Changes

Whereas Saussure argues that the signifier and the signified are mutually interdependent, Lacan states that the signifier is primary and produces the signified. The signifier is first of all a meaningless material element in a closed differential system; this 'signifier without the signified' is called by [[Lacan ]] the 'pure signifier', though this is a question of logical rather than chronological precedence. 'Every real signifier is, as such, a signifier that signifies nothing. The more the signifier signifies nothing, the more indestructible it is' (S3, 185).

It <blockquote>"Every real signifier is these meaningless indestructible signifiers which determine the subject; the effects of , as such, a signifier that signifies nothing. The more the signifier on the subject constitute the unconscioussignifies nothing, and hence also constitute the whole of the field of psychoanalysismore indestructible it is."<ref>{{S3}} p.185</ref></blockquote>

Thus for Lacan language It is not a system these [[meaning]]less indestructible [[signifier]]s which determine the [[subject]]; the effects of signs (as it was for Saussure) but a system of signifiers. Signifiers are the basic units of language[[signifier]] on the [[subject]] constitute the [[unconscious]], and they are 'subjected to hence also constitute the double condition of being reducible to ultimate differential elements and whole of combining according to the laws field of a closed order' (E, 152)[[psychoanalysis]].

By the phrase '"reducible to ultimate differential elements', " [[Lacan ]] follows [[Saussure ]] in asserting the fundamentally differential character of the ]]signifier]].

[[Saussure ]] states that in [[language ]] there are no positive terms, only differences ([[difference]]s.<ref>Saussure, 1916: 120).</ref>

By The [[signifier]] is the phrase 'combining according to constitutive unit of the laws of a closed [[symbolic]] [[order', Lacan asserts that signifiers are combined in signifying chains according to ]] because it is integrally related with the laws concept of metonymy[[structure]].

"The signifier is the constitutive unit of the symbolic order because it is integrally related with the concept of STRUCTURE; 'the notion of structure and that of signifier appear inseparable' (."<ref>{{S3, }} p.184). The field of the signifier is the field of the Other, which Lacan calls 'the battery of signifiers'.</ref>

Lacan defines a The field of the [[signifier as 'that which represents a subject for another signifier', in opposition to ]] is the field of the sign[[Other]], which 'represents something for someone'. (Sll, 207). To be more precise, one signifier (called [[Lacan]] calls "the master signifier, and written Si) represents the subject for all other battery of signifiers (written S2)∑ However, no signifier can signifv the subject."

Although the term '[[Lacan]] defines a [[signifier]] as "that which represents a subject for another signifier' is absent from Freud's work, Lacan's use of the term focuses attention on a recurrent theme " in Freud's writings. Freud's examples of psychoanalytic interpretations constantly focus on purely formal linguistic features. For example, he analyses his own failure opposition to remember the name 'Signorelli' by dividing the word into formal segments and following the associative links with each segment (Freud[[sign]], 1901: chwhich "represents something for someone. 1). Thus Lacan's insistence that the analyst attend to the signifiers in the analysand's speech is not really an innovation in technique but an attempt to theorise Freud's own method in more rigorous terms"<ref>{{Sll}} p.207</ref>

While it is true that when Lacan talks about signifiers he is often referring to what others would call simply 'words'To be more precise, one [[signifier]] (called the two terms are not equivalent. Not only can units of language smaller than words (morphemes [[master]] [[signifier]], and phonemeswritten Si) or larger than words represents the [[subject]] for all other [[signifier]]s (phrases and sentenceswritten S2) also function as signifiers.However, but so also no [[signifier]] can non-linguistic things such as objects, relationships and symptomatic acts (S4, 288). The single condition which characterises something as a signifier, for Lacan, is that it is inscribed in a system in which it takes on value purely by virtue of its difference from the other elements in [[signify]] the system[[subject]].

 Although the term '[[signifier 13]]' is [[absent]] from [[Freud]]'s work, 20, 223, 26, 40, 46-8, 61-2, 67, 114, 125-6, 130, 133, 138-9, 141-2, 149-* 60, 176-77, 181, 184, 198-9, 203, 205-14, 217, 219-20, 227-9, 236-7, 241, 247-52, 256-7, * 266, 268-70, 273, 276-7, 278-9, 282, network [[Lacan]]'s use of the term focuses attention on a recurrent theme in [[Freud]]'s writings. [[Freud]]'s examples of [[psychoanalytic]] [[interpretation]]s constantly focus on purely formal [[linguistic]] features.   Thus [[Lacan]]'s insistence that the [[analyst]] attend to the [[signifier]]s in the [[analysand]]'s [[speech]] is not really an innovation in [[technique]] but an attempt to theorise [[Freud]]'s own method in more rigorous terms. Not only can units of signifiers[[language]] smaller than words ([[morpheme]]s and [[phoneme]]s) or larger than [[word]]s (phrases and sentences) also function as [[signifier]]s, 42but so also can non-52, 177[[linguistic]] things such as [[object]]]s, relationships and [[symptom]]atic [[act]]s.<ref>{{S4}} p.288</ref>  The single condition which characterises something as a [[signifier and * signification]], 253for [[Lacan]], is that it is inscribed in a [[system]] in which it takes on value purely by virtue of its [[difference]] from the other elements in the [[system]]. It is this differential nature of the [[signifier and signified]] which means that it can never have a univocal or fixed [[meaning]];<ref>{{S4}} p.289</ref> on the contrary, 248, 250 its [[meaning]] varies according to the [[position]] which it occupies in the [[Seminar XIstructure]].