Changes

[[Language{{Top}}langue]] is a central concept in '', ''[[Lacanian psychoanalysis]].langage{{Bottom}}

=====Translation=====It is usually regarded as its most distinctive featureimportant to note that the English word "[[language]]" corresponds to two [[French]] [[words]]: ''[[langue]]'' and ''[[langage]]''.

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

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

==Development When [[reading]] [[Lacan]] in LacanEnglish 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]]''s Thought==.

Four broad phases can be discerned =====Psychoanalytic Experience=====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]] [[Lacanmadness]]'s thinking on without addressing the nature problem of [[language]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 166</ref>

Thus [[Lacanlanguage]] argues that is seen primarily as a mediating element which permits the [[languagesubject]] is constitutive of the to attain [[psychoanalytic experiencerecognition]]from the other.<ref>{{EcE}} p.829</ref>

Above and beyond its use for conveying information, [[Languagelanguage]], understood is first and foremost an appeal to an interlocutor; in terms derived from [[HegelJakobson]] rather than 's terms, [[linguistic theoryLacan]], is a mediating element which permits stresses the [[subject]] to attain recognition from connative function above the [[other]]referential.

Thus he insists that [[Languagelangage]] is first and foremost an appeal to an interlocutornot a nomenclature.<ref>{{Ec}} p. 166</ref>

==Language ===Anthropology and StructurePhenomenology=====[[Lacan]]'s discussion of From 1950 to 1954 [[language]] contains references to [[Heideggerian]] [[phenomenology]] and begins to occupy the central [[anthropologyposition]] of that it will hold in [[languageLacan]] ([[Mauss]], [[Malinowski]] and [[Levi-Strauss]])'s work thereafter.

In this period, [[LanguageLacan]] is seen as 's [[structuringdiscussion]] the of [[sociallanguage]] is dominated by references to [[lawHeideggerian]]s of [[exchangephenomenology]]and, more importantly, as a to the [[symbolicanthropology]] of [[pactlanguage]]([[Anthropology|Maus, Malinowski, etcand Lévi-Strauss]].

In his famous [[Rome DiscourseLanguage]] is thus seen as [[Lacanstructure|structuring]] posits a basic opposition between ''the [[parolelaw|social laws of exchange]]'' and ''[[langage]]'', as a symbolic pact, etc. (see [[speech]])

[[Lacan]] refers There are also occasional references to [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] and [[Roman Jakobsonrhetoric]], but these are not elaborated.<ref>{{E}} p.169</ref>

Following There are a few allusions to [[SassureSaussure]], <ref>{{S1}} p. 248</ref> but in his famous "[[Rome Discourse]]" [[Lacan]] argues that establishes an opposition between ''[[parole]]'' and ''[[language|langage]]'' (and not, as [[Saussure]] does, between ''[[parole]]'' and ''[[language|langue]] is a structure composed ''.<ref>{{L}}. "''[[Fonction]] et [[champ]] de la parole et du langage en [[psychanalyse]].''" 1953a. In {{E}} p. 237-322. ("[[The function and field of differential elementsspeech and language in psychoanalysis]].") In {{E}}. p.30-113</ref>

====="The Unconscious is Structured like a Language"=====Between 1955 and 1970 [[language]] takes center [[Languagestage]] becomes for and [[Lacan]] develops his classic [[thesis]] that "the single paradigm of all unconscious is [[structurestructured]]like a language."<ref>{{S11}} p.20</ref>

===Lacan It is in this period that the names [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] and Language===[[LacanRoman Jakobson]] proceeds come to critcize the fore in [[SaussureLacan]]an concept of 's [[languageWorks of Jacques Lacan|work]].

=====Structural Linguistics=====[[Lacan]] argues takes up [[Saussure]]'s [[theory]] that the basic unit of [[language]] is not the a [[signstructure]] composed of differential elements, but the whereas [[signifierSaussure]] had stated this of ''[[language|langue]]'', [[Lacan]] states it of ''[[language|langage]]''.

''[[Lacan]] argues that the [[unconsciouslanguage|Langage]] is'' becomes, like for [[languageLacan]], a [[structure]] the single paradigm of all [[signifierstructures]]s.

[[Lacan]] asserts then proceeds to criticize the [[Saussure]]an [[concept]] of [[language]], arguing that "the basic unit of [[language]] is not the [[sign]] but the unconscious is structured like a language[[signifier]]."<ref>{{S11}} p.20</ref>

[[Lacan]] can 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.

In 1969 [[Lacan]] develops a concept of [[discourse]] as a kind of [[discourse|social bond]].

===''Lalangue''==Psychotic Language=====From 1971 on, the shift from [[linguistics]] to [[Lacanmathematics]] coins as the term ''paradigm of [[lalanguescience|scientificity]]'' is accompanied by a tendency to refer to non-communicative aspects emphasize the [[poetry]] and ambiguity of [[language]] which, by playing on ambiguity and homophony, give rise to a kind as is evident in [[Lacan]]'s increasing interest in the "[[psychotic]] [[language]]" of''[[jouissanceJames Joyce]]''.<ref>{{S20L}} p.126"[[Joyce]] le symptôme." 1975a. In Jacques Aubert (ed.), ''Joyce avec Lacan''. [[Paris]]: Navarin, 1987.</ref>

All [[humanLacan]] 's own style reflects this [[communication]] is inscribed in a [[linguistic]] [[structurechange]]as it becomes ever more densely populated with puns and neologisms.

The whole =====''Lalangue''=====[[aimLacan]] of coins the term ''[[psychoanalyticlanguage|lalangue]] '' (from the definite article ''la'' and the noun ''[[treatmentlanguage|langue]] is '') to refer to articulate the these non-communicative aspects of [[truthlanguage]] which, by playing on ambiguity and homophony, give rise to a kind of one's '[[desirejouissance]] in [[speech]] rather than in any other medium''.<ref>{{S20}} p.126</ref>

The term "[[fundamental rulelanguage]] of [[psychoanalysis]] is based on the principle that [[speech]] is the only way " now becomes opposed to this ''[[truthlanguage|lalangue]]''.

''[[Speechlanguage|Lalangue]] '' is like the only tool primary chaotic substrate of polysemy out of which the [[analystlanguage]] is constructed, almost as if [[language]] has.is some ordered superstructure sitting on top of this substrate:

Any <blockquote>"Language is without [[analystdoubt]] who does not made of ''[[understandlalangue]] the way ''. It is an elucubration of [[speechknowledge]] and (''[[languageknowledge|savoir]] work does not '') [[understand]] [[psychoanalysisabout]]''lalangue''.<ref>{{S20}} p.127</ref></blockquote>

==Quotes===Lacanian Psychoanalysis=====<blockquote>Properly speaking this =====Language in Analytic Treatment=====It is the emphasis placed by [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis]] that is a redundancy because usually regarded as its most distinctive feature. [[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-[[structuredverbal]]communication" and of the [[analysand]] (his "as a [[languagebody]]language," for me mean exactly etc.) at the expense of the same thing. [[Structureanalysand]]d means my 's [[speech]]). This is a fundamental error, my according to [[:category:terms|lexiconLacan]], etcfor [[three]] main reasons. :1.Firstly, which all [[human]] [[communication]] is inscribed in a [[linguistic]] [[structure]]; even "body language," is exactly , as the same as term implies, fundamentally a [[form]] of ''[[language]]'', with the same [[structure|structural features]]. And that is not all :2. Which Secondly, the [[languagewhole]]? Rather than myself it was my pupils that took a great deal aim of trouble [[psychoanalytic treatment]] is to give that question a different articulate the [[truth]] of one's [[desire]] in [[meaningspeech]], and to search for rather than in any other medium; the formula [[fundamental rule]] of a reduced [[languagepsychoanalysis]] is based on the [[principle]] that [[speech]]. What are is the minimum conditions, they ask themselves, necessary only way to constitute a this [[languagetruth]]? Perhaps only four <i>signantes</i>. :3. And thirdly, four [[signifyspeech]]ing elements are enough. It is a curious exercise the only tool which is based on a complete error, as I hope to show you on the board in a moment. There were also some [[philosophersanalyst]]has; therefore, not many really but some, of those present at my any [[seminaranalyst]] in Paris who have found since then that it was does not a question of an &quot;under&quot; understand the way [[languagespeech]] or of &quot;another&quot; and [[language]], work does not understand [[mythpsychoanalysis]] for instance or itself.<ref>{{E}} p. 40</ref> One consequence of [[phonemeLacan]]'s, but emphasis on [[language]]. It is extraordinary his recommendation that the pains that all took [[analyst]] must attend to change the place [[formal]] features of the question. [[Mythanalysand]]'s[[speech]] (the [[signifiers]]), for instance, do and not take place in our consideration precisely because those are also be sidetracked into an empathic attitude baseed on an [[imaginary]] [[understanding]] of the [[structurecontent]]d as a (the [[languagesignified]], ). =====Symbolic and when I say &quot;as a Imaginary Dimensions=====One common misconception of [[Lacan]] is that [[language]]&quot; it is not as some special sort of synonymous with the [[symbolic]] [[languageorder]]. This is, for examplehowever, not correct; [[mathematicalLacan]] argues that [[language]], has both a [[symbolic]] and an [[semioticalimaginary]] [[languagedimension]]. <blockquote>"There is something in [[the symbolic]]function of human discourse that cannot be eliminated, or and that is the [[cinematographicalrole]] played in it by [[languagethe imaginary]]. "<ref>{{S2}} p.306</ref></blockquote> The [[Languagesymbolic|symbolic dimension]] is of [[language]] and there is only one sort that of the [[signifier]] and [[languagspeech|true speech]]e: . The [[concreteimaginary]] dimension of [[language]]&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp; is that of the [[signified]], [[Englishsignification]] or , and [[Frenchspeech|empty speech]] for instance&nbsp;&#8212;&nbsp;that people talk. The first thing to start in this context is that there is no  [[Schema L]] represents these two dimensions of [[meta-language]]by means of two axes which intersect. For it  The axis '''A-S''' is necessary that all so called [[meta-language]]s be presented to you with in its [[symbolic|symbolic dimension]]], the [[discourse]] of the [[Other]], the [[languageunconscious]]. You cannot teach  The [[imaginary]] axis ''a'''-''a course '' is [[language]] in its [[mathematicimaginary|imaginary dimension]]s using only , the wall of [[language]] which interrupts, distorts and [[letterinversion|invert]]s on the board[[discourse]] of the [[Other]]. It is always necessary to speak an ordinary  In [[languageLacan]] that 's words, "language is understoodas much there to be found in the Other as to drastically prevent us from understanding him. <ref>Of Structure as an Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever{{S2}} p. 244</ref></blockquote> =====Languages and Codes=====[[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'').

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

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

{{OK}}[[Category:TermsLinguistics]][[Category:ConceptsLanguage]]