Difference between revisions of "Signifier"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | The term was not used by [[Freud]], who was unaware of [[Saussure]]'s work. | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] takes the term '[[signifier]]' from the work of the [[Swiss]] [[linguist]], [[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]].<ref>Saussure, 1916: 66--7</ref> | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] argues that the [[signifier]] is primary and produces the [[signified]]. | ||
| + | The [[signifier]] is a [[meaning]]less [[material]] element in a closed differential [[system]]. | ||
| − | + | The '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> | |
| − | + | 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]]. | |
| + | 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> | ||
| − | By the phrase | + | 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 | + | [[Saussure]] states that in [[language]] there are no positive terms, only [[difference]]s.<ref>Saussure, 1916: 120</ref> |
| + | 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 | + | "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." | |
| − | + | [[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 Si) represents the [[subject]] for all other [[signifier]]s (written S2). | |
| + | However, no [[signifier]] can [[signify]] the [[subject]]. | ||
| − | |||
| − | signifier | + | |
| + | 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]] [[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 theorise [[Freud]]'s own method in more rigorous terms. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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> | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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]];<ref>{{S4}} p.289</ref> on the contrary, its [[meaning]] varies according to the [[position]] which it occupies in the [[structure]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
== 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]] | [[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | ||
[[Category:Terms]] | [[Category:Terms]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Symbolic]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Language]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Linguistics]] | ||
[[Category:Concepts]] | [[Category:Concepts]] | ||
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | [[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | ||
{{Les termes}} | {{Les termes}} | ||
Revision as of 12:35, 21 June 2006
The term was not used by Freud, who was unaware of Saussure's work.
Lacan takes the term 'signifier' from the work of the Swiss linguist, 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]
Lacan argues that the signifier is primary and produces the signified.
The signifier is a meaningless material element in a closed differential system.
The '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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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."
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 Si) represents the subject for all other signifiers (written S2). However, no signifier can signify 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.
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.
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 object]s, relationships and symptomatic acts.[7]
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;[8] on the contrary, its meaning varies according to the position which it occupies in the structure.
References
- ↑ Saussure, 1916: 66--7
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.185
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.152
- ↑ Saussure, 1916: 120
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.184
- ↑ Template:Sll p.207
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.288
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.289
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
