英：speech; 法：parole
法文术语“parole”给英文译者带来了相当大的困难，因为它并不对应于任何一个英文单词。在某些语境下，它对应着英文的“言语”(speech)一词，而在其他语境下则最好被翻译为“言词”(word).
从1950年代早期开始，“言语”(parole)就变成了拉康著作中最重要的术语之一。在他著名的《罗马报告》中，拉康便谴责当代精神分析理论如何忽视了言语在精神分析中的角色，并且力主将焦点重新聚焦在言语与语言 (LANGUAGE)之上 (Lacan, 1953a)。拉康对“言语”这一术语的使用，较少地归功于索绪尔 (索绪尔在“言语”[parole]与“语言”[langue]之间的区分，在拉康的著作中被“言语”[parole]与“语言”[langage]之间的对立所取代)，而更多地取决于对人类学、神学以及形而上学的参照。
·人类学拉康把言语的概念看作“将人类彼此联系起来”的一种“象征交换”(S1,142), 这明显是受到了莫斯与列维-斯特劳斯著作的影响，尤其是他们关于礼物交换的分析。因而，弗洛伊德的那些解释便被描述为“一种言语的象征性礼物，孕育着一种秘密的契约”(E, 79)。言语的概念作为一种契约同时指派了受话人与发话人的角色，这在拉康的基底言语 (FOUNDING SPEECH)概念中得到了系统的阐述。
·神学在拉康的著作中，言语同样呈现出了一些宗教与神学的意涵，这些意涵皆明确地源自那些东方的宗教 (E, 106-7)与犹太教一基督教的传统 (E, 106)。在1954年，拉康便参照圣奥古斯丁的《论词句的表意》(De locutionis significatione)来讨论言语 (Sl, 24760)。如同《创世纪》中上帝所发出的话语那样，言语是一种“象征性的祈灵”(symbolic invocation),它无中生有地 (ex nihilo)创造了“人与人之间关系中的一种全新的存在秩序”(S1,239).
·形而上学拉康援引了海德格尔在“话语”(Rede)与“闲言”(Gerede)之间的区分，以阐述他自己在“充实言语”(parolepleine)与“空洞言语”(parole vide)之间的区分 (见：E, 40f.)。拉康最初做出这一区分是在1953年，尽管在1955年之后，这一区分便不再在他的著作中扮演一个重要的角色，但是它从未完全消失。充实言语 (full speech)链接着语言的象征性维度，而空洞言语 (empty speech)则链接着语言的想象性维度，即从自我到相似者的言语。“充实言语是一种充满意义 (sens)的言语，空洞言语则是一种只有意指 (signification)的言语。”(Lacan, 1976; Ornicar?, nos17/18:11)
充实言语也被称作“真言”(rue speech), 因为它比较接近主体欲望的谜一般的真相：“充实言语即指向真理并构成真理的言语，因为真理是在一个人对另一个人的承认中被建立起来的。充实言语是述行 (qui fait acte)的言语。”(S1, I07)“实际上，充实言语是由它与其所言及之物的同一性来界定的。”(Ec, 381)
此外，在空洞言语中，主体是异化于他的欲望的；在空洞言语中“主体似乎是在徒劳地谈论某人…而此人却永远无法变成那个承担起他的欲望的人”(E, 45)
分析家在倾听分析者时的任务之一，便在于识别出那些充实言语冒起的时刻。充实言语与空洞言语是一个连续体上的两个极点，而“言语实现模式的整个范围便展开在这两极之间”(S1,50). 精神分析治疗的目标是链接充实言语，这是一项艰难的工作，真实言语要链接起来可能是相当费力 (penible)的 (E, 253).
空洞言语不同于谎言。相反，相比于很多实话，谎言往往会更加充分地揭示出有关欲望的真理 (TRUTH)(见：S11,139-40). 因为“在欲望与言语之间存在着一种根本的不相容”(E, 275), 所以永远都不可能在言语中道出某人欲望的全部真理，“我总是在讲述真理，却并非全部的真理，因为我们无法讲出它的全部。讲出它的全部实质上是不可能的”(Lacan, 1973a:9)。因而，充实言语便不是在言语中去道出有关主体欲望的全部真理，而是在某个特殊的时间上尽可能充分地去链接这一真理的言语。
言语是触及有关欲望的真理的唯一手段，“唯有言语才是打开那一真理之门的钥匙”(E, 172)。此外，精神分析理论还宣称只有一种特殊的言语才能通向这一真理，即以自由联想 (freeassociation)而著称的一种不受意识控制的言语。
(parole) The French term parole presents considerable difficulty to the English translatorbecause it does not correspond to any one English word. In some contexts it correspondsto the English term 'speech', and in others is best translated as 'word'.
Parole becomes one of the most important terms in Lacan's work from the early1950s on. In his famous 'Rome discourse', Lacan denounces the way that the role ofspeech in psychoanalysis had come to be neglected by contemporary psychoanalytictheory, and argues for a renewed focus on speech and LANGUAGE (Lacan, 1953a). Lacan's use of the term parole owes little to Saussure (whose opposition between paroleand langue is replaced in Lacan's work with the opposition between parole and langage), and is far more determined by references to anthropology, theology, and metaphysics.
Anthropology Lacan's concept of speech as a 'symbolic exchange'which 'linkshuman beings to each other' (S1,142) is clearly influenced by the work of Mauss and Levi-Strauss, especially their analysis of the exchange of gifts. Thus Freud'sinterpretations are described as 'a symbolic gift of speech, pregnant with a secret pact' (E, 79). The concept of speech as a pact which assigns roles to both the addressee and theaddresser is formulated in Lacan's concept of FOUNDING SPEECH.
.Theology Speech also takes on religious and theological connotations in Lacan'swork, in terms derived both from Eastern religions (E, 106-7) and the Judaeo-Christiantradition (E, 106). In 1954, Lacan discusses speech with reference to St Augustine's Delocutionis significatione (S1,247-60). Like the words uttered by God in Genesis, speechis a'symbolic invocation'which creates, ex nihilo,'a new order of being in the relationsbetween men' (S1,239).
Metaphysics Lacan draws on Heidegger's distinction between Rede (discourse) and Gerede (chatter) to elaborate his own distinction between 'full speech' (parole pleine) and 'empty speech' (parole vide)(see E, 40ff.). Lacan first makes this distinction in1953, and though it no longer plays an important part in his work after 1955, it neverdisappears completely. Full speech articulates the symbolic dimension of language, whereas empty speech articulates the imaginary dimension of language, the speech fromthe ego to the counterpart. Full speech is a speech full of meaning [sens]. Empty speechis a speech which has only signification' (Lacan, 1976-7; Ornicar?, nos 17/18:11).
Full speech is also called 'true speech', since it is closer to the enigmatic truth of thesubject's desire: Full speech is speech which aims at, which forms, the truth such as itbecomes established in the recognition of one person by another. Full speech is speechwhich performs [qui fait acte]' (S1,107). Full speech, in effect, is defined by its identitywith that which it speaks about' (Ec, 381).
In empty speech, on the other hand, the subject is alienated from his desire; in emptyspeech 'the subject seems to be talking in vain about someone who... Can never becomeone with the assumption of his desire' (E, 45).
One of the analyst's tasks when listening to the analysand is to discern the momentswhen full speech emerges. Full speech and empty speech are the extreme points on acontinuum, and between these two extremes, a whole gamut of modes of realisation ofspeech is deployed' (S1,50). The aim of psychoanalytic treatment is to articulate fullspeech, which is hard work; full speech can be quite laborious (penible) to articulate (E, 253).
Empty speech is not the same as lying; on the contrary, lies often reveal the TRUTHabout desire more fully than many honest statements (see S11,139-40). It is neverpossible to articulate in speech the whole truth of one's desire, because of a fundamental'incompatibility between desire and speech' (E, 275); I always tell the truth; not thewhole truth, because we are not capable of telling it all. Telling it all is materiallyimpossible' (Lacan, 1973a:9). Full speech, then, is not the articulation in speech of thewhole truth about the subject's desire, but the speech which articulates this truth as fullyas possible at a particular time.
Speech is the only means of access to the truth about desire;'speech alone is the keyto that truth' (E, 172). Moreover, psychoanalytic theory claims that it is only a particularkind of speech that leads to this truth; a speech without conscious control, known as freeassociation