英：discourse;法：discours

每当拉康使用“话语”这个术语 (而不是说“言语”[speech])的时候，这都是为了强调语言的超个人性本质 (transindividual na-ture), 亦即言语总是隐含着另一主体、一个对话者的事实。因而，“无意识是他者 (other)的话语”(此语在1953年首度出现，尔后就变成了“无意识是大他者[Othr]的话语”)这一著名的拉康格言，便指明了无意识乃是从别处发送给主体的言语作用在主体上的效果；这一言语是由业已遭受遗忘的另一个主体，由另一个精神位点（另一场景）从别处发送给主体的。

在1969年，拉康开始以一种稍微不同的方式来使用“话语”这个术语，尽管该词本身仍然携带着对于主体间性（NTERSUBJECTIVITY)的强调。从此时起，该术语便指称了“在语言中建立起来的一种社会联结”(S20,21)。拉康鉴别出了社会联结 (socialbod)的四种可能类型，即对于各种主体间关系加以调节的象征网络 (symbolic network)的四种可能链接。这四大话语即主人话语 (the discourse of the master)、大学话语 (the discourse of the univer-sity)、癔症话语 (the discourse of the hysteric)以及分析家话语 (thediscourse of the analyst)。拉康用一则算法来代表这四大话语中的每一种：每则算法都包含有下列的四个代数学符号：

把这四大话语相互区分开来的就是这四个符号的位置。在四大话语的算法中存在着四个位置，其中的每个位置都由一个不同的名称来指代。这四个位置的名称如图2所示：拉康在其著作中的不同地方给这些位置赋予了不同的名称，而该图乃取自1972一1973年度的研讨班(S20,21)。

每一种话语都是通过把这四个代数学符号写在不同的位置上来界定的。这些符号始终保持着相同的顺序，因此每一种话语都仅仅是把这些符号旋转四分之一圈的结果。左上的位置 (即“动因”)是界定话语的主导型位置。除了这四个符号之外，每一则算法还包含一个从动因指向他者的箭头。这四大话语如图3所示 (取自S17,31).

在1971年，拉康提出这个动因的位置也是假相 (SEMBLANCE)的位置。在1972年，他又在这些公式中写入了两个箭头而不是一个箭头：一个箭头 (拉康将其标作“不可能性”)从动因指向他者，而另一箭头 (拉康将其标作“无能”)则从生产指向真理 (S20,21)。

主人话语 (the discourse of the MASTER)是其他三种话语从中衍生出来的基本话语。主导性的位置由主人能指 (S,)所占据，这一能指为另一能指，或者更确切地说，为所有其他能指 (S,)代表主体 (8)：然而，在这一能指运作中，总是存在着某种剩余，即对象小a (objet petit a)。这里的关键在于，一切旨在整体化 (totalisation)的企图都是注定要失败的。主人话语“掩盖了主体的割裂”(S17,118)。这一话语还清楚地阐明了主奴辩证法的结构。主人 (S,)是迫使奴隶 (S,)进行劳动的动因；这一劳动的结果是主人企图将其据为己有的某种剩余 (a).

大学话语是由主人话语的四分之一圈旋转（以逆时针的方向）而产生的。主导性的位置由知识 (savoir)所占据。这一话语阐明了这样一个事实，即在一切旨在向（小）他者传授某种表面上是“中性”的知识的企图背后，总是能够定位某种旨在掌控的企图 (对于知识的掌控，以及对于被授予这一知识的【小】他者的主宰)。大学话语代表着知识的霸权，这种知识的霸权在现代性中尤其可见于科学霸权的形式。

癔症话语同样是由主人话语的四分之一圈旋转而产生的，不过是以顺时针的方向。它不单单是“由癔症患者所发出的话语”，而且也是任何主体都可能被铭写于其中的某种社会联结。主导性的位置由分裂的主体亦即症状所占据。这一话语恰恰指明了通往知识的道路 (S17,23)。精神分析治疗便涉及“借助于一些人为条件而对癔症话语的结构性引入”；换句话说，分析家会“癔症化”病人的话语 (S17,35).

分析家话语是由癔症话语的四分之一圈旋转而产生的 (弗洛伊德正是以同样的方式，通过对其癔症患者的话语给予一种解释性的翻转而发展出了精神分析)。动因的位置一在治疗中由分析家所占据的位置一由对象小所占据；这就阐明了一个事实，即在治疗过程中，分析家必须成为分析者欲望的原因 (S17,41). 这一话语是主人话语的翻转的事实，便强调了对拉康而言，精神分析在本质上是一种颠覆性的实践，它削弱了所有那些旨在主宰与掌控的企图（有关四大话语的进一步资料，见：Bracher et al., 1994)。

(discours) Whenever Lacan uses the term 'discourse' (rather than, say,'speech') it is inorder to stress the transindividual nature of language, the fact that speech always impliesanother subject, an interlocutor. Thus the famous Lacanian formula, the unconscious isthe discourse of the other' (which first appears in 1953, and later becomes 'theunconscious is the discourse of the Other') designates the unconscious as the effects onthe subject of speech that is addressed to him from elsewhere; by another subject who hasbeen forgotten, by another psychic locality (the other scene).

In 1969, Lacan begins to use the term'discourse'in a slightly different way, thoughone that still carries with it the stress on INTERSUBJECTIVITY. From this point on theterm designates 'a social bond, founded in language' (S20,21). Lacan identifies fourpossible types of social bond, four possible articulations of the symbolic network whichregulates intersubjective relations. These four discourses'are the discourse of themaster, the discourse of the university, the discourse of the hysteric, and the discourse ofthe analyst. Lacan represents each of the four discourses by an algorithm: each algorithmcontains the following four algebraic symbols:

What distinguishes the four discourses from one another is the positions of these foursymbols. There are four positions in the algorithms of the four discourses, each of whichis designated by a different name. The names of the four positions are shown in Figure 2; Lacan gives different names to thesepositions at different points in his work, and this figure is taken from the 1972-3 seminar (S20,21).

Each discourse is defined by writing the four algebraic symbols in a different position. The symbols always remain in the same order, so each discourse is simply the result ofrotating the symbols a quarter turn. The top-left position ('the agent') is the dominantposition which defines the discourse. In addition to the four symbols, each algorithm also contains an arrow going from the agent to the other. The four discourses are shown in Figure 3 (taken from S17,31).

In 1971, Lacan proposes that the position of the agent is also the position of theSEMBLANCE. In 1972, Lacan inscribes two arrows in the formulas instead of one; onearrow (which Lacan labels 'impossibility') goes from the agent to the other, and the otherarrow (which is labelled 'powerlessness') goes from production to truth (S20,21).

The discourse of the MASTER is the basic discourse from which the other threediscourses are derived. The dominant position is occupied by the master signifier (S1), which represents the subject (for another signifier or, more precisely, for all othersignifiers (S2); however, in this signifying operation there is always a surplus, namely, objet petit a.The point is that all attempts at totalisation are doomed to failure. Thediscourse of the master 'masks the division of the subject' (S17,118). The discourse alsoillustrates clearly the structure of the dialectic of the master and the slave. The master (S) is the agent who puts the slave (S2) to work; the result of this work is a surplus (a) thatthe master attempts to appropriate.

The discourse of the university is produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of themaster (anticlockwise). The dominant position is occupied by knowledge (savoir). Thisillustrates the fact that behind all attempts to impart an apparently 'neutral'knowledge tothe other can always be located an attempt at mastery (mastery of knowledge, anddomination of the other to whom this knowledge is imparted). The discourse of theuniversity represents the hegemony of knowledge, particularly visible in modernity in theform of the hegemony of science.

The discourse of the hysteric is also produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of themaster, but in a clockwise direction. It is not simply 'that which is uttered by a hysteric', but a certain kind of social bond in which any subject may be inscribed. The dominantposition is occupied by the divided subject, the symptom. This discourse is that whichpoints the way towards knowledge (S17,23). Psychoanalytic treatment involves 'thestructural introduction of the discourse of the hysteric by means of artificial conditions'; in other words, the analyst 'hystericises'the patient's discourse (S17,35).

The discourse of the analyst is produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of thehysteric (in the same way as Freud developed psychoanalysis by giving an interpretative turn to the discourse of his hysterical patients).The position of the agent,which is theposition occupied by the analyst in the treatment,is occupied by objet petit a;thisillustrates the fact that the analyst must,in the course of the treatment,become the causeof the analysand's desire (S17,41).The fact that this discourse is the inverse of thediscourse of the master emphasises that,for Lacan,psychoanalysis is an essentiallysubversive practice which undermines all attempts at domination and mastery.(Forfurther information on the four discourses,see Bracher et al.,1994.)