Changes

The signifying chain is Inspired by the privileged site of Lacan’s situation [[notion]] of temporality, subjectivity, and above all[[facilitation]], desire. It belongs only which was central to [[Freud]]'s description of the symbolic orderfunctioning of the [[psychic]] [[apparatus]], though it has effects in and is affected by Jacques [[Lacan]] defined the imaginary signifying [[chain]] as well. It is the locus an [[association]] and combination of the signifier divorced from the signified [[signifiers]], connected in its perpetual play of deferral and provisionally generated meaningdiverse ways, sustaining like the Saussurean dictum that "meaning is not found in any one signifier, but in the play between signifiers along the signifying chain and is therefore unstable[[links]] by which a necklace firmly hooks onto a link of [[another]] necklace made of links" (Evans 185Lacan, 2002a, p. 145). Whereas The [[unconscious]] [[activity]] of [[desire]] is expressed through the meaning associated with the interaction between the symbolic associative and the imaginary (via points de capiton) is only a provisional, illusory, and ephemeral function [[combinatory]] links of the link between the signifier and the signified, Lacan’s conception is repeated in a kind of the succession that sets up a chain of signification reduces meaning to a product of anticipation and deferral: "the signifier, by its very nature, always anticipates meaning by unfolding its dimension before it" (Ecrits 153)reaction.

The signifying chain is, therefore, fundamentally diachronic, perpetually unfolding and perpetually originates in the [[process: "A signifying chain can never be complete, since it is always possible to add another signifier to it, ad infinitum, ]] of [[primal]] [[…repression]] signification is not present at any one point in the chain, but rather meaning ‘insists’ in during which the movement from one signifier to another" (Evans 187[[Name]]-188).19 None of -the individual -[[Father]] signifiers which go to make up are substituted for the signifying chain contains meaning in any positive way, but rather meaning "insists" as a function of their interaction. Lacan clarifies this distinction as one between a conception signifier of the signifying chain in which meaning "consists" in a given signifier and one which recognises desire for the pre-eminence of "insistence" as the production of meaning[[mother]]. Like Hopkins’s poetic concept of inscapeFrom then on, the meaning of a given instance of signification can not be readily discerned from the external appearance of a sign, but must be deduced from the outward indications of a meaning that is always elsewhere [[conscious]] and incomplete: "it is in the chain of the signifier that the meaning ‘insists’ but that none of its elements ‘consists’ in the signification of which it is at the moment capable" (Ecrits 153). In its fundamental incompleteness unconscious signifiers are woven together through [[metonymy]] and differential production of meaning[[metaphor]], the signifying chain is perhaps most easily characterised by the Derridean concept of différance, to which it bears a close conceptual affinity and intellectual ancestrytwo functions that generate signifieds.

The incorrigible diachrony captured in both Derrida’s term and in Lacan’s "insistence" of meaning not only challenges traditional conceptions of signification as a process of reference and equivalence between the signifier and the signified (let alone the sign and the referent), but also harbours the profoundly temporal nature of the signifying chainhas only one destiny: "to insert the ‘signifying chain’ which subsumes [[subject]]'s unconscious desire in the language of subject's utterances. Thus it constitutes the unconscious [[design]] and the language weave of ordinary speech, is by definition always on the move towards a desired future […[speaking] its temporality seem[] subject's] oddly smooth and characterless – ‘pure’ displacement, ‘pure’ continuity, a slippage or a passage that moves ahead with unstoppable fluency" (Bowie 179)psychic fabric. So tightly bound up with temporal movement is the signifying chain that any attempt to characterise the glissement of signifiers over signifieds immediately evokes a correlative movement through time. IndeedMore generally, the only amendment that I would make to Bowie’s characterisation of this correlation it is that Lacan’s conception of the inherent temporality of signification is not necessarily a movement "aheadinvolved in all psychic [[causality]]." Rather, while Lacan certainly does insist on the inescapably temporal quality of the signifying chain, he does not hold that this temporality must proceed in a given direction:

Indeed, part of the reason this temporality is so fundamental to Lacan’s conception of the The signifying chain is that it allows for the centrality privileged site of repetition in the process Lacan’s [[situation]] of signification and deferral. That is[[temporality]], each instance of signification[[subjectivity]], each manifest signifierand above all, desire. It belongs only repeats the action of deferral and flight that extends back to [[the infant’s first use of language to articulate the binary between presence symbolic]] order, though it has effects in and absence actualised in is affected by the coming and going of his or her mother (whether actual or [[imaginary]] as symbolised in the father’s inaugural interdiction)well. As a result of the felt need to articulate the alternating absence and presence of his or her mother, It is the infant breaks down his or her relation to her into two categories, making her absence a present feature locus of the symbolic world into which he or she has just stumbled. This ascription of a signifier to hold divorced from the place [[signified]] in its perpetual play of an absent object by marking its real absence with a symbolic presence is profoundly formativedeferral and provisionally generated [[meaning]], as it boomerangs back on sustaining the subject when he or she discovers [[Saussurean]] dictum that he or she has forgone the full effectiveness of his or her identification with his or her mother "meaning is not found in any one signifier, but in the very process of naming her. By distinguishing play between signifiers along the mother’s presence signifying chain and absence, the infant thus creates a binary of primal symbolisation that instantaneously removes the immediately experienced body and being of the mother is therefore unstable" (as an object in the worldEvans 185) to an irretrievable distance. Henceforth, even when Whereas the mother is present to meaning associated with the infant, she will always also be partly absent by virtue of her representation in interaction between the symbolic order. The infant undergoes and [[the trauma of entering the symbolic order in the primal moment at which he or she imaginary]] (driven by the father’s prohibitory "No" – see belowvia [[points de capiton]]) names absence as something that can be given content and presence (however is only a provisional, [[illusory). This revelation also introduces, however]], and ephemeral function of the fact that presence is always haunted by absence, a feature which is perpetually highlighted through link between the symbolic order’s insistence on supplying a signifier that (however arbitrarily) marks and the incompleteness signified, Lacan’s conception of all presence –marks it, indeed, as merely a mask for absence. The endless deferral and ephemerality the chain of all [[signification thus characterises the infant’s relation ]] reduces meaning to not only a product of [[anticipation]] and deferral: "the mothersignifier, but to all other objects in the worldby its very [[nature]], naturalising alienation as an existential condition since all such relations are part of that perceptual apparatus that is always already organised anticipates meaning by the process of symbolisation. == def ==signifying chain unfolding its [[dimension]] before it" (chaÓne sigmfante, chaÓne du sigm˛ant[[Ecrits]] 153).

The term 'signifying chain' is used increasingly by , therefore, fundamentally [[diachronic]], perpetually unfolding and perpetually in process: "A signifying chain can never be [[complete]], since it is always possible to add another signifier to it, ad infinitum, […] signification is not [[present]] at any one point in the chain, but rather meaning ‘insists’ in the movement from one signifier to another" (Evans 187-188).19 None of the [[individual]] signifiers which go to make up the signifying chain contains meaning in any positive way, but rather meaning "insists" as a function of their interaction. Lacan clarifies this [[distinction]] as one between a conception of the signifying chain in which meaning "consists" in a given signifier and one which recognises the pre-eminence of "[[insistence]]" as the production of meaning. Like Hopkins’s poetic [[concept]] of inscape, the meaning of a given [[instance]] of signification can not be readily discerned from the mid-1950s on[[external]] [[appearance]] of a [[sign]], but must be deduced from the outward indications of a meaning that is always elsewhere and incomplete: "it is inthe chain of the signifier that the meaning ‘insists’ but that none of its elements ‘consists’ in the signification of which it is at the [[moment]] capable" (Ecrits 153). In its fundamental [[incompleteness]] and differential production of meaning, the signifying chain is perhaps most easily characterised by the Derridean concept of différance, to which it bears a close [[conceptual]] affinity and [[intellectual]] ancestry.

The incorrigible [[diachrony]] [[captured]] in both Derrida’s term and in Lacan’s "insistence" of meaning not only challenges traditional conceptions of signification as a process of reference and equivalence between the signifier and the signified (let alone the sign and the [[referent]]), but also harbours the profoundly [[temporal]] nature of the signifying chain: "the ‘signifying chain’ which subsumes the [[language]] of the unconscious and the language of ordinary [[speech]], is by definition always on the move towards a desired [[future]] […] its temporality seem[s] oddly smooth and characterless – ‘pure’ [[displacement]], ‘pure’ continuity, a [[slippage]] or a passage that moves ahead with unstoppable fluency" (Bowie 179). So tightly bound up with temporal movement is the signifying chain that any attempt to characterise the symbolic order[[glissement]] of signifiers over signifieds immediately evokes a correlative movement through [[time]]. At firstIndeed, in 1956the only amendment that I would make to Bowie’s characterisation of this correlation is that Lacan’s conception of the inherent temporality of signification is not necessarily a movement "ahead." Rather, he speaks not while Lacan certainly does insist on the inescapably temporal quality of the signifyingchain, he does not hold that this temporality must proceed in a given direction:

chain but The linearity that [[Saussure]] holds to be constitutive of the symbolic chainof [[discourse]], in conformity with its emission by a single [[voice]] and with its horizontal [[position]] in our [[writing]] – if this linearity is necessary, in fact, it is not sufficient. It applies to the chain of discourse only in the direction in which he denotes it is orientated in time, [[being]] taken as a line of descendence intosignifying factor in all [[languages]] in which ‘Peter hits Paul’ reverses its time when the [[terms]] are inverted. (Ecrits 154)

The temporal flow of the signifying chain must therefore be reversible at least, if not subject to outright short-circuits that, though they maintain the linearity of temporal progression, violate the strict progression of its moments. Lacan’s variation on Saussure’s linearly conceived signifying chain thus retains its "necessary" linearity, but allows him to posit that the [[mental]] [[structures]] and operations (notably desire and subjectivity) which each subject is inscribed even before his birth are organised by it are temporally reversible. For all intents and purposes, then, the present can actually [[change]] the [[past]] and after his deatha past [[event]] can be experienced again in the present not simply as a remembered event, but as a [[repetition]] without antecedent andwithout an intervening lapse of time (or in which the intervening lapse of time can be overcome instantaneously).

Indeed, part of the [[reason]] this temporality is so fundamental to Lacan’s conception of the signifying chain is that it allows for the centrality of repetition in the process of signification and deferral. That is, each instance of signification, each [[manifest]] signifier, only repeats the [[action]] of deferral and flight that extends back to the infant’s first use of language to articulate the binary between [[presence]] and [[absence]] actualised in the coming and going of his or her mother (whether actual or as symbolised in the father’s inaugural interdiction). As a result of the felt [[need]] to articulate the alternating absence and presence of his or her mother, the [[infant]] breaks down his or her relation to her into two [[categories]], making her absence a present feature of the symbolic [[world]] into which influences he or she has just stumbled. This ascription of a signifier to hold the [[place]] of an [[absent]] [[object]] by marking its [[real]] absence with a symbolic presence is profoundly formative, as it boomerangs back on the subject when he or she discovers that he or she has forgone the [[full]] effectiveness of his destiny unconsciously or her [[identification]] with his or her mother in the very process of naming her. By distinguishing between the mother’s presence and absence, the infant thus creates a binary of primal [[symbolisation]] that instantaneously removes the immediately experienced [[body]] and being of the mother (Ecas an object in the world) to an irretrievable distance. Henceforth, 468even when the mother is present to the infant, she will always also be partly absent by virtue of her [[representation]] in the [[symbolic order]]. The infant undergoes the [[trauma]] of entering the symbolic order in the primal moment at which he or she (driven by the father’s prohibitory "No" – see below) names absence as something that can be given [[content]] and presence (however illusory). In This revelation also introduces, however, the fact that presence is always haunted by absence, a feature which is perpetually highlighted through the same year he speakssymbolic order’s insistence on supplying a signifier that (however arbitrarily) marks the incompleteness of all presence –marks it, indeed, as merely a mask for absence. The endless deferral and ephemerality of all signification thus characterises the infant’s relation to not only the mother, but to all [[other]] [[objects]] in the world, naturalising [[alienation]] as an existential condition since all such relations are part of that perceptual apparatus that is always already organised by the process of symbolisation.

m a way which expresses The term '[[signifying chain]]' is used by [[Jacques Lacan]] (from the eternal nature of desire; for this reason, desire ismid-1950s on) in reference to the [[symbolic]] [[order]].

metonymic. The A signifying chain can never be complete, since it is also metonymic always possible to add another signifier to it, ad infinitum, in a way which expresses the production eternal nature of meaningdesire;for this reason, desire is [[metonymic]].

The chain is also metonymic in the production of meaning; signification is not present at any one point in the chain, but rather meaning'insists' in the movement from one signifier to another (see E, 153).

'insists' At [[times]] Lacan speaks of the signifying chain in the movement from one signifier to another (see Elinear metaphors, 153).and at mother times in circular metaphors;

At times Lacan speaks Linearity 'The linearity that Saussure holds to be constitutive of the signifying chain of discourse applies to the chain of discourse only in the direction in which it is orientated in linear metaphorstime' (E, and at154).

Circularity The signifying chain is compared to 'rings of a necklace that is a ring in another necklace made of rings' (E, 153).On the one hand, the [[idea]] of linearity suggests that the signifying chain is the stream of speech, in which signifiers are combined in accordance with the laws of grammar (which Saussure calls '[[syntagmatic]]' relationships, and Lacan, following [[Jakobson]], locates on the metonymic axis of language). On the other times hand, the idea of circularity suggests that the signifying chain is a series of signifiers linked by free [[associations]], just one path through the network of signifiers which constitutes the symbolic world of the subject (which Saussure designates 'associative' relationships, and which Lacan, following Jakobson, locates on the [[metaphoric]] axis of language). In [[truth]], the signifying chain is both of these things. In its diachronic dimension it is linear, syntagmatic, metonymic; in its [[synchronic]] dimension it is circular metaphors;, associative, metapho- ric. The two cross over: 'there is in effect no signifying chain [diachronic chain] that does not have, as if attached to the [[punctuation]] of each of its units, a [[whole]] articulation of relevant contexts [synchronic chains] suspended "vertically", as it were, from that point' (E, 154). Lacan thus combines in one concept the two types of [[relationship]] ('syntagmatic' and 'associative') which Saussure argued existed between [[signs]], though for Lacan, the relationship is between signifiers, not signs.

e Linearity 'The linearity that Saussure holds to be constitutive of the chain of discourse applies to the chain of discourse only in the direction in which it is orientated in time' (E, 154).    ï Circularity The signifying chain is compared to 'rings of a necklace that is a ring in another necklace made of rings' (E, 153).  On the one hand, the idea of linearity suggests that the signifying chain is the  stream of speech, in which signifiers are combined in accordance with the laws of grammar (which Saussure calls 'syntagmatic' relationships, and Lacan, following Jakobson, locates on the metonymic axis of language). On the other hand, the idea of circularity suggests that the signifying chain is a series of signifiers linked by free associations, just one path through the network of signifiers which constitutes the symbolic world of the subject (which Saussure designates 'associative' relationships, and which Lacan, following Jakobson, locates on the metaphoric axis of language). In truth, the signifying chain is both of these things. In its diachronic dimension it is linear, syntagmatic, metonymic; in its synchronic dimension it is circular, associative, metapho- ric. The two cross over[[Category: 'there is in effect no signifying chain [diachronic chainNew] that does not have, as if attached to the punctuation of each of its units,  a whole articulation of relevant contexts [synchronic chains] suspended "vertically", as it were, from that point' (E, 154). Lacan thus combines in  one concept the two types of relationship ('syntagmatic' and 'associative') which Saussure argued existed between signs, though for Lacan, the relation- ship is between signifiers, not signs.