‌‌‌‌　　英：code;法：code

‌‌‌‌　　拉康从罗曼·雅各布森的交流理论中借用了“编码”这个术语。雅各布森提出他的“编码与信息”(code VS. Message)的对立相当于索绪尔的“语言与言语”(langue VS. Parole)。然而，拉康却在语言 (LANGUAGE)与编码的概念之间做出了一则重要的区分 (见：E, 84)。编码是动物交流的领域，而非主体间交流的领域语言的元素是能指 (SIGNIFIERS), 而编码的元素则是指示符（见：[[index 指示符]])。这个基本的差异便在于，在一个指示符及其指涉物之间有着某种固定的一一对应（一对一）的关系，而在一个能指与一个指涉物之间，或是在一个能指与一个所指之间，则没有任何这样的关系。因为指示符与指涉物之间的一一对应关系，编码便缺乏那种被拉康看作人类语言的基本特征的东西：歧义性与多义性的潜在可能性 (见：Lacan, 1973b).

‌‌‌‌　　拉康并非始终一致地在维持编码与语言之间的此种对立。例如，在1958一1959年度的研讨班上，当他提出欲望图解的基本单位时，他便把一个位点命名为编码，这个位点也被他指派为大他者的位置与能指的宝库。在此种情况下，“编码”这一术语便显然是基于跟“语言”一词的相同意义来使用的，即被用来命名主体可以使用的那些能指的集合。

‌‌‌‌　　(code) Lacan borrows the term 'code'from Roman Jakobson's theory of communication. Jakobson presents his opposition'code vs message'as an equivalent of Saussure's languevs parole. However, Lacan draws an important distinction between the concepts ofLANGUAGE and code (see E, 84). Codes are the province of animal communication, notof intersubjective communication. Whereas the elements of a language are SIGNIFIERS, the elements of a code are indices (see INDEX). The fundamental difference is that thereis a fixed bi-univocal (one-to-one) relationship between an index and its referent, whereasthere is no such relationship between a signifier and a referent or between a signifier anda signified. Because of the bi-univocal relation of indices and referents, codes lack what Lacan regards as the fundamental feature of human languages: the potential for ambiguityand equivocation (see Lacan, 1973b).

‌‌‌‌　　Lacan is not always consistent in maintaining this opposition between code andlanguage. In the seminar of 1958-9, for example, when presenting the elementary cell ofthe graph of desire, he designates one point as the code, which he also designates as theplace of the Other and the battery of signifiers. In this case, it is clear that the term 'code'is being used in the same sense as the term 'language', namely, to designate the set ofsignifiers available to the subject.