24,656
edits
Changes
no edit summary
==Translation==
The [[French]] term ''[[parole]]'' presents considerable difficulty to the English translator because it does not correspond to any one English word.
In some contexts it corresponds to the English term "[[speech]]," and in others is best translated as "[[word]]."
"[[Parole]]" becomes one of the most important terms in [[Lacan]]'s work from the early 1950s on.
In his famous "[[Rome Discourse]]," [[Lacan]] denounces the way that the role of speech in psychoanalysis had come to be neglected by contemporary psychoanalytic theory, and argues for a renewed focus on [[speech]] and [[language]].<ref>{{L}} . "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|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>
[[Lacan]]'s use of the term ''[[parole]]'' owes little to [[Saussure]] -- whose opposition between ''[[parole]]'' and ''[[langue]]'' is replaced in [[Lacan]]'s work with the opposition between ''[[parole]]'' and ''[[langage]]'' -- and is far more determined by references to [[anthropology]], [[theology]], and [[metaphysics]].
==Anthropology==
[[Lacan]]'s concept of [[speech]] as a "symbolic exchange" which "links human beings to each other'" <ref>{{S1}} p.142</ref> is clearly influenced by the work of Mauss and [[Lévi-Strauss]], especially their analysis of the exchange of gifts.
Thus [[Freud]]'s interpretations are described as "a symbolic gift of speech, pregnant with a secret pact."<ref>{{E}} p.79</ref>
The concept of [[speech]] as a pact which assigns roles to both the addressee and the addresser is formulated in [[Lacan]]'s concept of [[founding speech]].
==Theology==
Speech also takes on religious and theological connotations in [[Lacan]]'s work, in terms derived both from Eastern religions <ref>{{E}} p.106-7</ref> and the Judaeo-Christian tradition <ref>{{E}} p.106</ref> In 1954, [[Lacan]] discusses speech with reference to St Augustine's De locutionis significatione <ref>{{S1}} p.247-60</ref>
Like the words uttered by God in Genesis, [[speech]] is a "symbolic invocation" which creates, ''ex nihilo'', "a new order of being in the relations between men."<ref>{{S1}} p. 239</ref>
==Metaphysics==
[[Lacan]] draws on [[Heidegger]]'s distinction between ''Rede'' (''discourse'') and ''Gerede'' (''chatter'') to elaborate his own distinction between "[[speech|full speech]]" (''parole pleine'') and "[[speech|empty speech]]" (''parole vide'').<ref>{{E}} p.40ff</ref>
[[Lacan]] first makes this distinction in 1953, and though it no longer plays an important part in his work after 1955, it never disappears completely.
[[speech|Full speech]] articulates the [[symbolic ]] dimension of [[language]], whereas [[empty speech]] articulates the [[imaginary ]] dimension of [[language]], the [[speech]] from the [[ego]] to the [[counterpart]].
<blockquote>"Full speech is a speech full of meaning [sens]. Empty speech is a speech which has only signification."<ref>{{L}} [[Seminar XXIV|Le Séminaire. Livre XXIV. L'insu que sait de l'une bévue s'aile à mourre, 1976--7; 77]]'', published in ''[[Ornicar?]]'', nos 17/12-18: , 1977-9. p. 11</ref></blockquote>
---
[[Speech|Full speech]] is also called "[[speech|true speech]]," since it is closer to the enigmatic [[truth]] of the [[subject]]'s [[desire]]:
<blockquote>"Full speech is speech which aims at, which forms, the truth such as it becomes established in the recognition of one person by another. Full speech is speech which performs [''qui fait acte'']."<ref>{{S1}} p.107</ref></blockquote>
<blockquote>"Full speech, in effect, is defined by its identity with that which it speaks about."<ref>{{Ec}} p.381</ref></blockquote>
---
In [[speech|empty speech]], on the other hand, the [[subject]] is [[alienated]] from his [[desire]]; in [[speech|empty speech]] "the subject seems to be talking in vain about someone who . . . can never become one with the assumption of his desire."<ref>{{E}} p.45</ref>
One of the [[analyst]]'s tasks when listening to the [[analysand ]] is to discern the moments when [[speech|full speech]] emerges.
[[speech|Full speech]] and [[speech|empty speech]] are the extreme points on a continuum, and "between these two extremes, a whole gamut of modes of realisation of speech is deployed."<ref>{{S1}} p.50</ref>
The [[end of analysis|aim]] of [[psychoanalytic treatment]] is to articulate [[speech|full speech]], which is hard work; [[speech|full speech]] can be quite laborious (''pénible'') to articulate <ref>{{E}} p.253</ref>
--
[[Speech|Empty speech]] is not the same as [[truth|lying]]; on the contrary, [[truth|lies]] often reveal the [[truth]] about [[desire]] more fully than many [[truth|honest]] [[statement]]s.<ref>{{S11}} p.139-40</ref>
It is never possible to articulate in [[speech]] the whole [[truth]] of one's [[desire,]] because of a fundamental "incompatibility between desire and speech."<ref>{{E}} p.275</ref>.
<blockquote>"I always tell the truth; not the whole truth, because we are not capable of telling it all. Telling it all is materially impossible."<ref>{{LTV}} 1973a: p.9</ref></blockquote>
[[Speech|Full speech]], then, is not the articulation in [[speech]] of the whole [[truth]] about the [[subject]]'s [[desire]], but the [[speech]] which articulates this truth as fully as possible at a particular [[time]].
[[Speech]] is the only means of access to the [[truth]] about [[desire]].
<blockquote>"Speech alone is the key to that truth."<ref>{{E}} p.172</ref></blockquote>
Moreover, [[psychoanalytic theory]] claims that it is only a particular kind of [[speech]] that leads to this [[truth]]; a [[speech]] without [[conscious]] [[master|control]], known as [[free association]].
==See Also==
{{See}}
{{Also}}
== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]
[[Category:Concepts]]
[[Category:Terms]]
