语言的神秘4

语言的神秘4
Linguisteries

雅克慎论拉康
From Absolute Master

1. The signifier does not depend on the signified. Indeed, not only does “the signifier [not] answer to the function of representing the signified,” it cannot answer to “any signification whatever” (1977a, 150/498; see also 1975c, 31-32). Taken in itself (that is, separated, as if that were possible, from other signifiers), the signifier “signifies nothing” (1981, 210), and this is what Lacan tries to express by speaking of its “materiality” (1988b, 82/104—105; 1966, 24), its “localized” (1977a, 153/501) and “literal” structure: “By ‘letter’ I designate that material support that concrete discourse borrows from language” (1977a, 147/495).

能指并没有依靠所指。的确,能指不但不实践代表所指的功能,而且它无法实践「任何的意义」(1977a,150/408)。能指若是就自身来看(跟其他的能指分开,好像那是可能的),它仅是「意指著空无」。这就是拉康尝试表达的东西,凭借谈论到它的「物质性」(1988b,82/104—105;1966,24)它的「被定位」与实质的结构:我以「信息」指明那个材料的支持,具体辞说从语言借用过来的材料的支持(1977a,147/495)。

Admittedly, these are ambiguous formulations, but they do signify, at any rate, that the signifier does not incarnate a prior ideality.28 If, as Benveniste proposes in his rectification of Saussure,29 “the concept boeufis like the soul of the sound-image bof” then, according to Lacan, we must add that the literal body of the signifier contains no soul (no meaning) before the spirit comes to it from its coupling with other bodies just as stupid as itself. The signifier is truly senseless (in-sense), “stupid” (bete; 1975c, 24), and, just like a character on a typewriter keyboard, it makes sense only by effacing another signifier, taking its place on the written page, next to other signifiers (with all the other, no less stupid, “typos” that this may imply—slips of the tongue and the pen, Witz, and so on).

尽管如此,这些是模棱两可的说明。但是无论如何,它们确实表达意涵,能指并没有作为一个先前的理念的具体化身。如同本温尼斯特在他修正索绪尔时建议的,boeuf就像是bof这个声音-意象的灵魂。因此,依照拉康,我们必须补充说,能指的实质身体,并没有包含灵魂(没有包含意义),在精神从跟其他跟它一样愚昧的身体交配后才来到它这里之前。这个能指确实没有意义,「愚昧」,1975c,24)。就像打字机键盘的字,能指仅有凭借抹除另外一个能指,在书写纸上取代它的位置,跟在其他的能指后面,才能产生意义。(跟所有其他同样愚昧的字型。这可能暗示着,口误与笔误,机智语,等等)。

2. The signifier is the source of the signified. The latter is never anything but an “effect” of these couplings and encroachments of signifiers, a “signified effect” (effet de signifie; 1975c, 22-23) *n In the sense in which we speak, for example, of a “Larsen effect” or an “optical illusion” (effet d’optique). This signified is truly nothing— nothing that would in effect be caused or produced by the signifier. In accord with the theory of value, meaning is never anything but an illusion, produced “between” signifiers, which themselves have no meaning—a sort of rainbow that eludes our grasp as soon as we try to approach it. “Sense,” Lacan maintains, “emerges from nonsense” (1977a, 158/508), and here is the whole “sense” (if we may call it that) of Lacan’s rewriting of the Saussurian schema of the sign, in which
能指是所指的来源。能指实实在在就是能指的这些交配与侵占的「效应」,「所指的效应」(1975c,22-23)。譬如,我们谈论到「回馈声音的效应」,或「视觉幻景」的意义。这个所指确实是空无――实际上将会被能指所引起或产生的空无。为了符合价值的理论,意义实实在在就是一个幻景,在能指「之间」被产生。而能指的本身并无任何意义。能指是我们无法掌握的一种彩虹,当我们尝试接近它。拉康主张,「意义从无意义中出现」(1977a,158/508)。这就是拉康重新改写索绪尔的符号的基模的全部「意义」。在那里,

/ Concept \
      ――――――――――
Sound- /
image /

is transformed into the “algorithm”

这个图形被转变成为「运算式」:

           S
           -
           s

“which is read as: the signifier over the signified, ‘over’ corresponding to the bar separating the two stages” (1977a, 149/497). S, the creative and capital signifier, hereafter precedes, in all its supremacy, its passive and secondary effect: the $ of the signified.30

这个运算式阅读如下:「能指在所指之上,超越分开这两个阶段的这条横杆的对应之上」(1977a,149/497)。S是创造与大写字母的能指,它具有一切的优先,因此早先存在于它的被动与次级的效应:所指定这个s。

From the Floating Signifier to the Flowing Signified
从漂浮的能指,到流动的所指

The reader will have noted already that Lacan, while suppressing the ellipse and the inverted arrows that indicate the unity of the sign in Saussure’s diagram, nevertheless maintains and even accentuates the bar separating signifier from signified. The bar, he says enigmatically, “resists signification” (1977a, 149/497) and “creates a real border . . . between the floating signifier and the flowing signified” (1970, 68; see also 1970, 55; 1975c, 22, 35). In this way, every signifier becomes a “floating” one (that is, as Levi-Strauss said of the singular “zero symbol,” “empty of meaning”), and, like Noah’s ark, it sails the floodwaters of the signified, without clinging to them.

读者将会已经注意到,拉康在压制这个椭圆形与倒转的箭头,它在索绪尔的图形,指示著符号的一致性。可是,拉康主张,甚至强调分开能指与所指的这条横杠。他谜团一般地说,这条横杠「抗拒意义」(1977a,149/497),并且「创造一条真正的边界、、、在漂浮的能指与流动的所指之间的边界」(1970,68;)以这种方式,每个能指变成是一个「漂浮」的能指(如同列文、史特劳斯提到独特的「零度象征」,「掏空意义」。就像诺亚的方舟,它航行在所指的洪水之上,没有跟洪水紧连一块。

This seems to contradict not only the Saussurian formula but also its reformulation by Benveniste. Benveniste’s formula, we recall, reabsorbed the signified into the signifier only because of their union, which is also to say because of the perfect transparency that linguistic signs have for their users. Lacan, conversely, accentuates linguistic signs’ duality (he even calls it “duplicity”; 1981,136, 187) and, by the same token, their opacity, since a suitably repressive bar henceforth separates signifiers from their signified.31 Indeed, it is clear that Lacan is thinking here primarily of the incongruous products of the “dream work” or the Witz (such as ” Autodidasker” “famillionnair,” and so on), in which the one-to-one correspondence between signifier and signified is upset in favor of overdetermined and multivalent neologisms.

这似乎不但跟索绪尔的公式相牴触,而且跟本温尼斯特对它的重新说明相牴触。我们回顾一下,本温尼斯特的公式,将所指重新吸收进入能指,仅是因为它们的统合。这样就是说,因为语言符号拥有完美的透明,对于它们的使用者。相反地,拉康强调语言的符号的「双重性」,(他甚至称它为「欺骗性」1981,136,187)。同时具有「模糊性」,因为合宜的压抑的横杠,因此分开能指跟它们的所指。」的确,显而易见,拉康在此正在想到「梦的运作」或「机智语」(譬如,” Autodidasker” “famillionnair,”等等)的不协调的产物。在那里,能指与所指的一对一的对应被扰乱,为了迁就过分决定与多重价值的新词。

The “duplicity” of the signifier, Lacan tells us, is such that it can always still signify the most diverse things: “If the unconscious is the way that Freud describes it, a pun in itself can be the mainspring that sustains a symptom. . . . Without the fundamental duplicity of signifier and signified, no psychoanalytic determinism is conceivable” (1981,135-136).

拉康告诉我们,能指的这个「双重性」是如此强烈,以致它总是仍然能够意指著即使是多样性的东西:「假如无意识就是弗洛依德描述它的方式,它本身的双关语有时就是维持一个病征的原动、、、假如没有能指与所指的基本的双重性,没有精神分析的决定论能够被构想(1981,135-136)。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: