Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Signifier

1,583 bytes added, 15:51, 16 December 2019
no edit summary
{{Les termes}}[[Image:SAUSSUREANALGORITHM.gif|right|thumb|Saussurean algorithm|The Saussurean algorithm]]
signifier (sigmfiant) Lacan takes the term 'signifier' from the work of{{Top}}[[signifiant]]{{Bottom}}
the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure. The term was not used by Freud,==Jacques Lacan==
who was unaware =====Ferdinand de Saussure=====[[Lacan]] takes the term "[[signifier]]" from the [[work]] of [[Ferdinand de Saussure's work]]. According to Saussure, the signifier is
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.
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>
which signifies a SIGNIFIED (=====Primacy of the Signifier=====Whereas [[Saussure]] argues that the [[signifier]] and the '''[[signified]]''' are ''mutually interdependent'', 1916: 66--7)[[Lacan]] states that the [[signifier]] is ''primary'' and produces the '''[[signified]]'''.
Whereas Saussure argues that the The [[signifier]] is first of all a [[meaning]]less [[material]] element in a ''closed differential [[system]]''; this "'''signifier and without the signified are mutually'''" is called by [[Lacan]] the "'''pure signifier'''", though this is a question of [[logical]] rather than [[chronological]] precedence.
interdependent<blockquote>"Every [[real]] signifier is, as such, Lacan states a signifier that signifies [[nothing]]. The more the signifier signifies nothing, the more indestructible it is primary and produces the."<ref>{{S3}} p. 185</ref></blockquote>
signified. =====[[The Subject]] and the Unconscious===== It is these [[meaning]]less indestructible [[signifier]]s which determine the [[subject]]; the effects of the [[signifier is first ]] on the [[subject]] constitute the [[unconscious]], and hence also constitute the [[whole]] of the field of all a meaningless material element in a closed[[psychoanalysis]].
differential =====Basic Units of Language=====Thus for [[Lacan]] [[language]] is not a [[system; this ']] of [[sign]]s -- as it was for [[Saussure]] -- but a [[system]] of [[signifier without the signified' is called by Lacan the]]s.
'pure signifier'[[Signifier]]s are the basic units of [[language]], though this is and they are "subjected to the [[double]] condition of [[being]] reducible to ultimate differential elements and of combining according to the laws of a question of logical rather than chronologicalclosed order."<ref>{{E}} p. 152</ref>
precedence. 'Every real signifier is, as such=====Differential Elements=====By the phrase "reducible to ultimate differential elements, a " [[Lacan]] follows [[Saussure]] in asserting the fundamentally differential [[character]] of the [[signifier that signifies nothing]].
The more the signifier signifies nothing[[Saussure]] states that in [[language]] there are no positive terms, the more indestructible it isonly [[difference]]s.<ref>[[Saussure|Saussure, Ferdinand de]]. (1916) ''[[Saussure|Course in General Linguistics]]' (S3', ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, trans. Wade Baskin, 185)Glasgow: Collins Fontana. p.120</ref>
It is these meaningless indestructible signifiers which determine =====Signifying Chains=====By the subject;phrase "combining according to the laws of a closed order," [[Lacan]] asserts that [[signifier]]s are combined in [[signifying chain]]s according to the [[law]]s of [[metonymy]].
=====Symbolic Order=====The [[signifier]] is the effects constitutive unit of the signifier on the subject constitute [[symbolic]] [[order]] because it is integrally related with the unconscious, and hence[[concept]] of [[structure]].
also constitute the whole <blockquote>"The [[notion]] of the field structure and that of psychoanalysissignifier appear inseparable."<ref>{{S3}} p. 184</ref></blockquote>
Thus for The field of the [[signifier]] is the field of the [[Other]], which [[Lacan language is not a system ]] calls "the battery of signs (as it was for Saussure) butsignifiers."
=====That Which Represents a system of signifiers. Signifiers are Subject for Another Signifier=====[[Lacan]] defines a [[signifier]] as "that which represents a subject for [[another]] signifier," in opposition to the basic units of language[[sign]], and they arewhich "represents something for someone."<ref>{{S11}} p. 207</ref>
To be more precise, one [[signifier]] (called the [[master]] [[signifier]], and written '''[[Image:SS1.gif]]'''subjected to ) represents the double condition of being reducible to ultimate differential[[subject]] for ''all other [[signifier]]s'' (written '''[[Image:SS2.gif]]''').
elements and of combining according to However, no [[signifier]] can ''[[signify]]'' the laws of a closed order' (E, 152)[[subject]].
By =====Sigmund Freud=====Although the phrase 'reducible to ultimate differential elementsterm "[[signifier]]" is [[absent]] from [[Freud]]'s [[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|work]], [[Lacan follows]]'s use of the term focuses attention on a recurrent theme in [[Freud]]'s [[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|writings]].
Saussure in asserting the fundamentally differential character [[Freud]]'s examples of the signifier[[psychoanalytic]] [[interpretation]]s constantly focus on purely [[formal]] [[linguistic]] features.
Saussure states Thus [[Lacan]]'s [[insistence]] that the [[analyst]] attend to the [[signifier]]s in language there are no positive the [[analysand]]'s [[speech]] is not really an innovation in [[technique]] but an attempt to theorize [[Freud]]'s own method in more rigorous terms, only differences.
(Saussure=====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, 1916: 120)" 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]].
==See Also==
{{See}}
* [[Language]]
* [[Metaphor]]
||
* [[Materialism]]
* [[Sign]]
||
* [[Signification]]
* [[Signified]]
||
* [[Signifying Chain]]
* [[Subject]]
{{Also}}
By the phrase 'combining according to the laws of a closed order', Lacan
asserts that signifiers are combined in signifying chains according to ==External Links==* "[https://www.lacanonline.com/2010/06/what-does-lacan-say-about-the laws-signifier/ What Does Lacan Say About... The Signifier?]", Owen Hewitson - LacanOnline.com
of metonymy.
The signifier is the constitutive unit of the symbolic order because it is== References == integrally related with the concept of STRUCTURE; 'the notion of structure and  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.<references/>
Although the term 'signifier' is absent from Freud's work, Lacan's use of the{{OK}}[[Category:Linguistics]][[Category:Language]][[Category:Symbolic]]
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.
 
While it is true that when Lacan talks about signifiers he is often referring 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, 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__
Riot Hero
Root Admin, Bots, Bureaucrats, flow-bot, oversight, Administrators, Widget editors
24,656
edits
Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/Special:MobileDiff/4996...52783"

Navigation menu