000			02051cam a2200241 4500500
005			20250119110913.0
041			_afre
042			_adc
100	1	0	_aHarari, Roberto _eauthor
245	0	0	_aLanguage as Writing: Lacanian Theory and Clinical Analysis
260			_c2003.
500			_a7
520			_aThe link between language and writing is understandable, and even necessary, if we follow an axis composed of the following vectors: letter-homophony-sound (the fact that a word is consonant with another) absence (or ab-sense) of meaning. Indeed, only writing allows us to set apart and distinguish two words that sound the same or nearly the same. By introducing this type of listening we can say, metaphorically, that the analyzed and the analyst “avail themselves of writing.” This concerns the work performed in relation to what Lacan (playing on mot for word) called motérialisme, exemplified through a paronomasia within the very construction of the word. It is the real bias of language that is taken into account, and not merely its symbolic aspect. Indeed, the latter operates in relation to other well-known vectors: signifier-homonymy-resonation-polysemy. Of course, that exclusivity does not take us far in terms of clinical effectiveness, as analysis fills the patient’s imagination even more, whereas treatment should create favorable conditions to find new signifiers. This approach to the real bias of language derives from the case of Anna O., the famous fetishist of the Freudian article, and the phantasy of the giraffe in the case of Little Hans, where we find the chiffonnage, or crumpling (of paper but also of letters).
690			_ahomophony
690			_awriting
690			_asounding
690			_anew signifiers
690			_achiffonnage
690			_amoterialisme
690			_aLetter
786	0		_nCliniques méditerranéennes | o 68 | 2 | 2003-09-01 | p. 75-97 | 0762-7491
856	4	1	_uhttps://shs.cairn.info/journal-cliniques-mediterraneennes-2003-2-page-75?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080
999			_c413241 _d413241