24,656
edits
Changes
no edit summary
[[Lacan]] wanted to emphasize]] that the [[signifier]] and the [[signified]] are two distinct and ''separate'' [[order]]s. He therefore introduced what he called a '[[cut]]' (''[[coupure]]'') into the [[Saussure]]an [[sign]] with the introduction of a new emphasis on the [[bar]], as a formula of spearateness rather than reciprocity of [[signifier]] and [[signified]].
Lacan writes that the algorithm that is the foundation of modern linguistics is S/s. While Saussure formulated the signified ontop,Lacan puts the signifier on top - to give it pre-eminence. He argued that singifiers are combined in a signifying chain. Meaning does not arise in the individual signifier but in the conneciton between signifiers. Saussure ahd admitted that there can occur a shift or sliding (''glissement'') in the relationship between the signifier and signified. In constract, Lacan argues not only that the two realms of signifier and signified are never united, but that there is an incessant sliding of the signified under the signifier. This does not mean thtat there are no moments of stability at all. Lacan suggests that there are "anchoring points" (points de capiton); these are certain "modal points" which stop the sliding signifiers and hix their meaning.
==Jacques Lacan==
[[Lacan]] defines the [[sign]] as that which "represents something for someone," in opposition to the [[signifier]], which is "that which represents a subject for another signifier."<ref>{{S11}} p. 207</ref>
=====Semotics=====
By engaging with the concept of the [[sign]], [[Lacan]] sets his work in close relation to the [[science]] of [[semiotics]], which has grown rapidly in the twentieth century.
Two main lines of development can be discerned within [[semiotics]]: the European line associated with [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] (which [[Saussure]] himself baptized with the name of "[[semiology]]"), and the North American line associated with [[Charles S. Peirce]].
===Charles S. Peirce===
According to [[Peirce]], the [[sign]] is something whcih represents an [[object]] to some interpretant (the term "object can mean, for [[Peirce]], a physical thing, an event, an idea, or another [[sign]]).
[[Peirce]] divides [[signs]] into three classes: "[[symbol]]s", "[[index|indices]]" and "[[icon]]s," which differ in the way they relate to the [[object]].
The [[symbol]] has no "natural" or necessary relationship to the [[object]] it refers to, but is related to the [[object]] by a purely conventional rule.
The [[index]] has an "existential relation" to the [[object]] it represents (i.e. the [[index]] is always spatially or temporally contiguous to the [[object]]).
The [[icon]] represents an [[object]] by exhibiting its form via similarity.
[[Peirce]]'s distinctions between [[icon]]s, [[index|indices]] and [[symbol]]s are analytical and not intended to be mutually exclusive.
Hence a [[sign]] will almost always function in a variety of modes; personal pronouns, for example, are [[sign]]s which function both symbolically and indexically.
=====Jacques Lacan=====
[[Lacan]] takes up [[Peirce]]'s concept of the [[index]] in order to distinguish between the [[psychoanalytic]] and medical concepts of the [[symptom]], and to distinguish between (animal) [[code]]s and (human) [[language]]s.
[[Lacan]] also develops the concept of the [[index]] along the lines set down by [[Roman Jakobson]] in the concept of the [[shifter]], to distinguish between the [[subject]] of the [[statement]] and the [[subject]] of the [[enunciation]].
------
The term "[[sign]]' ([[French]]: ''[[signe]]'') is defined by [[Jacques Lacan]] as that which "represents something for someone."
<references/>
* sign, 35, 54, 157, 207, 237, 245 [[Seminar XI]]
