Difference between revisions of "Speech"
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
The [[French]] term ''[[parole]]'' presents considerable difficulty to the [[English]] translator because it does not correspond to any one [[English]] [[word]]. | 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]]." | + | In some contexts it corresponds to the [[English]] term "[[speech]]," and in [[others]] is best translated as "[[word]]." |
====Jacques Lacan==== | ====Jacques Lacan==== | ||
| − | ''[[Parole]]'' becomes one of the most important terms in [[Lacan]]'s work from the early 1950s on. | + | ''[[Parole]]'' becomes one of the most important [[terms]] in [[Lacan]]'s [[work]] from the early 1950s on. |
=====Psychoanalysis===== | =====Psychoanalysis===== | ||
| − | 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> | + | 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> |
====Influences==== | ====Influences==== | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=====Anthropology===== | =====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 [[Anthropology|Mauss]] and [[Lévi-Strauss]], especially their analysis of the [[Anthropology|exchange of gifts]]. | + | [[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 [[Anthropology|Mauss]] and [[Lévi-Strauss]], especially their [[analysis]] of the [[Anthropology|exchange of gifts]]. |
| − | Thus [[Freud]]'s [[interpretation]]s are described as "a symbolic gift of speech, pregnant with a secret pact."<ref>{{E}} p. 79</ref> | + | Thus [[Freud]]'s [[interpretation]]s 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]]. | 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]]. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
In 1954, [[Lacan]] discusses [[speech]] with reference to [[St Augustine]]'s ''[[St Augustine|De locutionis signification]]e''.<ref>{{S1}} p. 247-60</ref> | In 1954, [[Lacan]] discusses [[speech]] with reference to [[St Augustine]]'s ''[[St Augustine|De locutionis signification]]e''.<ref>{{S1}} p. 247-60</ref> | ||
| − | Like the words uttered by [[Religion|God]] in [[Religion|Genesis]], [[speech]] is a "[[symbolic|symbolic invocation]]" which creates, ''ex nihilo'', "a new order of being in the relations between men."<ref>{{S1}} p. 239</ref> | + | Like the [[words]] uttered by [[Religion|God]] in [[Religion|Genesis]], [[speech]] is a "[[symbolic|symbolic invocation]]" which creates, ''ex nihilo'', "a new [[order]] of [[being]] in the relations between men."<ref>{{S1}} p. 239</ref> |
=====Metaphysics===== | =====Metaphysics===== | ||
| − | [[Lacan]] draws on [[Heidegger]]'s distinction between ''[[speech|Rede]]'' (''[[speech|discourse]]'') and ''[[speech|Gerede]]'' (''[[speech|chatter]]'') to elaborate his own distinction between "[[speech|full speech]]" (''[[speech|parole pleine]]'') and "[[speech|empty speech]]" (''[[speech|parole vide]]'').<ref>{{E}} p. 40ff</ref> | + | [[Lacan]] draws on [[Heidegger]]'s [[distinction]] between ''[[speech|Rede]]'' (''[[speech|discourse]]'') and ''[[speech|Gerede]]'' (''[[speech|chatter]]'') to elaborate his own distinction between "[[speech|full speech]]" (''[[speech|parole pleine]]'') and "[[speech|empty speech]]" (''[[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. | + | [[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. |
| − | =====Symbolic and Imaginary Dimension===== | + | =====Symbolic and Imaginary [[Dimension]]===== |
[[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]]. | [[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, 1976-77]]'', published in ''[[Ornicar?]]'', nos 12-18, 1977-9. p. 11</ref></blockquote> | + | <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, 1976-77]]'', published in ''[[Ornicar?]]'', nos 12-18, 1977-9. p. 11</ref></blockquote> |
=====Truth of Desire===== | =====Truth of Desire===== | ||
[[Speech|Full speech]] is also called "[[speech|true speech]]," since it is closer to the enigmatic [[truth]] of the [[subject]]'s [[desire]]: | [[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 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> | + | <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> | 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> | ||
=====Analytic Treatment===== | =====Analytic Treatment===== | ||
| − | One of the [[analyst]]'s tasks when listening to the [[analysand]] is to discern the moments when [[speech|full speech]] emerges. | + | 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> | + | [[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> | 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> | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
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>. | 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>{{TV}} p.9</ref></blockquote> | + | <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>{{TV}} 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|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]]. | [[Speech]] is the only means of access to the [[truth]] about [[desire]]. | ||
Latest revision as of 23:46, 20 May 2019
| French: parole |
Translation
Parole
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."
Jacques Lacan
Parole becomes one of the most important terms in Lacan's work from the early 1950s on.
Psychoanalysis
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.[1]
Influences
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'" [2] 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."[3]
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[4] and the Judaeo-Christian tradition.[5]
In 1954, Lacan discusses speech with reference to St Augustine's De locutionis significatione.[6]
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."[7]
Metaphysics
Lacan draws on Heidegger's distinction between Rede (discourse) and Gerede (chatter) to elaborate his own distinction between "full speech" (parole pleine) and "empty speech" (parole vide).[8]
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.
Symbolic and Imaginary Dimension
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.
"Full speech is a speech full of meaning [sens]. Empty speech is a speech which has only signification."[9]
Truth of Desire
Full speech is also called "true speech," since it is closer to the enigmatic truth of the subject's desire:
"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]."[10]
"Full speech, in effect, is defined by its identity with that which it speaks about."[11]
In empty speech, on the other hand, the subject is alienated from his desire; in empty speech "the subject seems to be talking in vain about someone who . . . can never become one with the assumption of his desire."[12]
Analytic Treatment
One of the analyst's tasks when listening to the analysand is to discern the moments when full speech emerges.
Full speech and 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."[13]
The aim of psychoanalytic treatment is to articulate full speech, which is hard work; full speech can be quite laborious (pénible) to articulate.[14]
Desire and Speech
Empty speech is not the same as lying; on the contrary, lies often reveal the truth about desire more fully than many honest statements.[15]
It is never possible to articulate in speech the whole truth of one's desire because of a fundamental "incompatibility between desire and speech."[16].
"I always tell the truth; not the whole truth, because we are not capable of telling it all. Telling it all is materially impossible."[17]
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.
"Speech alone is the key to that truth."[18]
Moreover, psychoanalytic theory claims that it is only a particular kind of speech that leads to this truth; a speech without conscious control, known as free association.
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques.. "Fonction et champ de la parole et du langage en psychanalyse," 1953a, in Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.237-322. ["The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis," in Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977.. p. 30-113]
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p. 142
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 79
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 106-7
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 106
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p. 247-60
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p. 239
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 40ff
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XXIV. L'insu que sait de l'une bévue s'aile à mourre, 1976-77, published in Ornicar?, nos 12-18, 1977-9. p. 11
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p. 107
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 381
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 45
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p. 50
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 253
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p. 139-40
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 275
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Télévision, Paris: Seuil, 1973. Television: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment, ed. Joan Copjec, trans. Denis Hollier, Rosalind Krauss and Annette Michelson, New York: Norton, 1990]. p.9
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 172
