Difference between revisions of "Metalanguage"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | : [[Fr]]. ''[[métalangage]]'' | |
| − | "[[Metalanguage]]" is the technical term in [[linguistics]] for any form of [[language]] which is used to describe the properties of [[language]]. | + | =====Linguistic Definition===== |
| + | "[[Metalanguage]]" is the technical term in [[linguistics]] for any form of [[language]] which is used to describe or analyze the properties of another [[language]]. | ||
| − | ==Roman Jakobson== | + | =====Roman Jakobson===== |
| − | [[Roman Jakobson]] includes the metalingual function in his list of the functions of [[language]].<ref>Jakobson, 1960:25</ref> | + | [[Roman Jakobson]] includes the metalingual function in his list of the functions of [[language]].<ref>[[Roman Jakobson|Jakobson, Roman]]. (1960) "Linguistics and poetics," in ''Selected Writings'', vol. II, ''Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry'', The Hague: Mouton, 1981, p.25</ref> |
| − | + | =====Jacques Lacan===== | |
| − | + | =====Early Work===== | |
| − | ==Jacques Lacan== | ||
[[Lacan]]'s first reference to [[metalanguage]] comes in 1956, when he echoes [[Jakobson]]'s view on the metalingual function of all [[language]]: | [[Lacan]]'s first reference to [[metalanguage]] comes in 1956, when he echoes [[Jakobson]]'s view on the metalingual function of all [[language]]: | ||
<blockquote>"All [[language]] implies a [[metalanguage]], its already a [[metalanguage]] of its own register."<ref>{{S3}} p. 226</ref></blockquote> | <blockquote>"All [[language]] implies a [[metalanguage]], its already a [[metalanguage]] of its own register."<ref>{{S3}} p. 226</ref></blockquote> | ||
| − | + | =====Later Work===== | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
A few years later, in 1960, he says precisely the opposite, arguing that "no [[metalanguage]] can be spoken."<ref>{{E}} p.311</ref> | A few years later, in 1960, he says precisely the opposite, arguing that "no [[metalanguage]] can be spoken."<ref>{{E}} p.311</ref> | ||
| − | + | What [[Lacan]] appears to mean by this remark is that, since every attempt to fix the meaning of language must be done in language, there can be no escape from [[language]], no "outside". | |
| − | |||
| − | What [[Lacan]] appears to mean by this remark is that, since every attempt to fix the meaning of language must be done in language, there can be no escape from [[language]], no | ||
This is reminiscent of Heidegger's views on the impossibility of exiting "the house of language." | This is reminiscent of Heidegger's views on the impossibility of exiting "the house of language." | ||
| Line 31: | Line 27: | ||
If the Otheer is the guarantee of the coherence of the subject's discourse, then the falsity of this guarantee is revealed by the fact that the guarantor himself lacks such a guarantee. | If the Otheer is the guarantee of the coherence of the subject's discourse, then the falsity of this guarantee is revealed by the fact that the guarantor himself lacks such a guarantee. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
In a clinical context, this means that there is no metalanguage of the transference, no point outside the transference from which it could be finally interpreted and "liquidated." | In a clinical context, this means that there is no metalanguage of the transference, no point outside the transference from which it could be finally interpreted and "liquidated." | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | =More= | ||
| Line 52: | Line 56: | ||
==Psychoanalytic Treatment== | ==Psychoanalytic Treatment== | ||
In a [[clinical]] context, this means that there is no [[metalanguage]] of the [[transference]], no point [[outside]] the [[transference]] from which it could be finally [[interpreted]] and 'liquidated'. | In a [[clinical]] context, this means that there is no [[metalanguage]] of the [[transference]], no point [[outside]] the [[transference]] from which it could be finally [[interpreted]] and 'liquidated'. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
| Line 59: | Line 71: | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| + | [[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | ||
[[Category:Linguistics]] | [[Category:Linguistics]] | ||
| − | |||
[[Category:Dictionary]] | [[Category:Dictionary]] | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Language]] |
[[Category:Symbolic]] | [[Category:Symbolic]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Concepts]] | ||
[[Category:Terms]] | [[Category:Terms]] | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:OK]] |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | __NOTOC__ | |
Revision as of 06:58, 18 August 2006
Linguistic Definition
"Metalanguage" is the technical term in linguistics for any form of language which is used to describe or analyze the properties of another language.
Roman Jakobson
Roman Jakobson includes the metalingual function in his list of the functions of language.[1]
Jacques Lacan
Early Work
Lacan's first reference to metalanguage comes in 1956, when he echoes Jakobson's view on the metalingual function of all language:
"All language implies a metalanguage, its already a metalanguage of its own register."[2]
Later Work
A few years later, in 1960, he says precisely the opposite, arguing that "no metalanguage can be spoken."[3]
What Lacan appears to mean by this remark is that, since every attempt to fix the meaning of language must be done in language, there can be no escape from language, no "outside".
This is reminiscent of Heidegger's views on the impossibility of exiting "the house of language."
This also appears similar to the structuralist theme of il n'y a rien hors du texte ('there is nothing outside the text'), but it is not the same; Lacan does not deny that there is a beyond of language (this beyond is the real), but he does argue that this beyond is not of a kind that could finally anchor meaning.
There is, in other words, no transcendental signified, no way that language could "tell the truth about truth."[4]
The same point is also expressed in the phrase; "there is no Other of the Other."[5]
If the Otheer is the guarantee of the coherence of the subject's discourse, then the falsity of this guarantee is revealed by the fact that the guarantor himself lacks such a guarantee.
In a clinical context, this means that there is no metalanguage of the transference, no point outside the transference from which it could be finally interpreted and "liquidated."
More
Lacan rejects the very possibility of a metalinguistic dimension, denies the existence of any metalanguage.
Lacan follows Heidegger's view of language as a "house of being" of which it is impossible to step outside.[6]
Lacan does not deny that there is a beyond of language, but he does argue that this beyond is not of a kind that could finally anchor meaning.
There is no transcendental signified, no way that language could "tell the truth about truth."[7]
Other of the Other
The same point is also expressed in the phrase, "there is no Other of the Other."[8]
If the Other is the guarantee of the coherence of the subject's discourse, then the falsity of this guarantee is revealed by the fact that the guarantor himself lacks such a guarantee.
Psychoanalytic Treatment
In a clinical context, this means that there is no metalanguage of the transference, no point outside the transference from which it could be finally interpreted and 'liquidated'.
See Also
References
- ↑ Jakobson, Roman. (1960) "Linguistics and poetics," in Selected Writings, vol. II, Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry, The Hague: Mouton, 1981, p.25
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 226
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.311
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p.867-8
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.311
- ↑ 1960
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 867-8
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.311
