Signifier
| French: signifier |
In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the signifier refers to the fundamental unit of the symbolic order—a unit that structures not only language but also the subject and the unconscious. Derived from the linguistic theories of Ferdinand de Saussure, the signifier in Lacan’s framework takes on a transformative role, shifting from a mere vehicle of meaning to a structural agent that generates meaning through its differential position within a closed system. Lacan reinterprets the relation between the signifier and the signified, emphasizing the primacy of the signifier and its constitutive role in subjectivity, speech, and desire.
Saussurean Origins
The term "signifier" originates in the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, who defined it as the "acoustic image"—the mental impression of a sound associated with a particular sign. In Saussure’s model, a linguistic sign is composed of two inseparable components:
- the signifier (signifiant) — the sound-image
- the signified (signifié) — the concept or meaning associated with that sound[1]
While Saussure emphasized their mutual dependence, he acknowledged that both were defined relationally within a system of language.
Lacan’s Reversal: Primacy of the Signifier
Lacan adopts Saussure’s concept but inverts the structural relation. In his reconfiguration, the **signifier precedes and produces the signified**, marking a decisive shift from a model of mutual dependence to one of structural primacy. The **signifier does not express a pre-existing meaning** but rather generates meaning through its difference from other signifiers within the system:
"Every real signifier is, as such, a signifier that signifies nothing. The more the signifier signifies nothing, the more indestructible it is."[2]
Lacan introduces the concept of the "pure signifier", one that initially lacks any signified content but is necessary for the function of signification.
Signifiers and the Subject
For Lacan, the unconscious is structured like a language, and the subject is constituted through the effects of the signifier. The relation between subject and signifier is formalized in Lacan’s well-known definition:
"A signifier is that which represents a subject for another signifier."[3]
This recursive definition implies that subjectivity is **split and deferred**, produced through the chain of signifiers that never reaches completion. The subject is not represented directly but only through the interplay of signifiers—most notably, through the intervention of the Master Signifier, denoted as:
→
Here, (the master signifier) represents the subject in relation to the field of all other signifiers . Yet no signifier can fully capture or ground the subject’s being.
The Signifying Chain and Metonymy
Signifiers are linked in chains, governed not by semantic coherence but by structural rules of combination, particularly those of metonymy and metaphor. These **signifying chains** allow unconscious meaning to emerge through displacement, condensation, and misrecognition. The signifier is thus not a bearer of meaning but the operator of symbolic difference.
"Language is not composed of signs, but of signifiers subjected to the double condition of being reducible to ultimate differential elements and of combining according to the laws of a closed order."[4]
The Symbolic Order and the Other
The field of signifiers constitutes what Lacan terms the Symbolic Order, regulated by the big Other—the locus of language, law, and social structure. The symbolic is the realm in which the subject is inserted via language, and the signifier operates as the subject’s entry point into this structure. Lacan refers to this system as the "battery of signifiers"—a matrix through which all meaning is mediated.
Beyond Words: Signifiers and Non-Linguistic Phenomena
While often correlated with words, Lacan emphasizes that signifiers are not restricted to verbal expressions. Elements such as symptomatic acts, bodily gestures, objects, or institutional positions may function as signifiers—so long as they acquire their function through differential relations within a structured field[5]. Even Freud’s work, which never uses the term explicitly, consistently interprets slips, dreams, and symptoms as governed by linguistic mechanisms, anticipating the Lacanian focus on the formal properties of language[6].
The Instability of Meaning
Because the signifier’s function depends on difference and positionality, it resists any fixed or univocal meaning. The signified is not a stable referent but a shifting effect of signifying relations. Meaning, therefore, is always **deferred**, echoing Derrida’s concept of différance but grounded in Lacan’s structural and clinical theory.
See Also
External Links
- "What Does Lacan Say About... The Signifier?", Owen Hewitson – LacanOnline.com
References
- ↑ Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Trans. Wade Baskin. Glasgow: Collins Fontana, 1974, pp. 66–67.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 185
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p. 207
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 152
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 288
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 289