannot be eliminated, not many really but some, of those present at my and that is the [[seminarrole]] played in Paris who have found since then that it was not a question by [[the imaginary]]."<ref>{{S2}} p.306</ref></blockquote> The [[symbolic|symbolic dimension]] of an &quot;under&quot; [[language]] or is that of &quot;another&quot; the [[languagesignifier]], not and [[mythspeech|true speech]] for instance or . The [[phonemeimaginary]]s, but dimension of [[language]]. It is extraordinary the pains that all took to change the place of the question. [[Mythsignified]]s, for instance[[signification]], do not take place in our consideration precisely because those are also and [[structurespeech|empty speech]]d as a . [[languageSchema L]], and when I say &quot;as a represents these two dimensions of [[language]]&quot; it by means of two axes which intersect. The axis '''A-S''' is not as some special sort of [[language]] in its [[symbolic|symbolic dimension]]], for example, the [[mathematicaldiscourse]] of the [[languageOther]], the [[semioticalunconscious]] . The [[imaginary]] axis ''a'''-''a'' is [[language]], or in its [[cinematographicalimaginary|imaginary dimension]] , the wall of [[language]]. which interrupts, distorts and [[Languageinversion|invert]] is s the [[languagediscourse]] and there is only one sort of the [[Other]]. In [[languagLacan]]e: 's words, "language is as much there to be found in the Other as to drastically prevent us from understanding him.<ref>{{S2}} p. 244</ref> =====Languages and Codes=====[[concreteLacan]] distinguishes between [[language]]&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; s and [[Englishcode]] or s; unlike [[Frenchcode]] for instance&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;that people talk. The first thing to start s, in this context is that there is no [[meta-language]]. For it there is necessary that all so called no [[meta-languagestable]]s be presented one-to you with -one correspondence between [[languagesign]]. You cannot teach a course in and [[mathematicsign|referent]]s using only , nor between [[signified]] and [[lettersignifier]]s on the board.  It is always necessary this property of [[language]] which gives rise to speak an ordinary the inherent ambiguity of all [[discourse]], which can only be [[languageinterpreted]] that is understoodby playing on the homophony and other forms of equivocation (''l'équivoque''). <ref>Of Structure as an Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever</ref></blockquote>

{{See}}* [[StructureAnalysand]]* [[Analyst]]||* [[Code]]* [[Discourse]]||

* [[SignifiedSpeech]]||* [[LetterStructure]]* [[WordSymbolic]]{{Also}}