Changes

==Jacques Lacan takes the term 'signifier' from the work of the Swiss linguist, [[Ferdinand de Saussure]]. ==

The =====Ferdinand de Saussure=====[[Lacan]] takes the term was not used by Freud, who was unaware "[[signifier]]" from the [[work]] of [[Ferdinand de Saussure's work]].

According to [[Saussure]], the [[signifier ]] is the ''phonological '' element of the SIGN'''[[sign]]'''; not the actual sound itself, but the '''[[mental ]] [[image ]]''' of such a sound. In Saussure's terms, the signifier is the 'acoustic image' which signifies a SIGNIFIED (Saussure, 1916: 66--7).

Whereas Saussure argues that =====Differential Elements=====By the signifier and the signified are mutually interdependentphrase "reducible to ultimate differential elements, " [[Lacan states that the signifier is primary and produces ]] follows [[Saussure]] in asserting the signified. The signifier is first of all a meaningless material element in a closed fundamentally differential system; this 'signifier without the signified' is called by Lacan the 'pure signifier', though this is a question [[character]] 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 is these meaningless indestructible signifiers which determine the subject; the effects of the signifier on the subject constitute the unconscious[[Saussure]] states that in [[language]] there are no positive terms, only [[difference]]s.<ref>[[Saussure|Saussure, Ferdinand de]]. (1916) ''[[Saussure|Course in General Linguistics]]'', ed. Charles Bally and hence also constitute the whole of the field of psychoanalysisAlbert Sechehaye, trans. Wade Baskin, Glasgow: Collins Fontana. p.120</ref>

Thus for Lacan language is not a system of signs (as it was for Saussure) but a system of signifiers. Signifiers are the basic units of language, and they are 'subjected to =====Signifying Chains=====By the double condition of being reducible to ultimate differential elements and of phrase "combining according to the laws of a closed order' (E, 152)" [[Lacan]] asserts that [[signifier]]s are combined in [[signifying chain]]s according to the [[law]]s of [[metonymy]].

By the phrase 'reducible to ultimate differential elements', Lacan follows Saussure in asserting the fundamentally differential character <blockquote>"The [[notion]] of structure and that of the signifierappear inseparable."<ref>{{S3}} p. 184</ref></blockquote>

Saussure states that in language there are no positive termsThe field of the [[signifier]] is the field of the [[Other]], only differences (Saussure, 1916: 120)which [[Lacan]] calls "the battery of signifiers."

By To be more precise, one [[signifier]] (called the phrase [[master]] [[signifier]], and written 'combining according to ''[[Image:SS1.gif]]''') represents the laws of a closed order[[subject]] for ''all other [[signifier]]s'', Lacan asserts that signifiers are combined in signifying chains according to the laws of metonymy(written '''[[Image:SS2.gif]]''').

The However, no [[signifier is the constitutive unit of the symbolic order because it is integrally related with the concept of STRUCTURE; ]] can ''the notion of structure and that of signifier appear inseparable[[signify]]' (S3, 184). The field of the signifier is the field of the Other, which Lacan calls 'the battery of signifiers'[[subject]].

=====Sigmund Freud=====Although the term "[[signifier]]" is [[absent]] from [[Freud]]'s [[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|work]], [[Lacan defines a signifier as ]]'that which represents s use of the term focuses attention on a subject for another signifier', recurrent theme in opposition to the sign, which [[Freud]]'represents something for someone'. (Sll, 207). To be more precise, one signifier (called the master signifier, and written Si) represents the subject for all other signifiers (written S2)∑ However, no signifier can signifv the subjects [[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|writings]].

Although the term '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 ]] [[interpretation]]s constantly focus on purely [[formal ]] [[linguistic ]] features. For example, he analyses his own failure to remember the name 'Signorelli' by dividing the word into formal segments and following the associative links with each segment (Freud, 1901: ch. 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.

While it is true Thus [[Lacan]]'s [[insistence]] that when Lacan talks about signifiers he is often referring the [[analyst]] attend to what others would call simply 'words', the two terms are not equivalent. Not only can units of language smaller than words (morphemes and phonemes) or larger than words (phrases and sentences) also function as signifiers, but so also can non-linguistic things such as objects, relationships and symptomatic acts (S4, 288). The single condition which characterises something as a [[signifier, for Lacan, ]]s in the [[analysand]]'s [[speech]] is that it is inscribed not really an innovation in a system [[technique]] but an attempt to theorize [[Freud]]'s own method in which it takes on value purely by virtue of its difference from the other elements in the systemmore rigorous terms.

It =====Words and Non-Linguistic Things=====While it is this differential nature of the signifier which means [[true]] that it can never have a univocal or fixed meaning (S4, 289); on the contrarywhen [[Lacan]] talks [[about]] [[signifiers]] he is often referring to what [[others]] would call simply "[[word]]s, its meaning varies according to the position which it occupies in " the structuretwo terms are not equivalent.