Difference between revisions of "Index"
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | In the typology of | + | In the typology of [[sign]]s devised by Charles S Perice, the North American semiotician, the [[index]] is a [[sign]] whih has an "existential relationship" to the [[object]] it represents. |
− | |||
− | + | (The [[index]] is always spatially or temporally contiguous with the [[[object]]). | |
− | + | Peirce contrasts the [[index]] swith the [[symbol]], which, like [[Saussure]]'s concept of the [[sign]], is characterized by the [[absence]] of all necessary connections between the [[sign]] and its [[object]]. | |
− | + | For example, smoke is an [[index]] of fire. | |
− | Lacan | + | In [[Lacan]]'s [[discourse]], the term "[[index]]" functions in opposition to the term [[signifier]]. |
− | This opposition between index and signifier underpins the following distinctions in Lacan's work. | + | [[Lacan]] thus conceives the [[index]] as a "natural" [[sign]], one in which there is a fixed, bi-univocal correspondence between [[sign]] and [[object]] (unlike the [[signifier]], which has no fixed link with any one [[signified]]). |
+ | |||
+ | This opposition between [[index]] and [[signifier]] underpins the following distinctions in [[Lacan]]'s work. | ||
===The psychoanalytic and medical concepts of the symptom=== | ===The psychoanalytic and medical concepts of the symptom=== | ||
− | Whereas in medicine, the symptom is regarded as an index of the disease, in psychoanalysis the symptom is not an index but a signifier.<ref>{{E}} p.129</ref> | + | Whereas in medicine, the [[symptom]] is regarded as an [[index]] of the disease, in [[psychoanalysis]] the [[symptom]] is not an [[index]] but a [[signifier]].<ref>{{E}} p.129</ref> |
Hence in psychoanalysis there is no one-to-one fixed link between pathological phenomena and the underlying structure. | Hence in psychoanalysis there is no one-to-one fixed link between pathological phenomena and the underlying structure. | ||
===Codes (animal) and language (human)=== | ===Codes (animal) and language (human)=== | ||
− | + | [[Code]]s are composed of [[index|indices]], whereas [[language]] is composed of [[signifier]]s. | |
− | This explains why | + | This explains why [[code]]s lack the most important feature of [[language]]: its potential for ambiguity and equivocation. |
− | The opposition between signifier and index is complicated by the existence of certain | + | The opposition between [[signifier]] and [[index]] is complicated by the existence of certain [[signifier]]s whch also function as [[index|indices]]; these are called [[shifter]]s. |
+ | |||
+ | ==See Also== | ||
+ | * [[code]] | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
Revision as of 12:21, 8 August 2006
In the typology of signs devised by Charles S Perice, the North American semiotician, the index is a sign whih has an "existential relationship" to the object it represents.
(The index is always spatially or temporally contiguous with the [[[object]]).
Peirce contrasts the index swith the symbol, which, like Saussure's concept of the sign, is characterized by the absence of all necessary connections between the sign and its object.
For example, smoke is an index of fire.
In Lacan's discourse, the term "index" functions in opposition to the term signifier.
Lacan thus conceives the index as a "natural" sign, one in which there is a fixed, bi-univocal correspondence between sign and object (unlike the signifier, which has no fixed link with any one signified).
This opposition between index and signifier underpins the following distinctions in Lacan's work.
Contents
The psychoanalytic and medical concepts of the symptom
Whereas in medicine, the symptom is regarded as an index of the disease, in psychoanalysis the symptom is not an index but a signifier.[1]
Hence in psychoanalysis there is no one-to-one fixed link between pathological phenomena and the underlying structure.
Codes (animal) and language (human)
Codes are composed of indices, whereas language is composed of signifiers.
This explains why codes lack the most important feature of language: its potential for ambiguity and equivocation.
The opposition between signifier and index is complicated by the existence of certain signifiers whch also function as indices; these are called shifters.
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.129