Changes

: ([[Fr]]. ''[[{{Top}}signifiant]]''){{Bottom}}

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

The term was not used by According to [[FreudSaussure]], who was unaware the [[signifier]] is the ''phonological'' element of the '''[[Saussuresign]]'''; not the actual sound itself, but the '''[[mental]] [[image]]'s work'' of such a sound.

According to [[Saussure]], the [[signifier]] is the phonological element of the [[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]].<ref>[[Saussure|Saussure, Ferdinand de]]. (1916) ''[[Saussure|Course in General Linguistics]]'', ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, trans. Wade Baskin, Glasgow: Collins Fontana. p.66-7</ref>

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 [[meaning]]less [[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.

<blockquote>"Every real signifier is, as such, a signifier that signifies nothing. The more the signifier signifies nothing, the more indestructible it is."<ref>{{S3}} p.185</ref></blockquote>

[[Signifier]]s are the basic units of [[language]], and they are "subjected to the double condition of being reducible to ultimate differential elements and of combining according to the laws of a closed order."<ref>{{E}} p.152</ref>

[[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 Albert Sechehaye, trans. Wade Baskin, Glasgow: Collins Fontana. p. 120</ref>

<blockquote>"The notion of structure and that of signifier appear inseparable."<ref>{{S3}} p.184</ref></blockquote>

[[Lacan]] defines a [[signifier]] as "that which represents a subject for another signifier," in opposition to the [[sign]], which "represents something for someone."<ref>{{S11}} p.207</ref>

To be more precise, one [[signifier]] (called the [[master]] [[signifier]], and written '''S1[[Image:SS1.gif]]''') represents the [[subject]] for ''all other [[signifier]]s'' (written '''S2[[Image:SS2.gif]]''').

Although the term '"[[signifier]]' " is [[absent]] from [[Freud]]'s [[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|work]], [[Lacan]]'s use of the term focuses attention on a recurrent theme in [[Freud]]'s [[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|writings]].

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 theorize [[Freud]]'s own method in more rigorous terms.

Not only can units of [[language]] smaller than [[word]]s ([[phoneme|morpheme]]s and [[phoneme]]s) or larger than [[word]]s (phrases and sentences) also function as [[signifier]]s, but so also can [[linguistic|non-linguistic]] things such as [[object]]s, relationships and [[symptom]]atic [[act]]s.<ref>{{S4}} p.288</ref>

The single condition which characterises characterizes 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 the [[system]].

It is this differential nature of the [[signifier]] which means that it can never have a univocal or fixed [[meaning]];<ref>{{S4}} p.289</ref> on the contrary, its [[meaning]] varies according to the [[position]] which it occupies in the [[structure]].