英：letter; 法：lettre
拉康对于“字符”的频繁提及，必须在索绪尔对语言（LANGUAGE)进行讨论的语境之中来看待。在索绪尔的《普通语言学教程》(Course in General Linguistics)中，他给口头语言 (spoken language)赋予了凌驾在书面语言 (written language)之上的特权，因为前者无论在人类的历史上还是在个体的生活中皆是先于后者而出现的。书写 (writing)仅仅被构想为口头语言的二手表象，而能指 (SIGNIFIER)则纯粹被构想为一种声像 (acoustic image),而非一种图像 (graphic image)(Saussure, 1916).
当拉康在1950年代借鉴索绪尔著作中的观点时，他使之随意地适合于他自己的目的。因而，他便不是把字符构想为只是声音的图像表征，而是将其构想为语言本身的物质基础，“我以‘字符’来指称的是具体的话语从语言中借取的那一物质性支撑”（E, 147)。字符因而便被联系于实在界，即从下面支撑着象征秩序的一种物质性基底。对拉康而言，物质性 (materiality)的概念同时隐含着不可分割性 (indivisibility)的观念与定位性 (locality)的观念；因此，字符便“在本质上是经过定位的能指结构”（E, 153; 见：S20,30)(见：唯物主义[MATERIALISM]).
作为实在界中的一个元素，字符就其本身而言是无意义的。拉康通过参照古埃及的象形文字 (正如弗洛伊德所做的那样见：Freud, 1913b:SEXⅢ，117)来阐明这一点，长久以来，这些象形文字都是欧洲人所无法破译的。直到商博良 (Champollion)①能够基于罗塞塔石碑 (Rosetta Stone)破译它们之前，没有任何人知道如何去理解这些神秘的铭文，然而清楚的是，它们是被组织在一套能指系统之中的 (S1,244-5: 见：E, 160)。以同样的方式，能指作为一个无意义的字符而坚持着，这一无意义的字符标记着主体的命运，而且是主体必须破译的。对此，一个绝佳的例子即狼人个案，弗洛伊德从中注意到，无意义的字母“V”以很多样貌重复出现在狼人的生活里 (Freud, 1918b).
正如狼人的例子所表明的那样，字符在本质上是返回其自身并重复其自身的东西：它不断坚持着将其自身铭写在主体的生活之中。拉康参照埃德加·爱伦·坡的小说《失窃的信》(Po, 1844)而阐明了此种重复 (REPITTTION)。通过玩味“letter”一词的双重意义 (字符/书信)，拉康提出爱伦·坡所描述的一封书面文件（一封信）几度易手的故事，恰恰是对于能指的隐喻，这个能指在不同的主体之间循环流通，同时给任何为其所占据的人指派了一个特殊的位置 (Lacan, 1955a)。正是在这篇文章里，拉康提出：“一封信总是会抵达它的目的地。”(Ec, 41)
正是因为字符在无意识中的作用，分析家不应当聚焦在分析者话语的意义或意指之上，而应当纯粹聚焦在它的那些形式属性之上：分析家必须将分析者的言语当作一则文本那样来阅读，“从字面上看待它”(prendre a la lettre)。因而，在字符与书写之间便存在着一种紧密的联系，拉康在其1972一1973年度的研讨班上考察了此种联系 (S20,29-38)。虽然字符与书写皆被定位于实在界的秩序，且因此带有一种无意义的性质，但是拉康指出，字符是人们要阅读的东西，而书写则恰恰相反，是不要被阅读的东西（S20,29)。书写也同样被联系于形式化 (formalisation)和数元 (mathemes)的概念；拉康因而讲到他的那些代数学符号皆是“字符/字母”(S20,30)
拉康的字符概念是雅克·德里达 (Derrida, 1975)以及德里达的两位追随者拉库-拉巴特与南希 (Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy, 1973)所批判的一个主题。拉康在其1972一1973年度的研讨班上提到了拉库-拉巴特与南希的著作 (S20,626)。
(lettre) Lacan's frequent references to 'the letter'must be seen within the context of Saussure's discussion of LANGUAGE. In his Course in General Linguistics, Saussureprivileges spoken language above written language, on the grounds that the formerappears before the latter both in the history of humanity and in the life of the individual. Writing is conceived of as a mere secondhand representation of spoken language, and theSIGNIFIER is conceived of as purely an acoustic image and not as a graphicone (Saussure, 1916).
When Lacan takes up Saussure's work in the 1950s, he adapts it freely to his ownpurposes. He thus conceives of the letter, not as a mere graphic representation of a sound, but as the material basis of language itself; By letter I designate that material supportthat concrete discourse borrows from language' (E, 147). The letter is thus connectedwith the real, a material substrate that underpins the symbolic order. The concept ofmateriality implies, for Lacan, both the idea of indivisibility and the idea of locality; theletter is therefore 'the essentially localised structure of the signifier' (E, 153; see S20,30)(see MATERIALISM).
As an element of the real, the letter is meaningless in itself. Lacan illustrates this byreferring (as did Freud-see Freud, 1913b: SE XIII, 177) to ancient Egyptianhieroglyphics, which were indecipherable to Europeans for so long. Until Champollionwas able to decipher them on the basis of the Rosetta Stone, no one knew how tounderstand these enigmatic inscriptions, but it was nevertheless clear that they wereorganised into a signifying system (S1,244-5; see E, 160). In the same way, the signifierpersists as a meaningless letter which marks the destiny of the subject and which he mustdecipher. A good example of this is the case of the Wolf Man, in which Freud noted that the meaningless letter V reappeared under many guises in the Wolf Man's life (Freud, 1918b).
As the example of the Wolf Man demonstrates, the letter is essentially that whichreturns and repeats itself; it constantly insists in inscribing itself in the subject's life. Lacan illustrates this REPETITION by reference to Edgar Allan Poe's story The Purloined Letter (Poe, 1844). Playing on the double-meaning of the term 'letter', Lacanpresents Poe's account of a written document (a letter) which passes through varioushands as a metaphor for the signifier which circulates between various subjects, assigninga peculiar position to whoever is possessed by it (Lacan, 1955a). It is in this paper that Lacan proposes that'a letter always arrives at its destination' (Ec, 41).
It is because of the role of the letter in the unconscious that the analyst must focus noton the meaning or the signification of the analysand's discourse, but purely on its formalproperties; the analyst must read the analysand's speech as if it were a text,'taking itliterally' (prendre a la lettre). There is thus a close connection between the letter andwriting, a connection which Lacan explores in his seminar of 1972-3 (S20,29-38). Although both the letter and writing are located in the order of the real, and hence partakeof a meaningless quality, Lacan argues that the letter is that which one reads, as opposedto writing, which is not to be read (S20,29). Writing is also connected with the idea offormalisation and the mathemes; Lacan thus speaks of his algebraic symbols as 'letters' (S20,30).
Lacan's concept of the letter is the subject of a critique by Jacques Derrida (1975) andby two of Derrida's followers (Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy, 1973). Lacan refers to thelatter work in his 1972-3 seminar (S20,62-6)