signifier (sigmfiant) Lacan takes the term 'signifier' from the work of[[Image:SAUSSUREANALGORITHM.gif|right|thumb|Saussurean algorithm|The Saussurean algorithm]]
the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure. The term was not used by Freud,{{Top}}[[signifiant]]{{Bottom}}
who was unaware of Saussure's work. According to Saussure, the signifier is==Jacques Lacan==
=====Ferdinand de Saussure=====[[Lacan]] takes the phonological element term "[[signifier]]" from the [[work]] of the SIGN; not the actual sound itself, but the mental[[Ferdinand de Saussure]].
image of such a sound. In According to [[Saussure's terms]], the [[signifier ]] is the 'acoustic '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 [[signified]].<ref>[[Saussure|Saussure, Ferdinand de]]. (1916) ''[[Saussure|Course in General Linguistics]]'', 1916ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, trans. Wade Baskin, Glasgow: Collins Fontana. p. 66--7).</ref>
=====Primacy of the Signifier=====Whereas [[Saussure ]] argues that the [[signifier ]] and the '''[[signified ]]''' are ''mutuallyinterdependent'', [[Lacan]] states that the [[signifier]] is ''primary'' and produces the '''[[signified]]'''.
interdependent, 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 states that ]] the "'''pure signifier '''", though this is primary and produces thea question of [[logical]] rather than [[chronological]] precedence.
signified<blockquote>"Every [[real]] signifier is, as such, a signifier that signifies [[nothing]]. The more the signifier signifies nothing, the more indestructible it is first of all a meaningless material element in a closed."<ref>{{S3}} p. 185</ref></blockquote>
differential system=====[[The Subject]] and the Unconscious===== It is these [[meaning]]less indestructible [[signifier]]s which determine the [[subject]]; this 'the effects of the [[signifier without ]] on the [[subject]] constitute the [[unconscious]], and hence also constitute the signified' is called by Lacan [[whole]] of thefield of [[psychoanalysis]].
'pure signifier', though this =====Basic Units of Language=====Thus for [[Lacan]] [[language]] is not a question [[system]] of logical rather than chronological[[sign]]s -- as it was for [[Saussure]] -- but a [[system]] of [[signifier]]s.
precedence. 'Every real signifier is, as such[[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 signifier that signifies nothingclosed order."<ref>{{E}} p.152</ref>
The more =====Differential Elements=====By the signifier signifies nothingphrase "reducible to ultimate differential elements, " [[Lacan]] follows [[Saussure]] in asserting the fundamentally differential [[character]] of the more indestructible it is' (S3, 185)[[signifier]].
It is these meaningless indestructible signifiers which determine the subject;[[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>
=====Signifying Chains=====By the effects phrase "combining according to the laws of the a closed order," [[Lacan]] asserts that [[signifier on ]]s are combined in [[signifying chain]]s according to the subject constitute the unconscious, and hence[[law]]s of [[metonymy]].
also constitute =====Symbolic Order=====The [[signifier]] is the whole constitutive unit of the field [[symbolic]] [[order]] because it is integrally related with the [[concept]] of psychoanalysis[[structure]].
Thus for Lacan language is not a system <blockquote>"The [[notion]] of signs (as it was for Saussure) butstructure and that of signifier appear inseparable."<ref>{{S3}} p. 184</ref></blockquote>
a system The field of signifiers. Signifiers are the basic units [[signifier]] is the field of languagethe [[Other]], and they arewhich [[Lacan]] calls "the battery of signifiers."
'subjected =====That Which Represents a Subject for Another Signifier=====[[Lacan]] defines a [[signifier]] as "that which represents a subject for [[another]] signifier," in opposition to the double condition of being reducible to ultimate differential[[sign]], which "represents something for someone."<ref>{{S11}} p. 207</ref>
elements To be more precise, one [[signifier]] (called the [[master]] [[signifier]], and of combining according to written '''[[Image:SS1.gif]]''') represents the laws of a closed order[[subject]] for ''all other [[signifier]]s'' (E, 152written '''[[Image:SS2.gif]]''').
By the phrase However, no [[signifier]] can ''[[signify]]'reducible to ultimate differential elements', Lacan followsthe [[subject]].
Saussure in asserting =====Sigmund Freud=====Although the fundamentally differential character term "[[signifier]]" is [[absent]] from [[Freud]]'s [[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|work]], [[Lacan]]'s use of the signifierterm focuses attention on a recurrent theme in [[Freud]]'s [[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|writings]].
Saussure states that in language there are no positive terms, only differences[[Freud]]'s examples of [[psychoanalytic]] [[interpretation]]s constantly focus on purely [[formal]] [[linguistic]] features.
(Saussure, 1916: 120)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 theorize [[Freud]]'s own method in more rigorous terms.
=====Words and Non-Linguistic Things=====
While it is [[true]] that when [[Lacan]] talks [[about]] [[signifiers]] he is often referring to what [[others]] would call simply "[[word]]s," the two terms are not equivalent.
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>
=====Differential Nature of the Signifier=====
The single condition which 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]].
=====Unstable Meaning=====
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]].
By the phrase 'combining according to the laws of a closed order', Lacan==See Also=={{See}}* [[Language]]* [[Metaphor]]||* [[Materialism]]* [[Sign]]||* [[Signification]]* [[Signified]]||* [[Signifying Chain]]* [[Subject]]{{Also}}
asserts that signifiers are combined in signifying chains according to the laws
of metonymy==External Links==* "[https://www.lacanonline.com/2010/06/what-does-lacan-say-about-the-signifier/ What Does Lacan Say About... The Signifier?]", Owen Hewitson - LacanOnline.com
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== References == that of signifier appear inseparable' (S3, 184). The field of the signifier is the field of the Other, which Lacan calls 'the battery of signifiers'. Lacan defines a signifier as 'that which represents a subject for another signifier', in opposition to the sign, which 'represents something for some- one'. (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 subject. 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 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.<references/>
While it is true that when Lacan talks about signifiers he is often referring to{{OK}}[[Category:Linguistics]][[Category:Language]][[Category:Symbolic]]
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, 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 (S4, 289); on the contrary, its meaning varies
according to the position which it occupies in the structure.
== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Lacan]][[Category:Terms]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Psychoanalysis]]__NOTOC__
