Difference between revisions of "Signifier"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
[[Image:SAUSSUREANALGORITHM.gif|right|thumb|Saussurean algorithm|The Saussurean algorithm]]
  
 +
{{Top}}[[signifiant]]{{Bottom}}
  
 +
==Jacques Lacan==
  
 +
=====Ferdinand de Saussure=====
 +
[[Lacan]] takes the term "[[signifier]]" from the [[work]] of [[Ferdinand de Saussure]]. 
  
 +
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.
  
−
The term was not used by [[Freud]], who was unaware of [[Saussure]]'s work.  
+
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>
  
−
[[Lacan]] takes the term '[[signifier]]' from the work of the [[Swiss]] [[linguist]], [[Ferdinand de Saussure]].  
+
=====Primacy of the Signifier=====
 +
Whereas [[Saussure]] argues that the [[signifier]] and the '''[[signified]]''' are ''mutually interdependent'', [[Lacan]] states that the [[signifier]] is ''primary'' and produces the '''[[signified]]'''.  
  
−
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.  
+
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.  
  
−
In [[Saussure]]'s terms, the [[signifier]] is the '[[acoustic image]]' which signifies a [[signified]].<ref>Saussure, 1916: 66--7</ref>
+
<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>
  
−
[[Lacan]] argues that the [[signifier]] is primary and produces the [[signified]].  
+
=====[[The Subject]] and the Unconscious=====
 +
It is these [[meaning]]less indestructible [[signifier]]s which determine the [[subject]]; the effects of the [[signifier]] on the [[subject]] constitute the [[unconscious]], and hence also constitute the [[whole]] of the field of [[psychoanalysis]].
  
−
The [[signifier]] is a [[meaning]]less [[material]] element in a closed differential [[system]].
+
=====Basic Units of Language=====
 +
Thus for [[Lacan]] [[language]] is not a [[system]] of [[sign]]s -- as it was for [[Saussure]] -- but a [[system]] of [[signifier]]s.  
  
 +
[[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>
  
−
The 'signifier without the signified' is called by [[Lacan]] the 'pure signifier', though this is a question of logical rather than chronological precedence.  
+
=====Differential Elements=====
 +
By the phrase "reducible to ultimate differential elements," [[Lacan]] follows [[Saussure]] in asserting the fundamentally differential [[character]] of the [[signifier]].  
  
−
<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>
+
[[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>
  
−
It is these [[meaning]]less indestructible [[signifier]]s which determine the [[subject]]; the effects of the [[signifier]] on the [[subject]] constitute the [[unconscious]], and hence also constitute the whole of the field of [[psychoanalysis]].
+
=====Signifying Chains=====
 +
By the 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]].
  
−
Thus for [[Lacan]] language is not a [[system]] of [[sign]]s (as it was for [[Saussure]]) but a [[system]] of [[signifier]]s.
+
=====Symbolic Order=====
−
[[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>
+
The [[signifier]] is the constitutive unit of the [[symbolic]] [[order]] because it is integrally related with the [[concept]] of [[structure]].
  
−
By the phrase "reducible to ultimate differential elements," [[Lacan]] follows [[Saussure]] in asserting the fundamentally differential character of the ]]signifier]].  
+
<blockquote>"The [[notion]] of structure and that of signifier appear inseparable."<ref>{{S3}} p. 184</ref></blockquote>
  
−
[[Saussure]] states that in [[language]] there are no positive terms, only [[difference]]s.<ref>Saussure, 1916: 120</ref>
+
The field of the [[signifier]] is the field of the [[Other]], which [[Lacan]] calls "the battery of signifiers."
−
 
 
−
By the 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]].
 
−
 
 
−
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 that of signifier appear inseparable."<ref>{{S3}} p.184</ref>
 
  
−
The field of the [[signifier]] is the field of the [[Other]], which [[Lacan]] calls "the battery of signifiers."
+
=====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 [[sign]], which "represents something for someone."<ref>{{S11}} p. 207</ref>
  
−
[[Lacan]] defines a [[signifier]] as "that which represents a subject for another signifier," in opposition to the [[sign]], which "represents something for someone."<ref>{{Sll}} p.207</ref>
+
To be more precise, one [[signifier]] (called the [[master]] [[signifier]], and written '''[[Image:SS1.gif]]''') represents the [[subject]] for ''all other [[signifier]]s'' (written '''[[Image:SS2.gif]]''').
  
−
To be more precise, one [[signifier]] (called the [[master]] [[signifier]], and written Si) represents the [[subject]] for all other [[signifier]]s (written S2).
+
However, no [[signifier]] can ''[[signify]]'' the [[subject]].
−
However, no [[signifier]] can [[signify]] the [[subject]].
 
  
 +
=====Sigmund Freud=====
 +
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]].
  
 +
[[Freud]]'s examples of [[psychoanalytic]] [[interpretation]]s constantly focus on purely [[formal]] [[linguistic]] features.
  
 +
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.
  
−
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.
+
=====Words and Non-Linguistic Things=====
−
[[Freud]]'s examples of [[psychoanalytic]] [[interpretation]]s constantly focus on purely formal [[linguistic]] features.  
+
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>
  
−
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 [[Freud]]'s own method in more rigorous terms.
+
=====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]].
  
−
Not only can units of [[language]] smaller than words ([[morpheme]]s and [[phoneme]]s) or larger than [[word]]s (phrases and sentences) also function as [[signifier]]s, but so also can non-[[linguistic]] things such as [[object]]]s, relationships and [[symptom]]atic [[act]]s.<ref>{{S4}} p.288</ref>  
+
=====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]].
  
−
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]].
+
==See Also==
 +
{{See}}
 +
* [[Language]]
 +
* [[Metaphor]]
 +
||
 +
* [[Materialism]]
 +
* [[Sign]]
 +
||
 +
* [[Signification]]
 +
* [[Signified]]
 +
||
 +
* [[Signifying Chain]]
 +
* [[Subject]]
 +
{{Also}}
  
−
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]].
 
  
 +
==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
  
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
−
signifier 13, 20, 223, 26, 40, 46-8, 61-2, 67, 114, 125-6, 130, 133, 138-9, 141-2, 149-* 60, 176-77, 181, 184, 198-9, 203, 205-14, 217, 219-20, 227-9, 236-7, 241, 247-52, 256-7, * 266, 268-70, 273, 276-7, 278-9, 282, network of signifiers, 42-52, 177, signifier and * signification, 253, signifier and signified, 248, 250 [[Seminar XI]]
 
  
−
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]]
+
{{OK}}
−
[[Category:Terms]]
+
[[Category:Linguistics]]
 +
[[Category:Language]]
 
[[Category:Symbolic]]
 
[[Category:Symbolic]]
−
[[Category:Language]]
+
 
−
[[Category:Linguistics]]
+
 
−
[[Category:Concepts]]
+
__NOTOC__
−
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
 
−
{{Les termes}}
 

Latest revision as of 15:51, 16 December 2019

The Saussurean algorithm
French: [[signifiant]]

Jacques Lacan

Ferdinand de Saussure

Lacan takes the term "signifier" from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure.

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.[1]

Primacy of the Signifier

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 meaningless 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.

"Every real signifier is, as such, a signifier that signifies nothing. The more the signifier signifies nothing, the more indestructible it is."[2]

The Subject and the Unconscious

It is these meaningless indestructible signifiers which determine the subject; the effects of the signifier on the subject constitute the unconscious, and hence also constitute the whole of the field of psychoanalysis.

Basic Units of Language

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 the double condition of being reducible to ultimate differential elements and of combining according to the laws of a closed order."[3]

Differential Elements

By the phrase "reducible to ultimate differential elements," Lacan follows Saussure in asserting the fundamentally differential character of the signifier.

Saussure states that in language there are no positive terms, only differences.[4]

Signifying Chains

By the phrase "combining according to the laws of a closed order," Lacan asserts that signifiers are combined in signifying chains according to the laws of metonymy.

Symbolic Order

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 that of signifier appear inseparable."[5]

The field of the signifier is the field of the Other, which Lacan calls "the battery of signifiers."

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 sign, which "represents something for someone."[6]

To be more precise, one signifier (called the master signifier, and written SS1.gif) represents the subject for all other signifiers (written SS2.gif).

However, no signifier can signify the subject.

Sigmund Freud

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.

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 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 "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.[7]

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;[8] on the contrary, its meaning varies according to the position which it occupies in the structure.

See Also


External Links


References

  1. ↑ Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1916) Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, trans. Wade Baskin, Glasgow: Collins Fontana. p. 66-7
  2. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 185
  3. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 152
  4. ↑ Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1916) Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, trans. Wade Baskin, Glasgow: Collins Fontana. p. 120
  5. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 184
  6. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p. 207
  7. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 288
  8. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 289


Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/index.php?title=Signifier&oldid=52783"