语言的神秘5

语言的神秘5
Linguisteries

雅克慎论拉康
Lacan TheAbsolute Master
拉康,绝对主任

Already this means that the “signifier,” separated from the signified, is no longer the Saussurian linguists’ signifier; the latter, we should emphasize, cannot be equivocal. To concede that it could be equivocal would be to annul the very principle of the sign’s diacritical “value,” as Benveniste firmly points out with respect to the hypothesis of Abel and Freud on the “antithetical meaning of primal words”: “It is thus a priori improbable . .. that. . . languages (langues) … escape the ‘principle of contradiction.'”32 If poly-semia exists, it can only be a polysemia regulated within the lexical order of the langue.

这已经意味着,跟所指分开的这个能指,不再是索绪尔语言学家的能指。我们应该强调,后者不可能是模棱两可的。承认它可能模棱两可,将是让可辨别的「价值」的原则荡然无效。如同本温尼斯特坚定地指出,关于阿贝尔与弗洛依的的假设,对于「最初话语的反意义」:「它因此是不可能的以因推果、、、语言逃离悖论的原则」。假如一词多义存在,那仅是在语意的词彙秩序之内被规范的一词多义。

From this perspective, the langue of the linguists—which, as we too often forget, is an object constructed in theory—is farther from natural languages than from those artificial languages that Lacan regularly criticizes for their wish to get rid of signifying equivocation (“If artificial languages are stupid, it is because they are constructed on the basis of signification”; 1981, 65; see also 1975c, 22-23, an^ I973a> 4> 47-48).

从这个观点,语言学家的语意—我们经常忘记,语意是在理论里被建构的一个客体。比起那些人为的语言,它绝非是自然的语言。拉康经常批评它们,因为它们希望废除掉能指意涵的模棱两可(假如人为语言是愚昧的,那是因为它们被建构,根据意义的基础)1981,645)。

There is no linguistics of the pun (or there is only a “linguistery”), for puns, like oneiric “portmanteau” words, the neologisms of delirium, and poetic metaphors, transgress the differences coded into langue (Lacan was later to express this by creating the conceptual pun lalangue, which concept, he said, cannot be reduced to what linguistic science can know; 1975c, 126-127).33 In the eyes of linguists, all the phenomena of equivocality which Lacan alleges as support for his theory of the “duplicity” of signifier and signified, have nothing to do with linguistics but rather with (as Benveniste once more observes) a stylistics (or a rhetoric) of discourse.34 Indeed, only at this level, that of spoken language,35 can the “signifier” (if it still is one) “float” freely enough to create a new meaning.

并不存在著双关语的语言学(或仅存在着一个「语言的神秘」),因为双关语,就像梦的「新词」的文字,谵妄动新词,诗的隐喻,「逾越」被记入语意的符码的差异(拉康后来将表达这个,凭借创造观念的双关语lalague。他说,观念无法被化简成为语言的科学能够知道的东西;1975c,126-127)。在语言学家的眼中,所有的模棱两可的现象,拉康宣称作为他的能指与所指的双重性的理论的支持。这些现象跟语言学没有丝毫关系。相反地,它们辞说的风格学有关(如同本温尼斯特再次观察到)。的确,仅有在这个层次,被言说的语言的层次,这个「能指」(假如它依旧是能指的话),才能够充分自由地漂浮,来创造新的意义。

As for Lacan’s citing the fact that “under the same signifier there are, down the ages, slippages of signification, proving that we cannot establish a one-to-one correspondence between the two systems” (1981, 135), this does not at all “prove” that the signified slides under the signifier in the order of synchrony. That the adjective atterre first meant “set upon the earth” (mis a terre) and then, through progressive homophonic contamination, came to mean “struck with terror” (“frappede terreur”) (SV, 13 November 1957) may afford a glimpse into how langue evolves diachronically.

至于拉康引述这个事实:「在相同的能指之下,几世纪来,就存在着意义的滑动,证明我们无法建立一个一对一的对应,在这两个系统之间」(1981,135)。这根本就不是证明,所指在能指之下滑动,在共时性的秩序。Atterre的这个形容词,首先意味着,「攻击大地」,然后,经历逐渐的同音的污染,才逐渐地意味着「受到恐惧侵袭」(1957,11,13)。这才让我们能够瞥见语意如何历时性地进化。

Nevertheless, the linguists would say, only through a retrospective illusion can we conclude, as Lacan does, that the signifier is separated from the signified by “a bar that resists signification.” According to the era considered, atterre signifies either “set upon the earth” or “struck with terror,” and this is all that structural linguistics can and wants to know. Again, for linguists, the fact that the signified is an effect of the signifier does not at all mean that the signifier could signify any old thing (or, what amounts to the same thing, nothing at all); on the contrary, it means that they adhere so closely that they can be separated only through an abstraction.

可是,语言学家将会说,仅有经历一个回顾的幻景,我们才能够如同拉康那样,获得这个结论:能指跟所指,被抗拒意义的这条横杠隔开。依照被考虑到时代,atterre 意涵著,要就是「攻击大地」,要不就是「受到恐惧侵袭」。这就是结构语言学能够而且想要知道的一切。而且,对于语言学家,所指是能指的结果的这个事实,丝毫没有意味著,能指能够意指著任何旧的东西(或相当等于相同的东西,根本就没有);相反地,它意味着,它们如此密切地坚持,以致于它们仅有凭借抽离,才能够分开。

Must we conclude, then (as Jean-Francois Lyotard does in Dis-cours, figure), that Lacan’s emphasis on the bar between signifier and signified surreptitiously reintroduces the problem of meaning, in its classical “thickness” or “depth,” within a theory of signification and value that specifically suspends it?36 In a way, we must, since Lacan actually does revive the mirage of a signified independent of the signifier (and we will see why in a moment). But he does this, it seems to me, the better to present the evanescence of this mirage. On this point, Lacan does not challenge the principle of structural linguistics, even if he does apply it unduly, as Lyotard justly notes, to the realm of discursive speech. In Lacan, meaning is certainly maintained apart from the signifier, but only as a void, a vanishing point, or, as Merleau-Ponty also says with respect to Saussure, as “the idea in the Kantian sense.”37 Indeed, that there is a “bar that resists signification” does not at all mean that there is some opaque signified hidden “behind” or “under” signifiers. On the contrary, it means that the signified, precisely because it is an effect of the signifies perpetually “slips” and “flows” under the signifier (1977a, 153-154/502; 1981,135, 296-297), like ungraspable water.

我们因此必须下此结论(如同詹-法兰克 李歐塔所为):拉康对于能指与所指之间的这条横杠的强调,秘密地重新介绍意义的难题,在它的古典的「厚度」或「深度」,在意义与明确悬置意义的价值的理论里?在某方面,我们必须下此结论,因为拉康实际上复活所指独立于能指之外的幻景,(等一下,我们将会看出为什么)。但是我觉得,他这样做,最好是呈现这个幻景的逐渐消失。对于这一点,拉康并没有挑战结构语言学的原则,即使他不合宜地运用它,如同李欧塔公平地注意到,运用它到辞说的言说的领域。在拉康,意义确实被维持于能指之外,但是仅是作为一个空无,一个消失点。或如同梅洛庞帝也这样说,关于索绪尔,作为具有「康德意涵的观念」。的确,有一条抗拒意义的横杠,丝毫没有意味著,有某个模糊的所指隐藏在能指点{背后}或「底下」。相反地,它意味着,确实是因为所指是能指的结果,所指在能指之下,永久地「滑动」与「流动」,就像是无法掌握的水(1977a,153-154)。

Hence, Lacan explains, the impossibility of establishing a one-to-one correspondence between the “tide” of signifiers and the “tide” of signifieds, as the Saussurian schema of the two “floating realms”38 had suggested (1981, 135, 295-303; 1977a, 154/ 502-503):

因此,拉康解释,不可能建立一对一的对应,在能指的潮汐与所指的潮汐之间,如同索绪尔的两个「漂浮的领域」的基模曾经建议的(1981,135,295-303)。

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: