Changes

The term "[[chain]]" is used increasingly by [[Lacan]] from the mid-1950s on, always in references to the [[symbolic order]].  At first, in 1956, he speaks not of the [[signifying chain]] but of the ''[[symbolic]]'' [[chain]], by which he denotes a line of descendence into which each [[subject]] is inscribed even before his before [[birth]] and after his [[death]], and which influences his destiny [[unconscious|unconsciously]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 468</ref>  In the same year he speaks of "the chain of [[discourse]]."<ref>{{S3}} p. 261</ref>

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

The [[chain]] is also [[metonymy|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.<ref>{{E}} p. 153</ref>

<blockquote>"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 oriented in [[time]]."<ref>{{E}} p. 154</ref></blockquote>

On the one hand, the [[idea ]] of linearity suggests that the [[signifying chain]] is the stream of [[speech]], in which [[signifier]]s 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 [[signifier]]s linked by [[free association]]s, just one path through the network of [[signifiers]] which constitutes the [[symbolic]] [[world]] of the [[subject]] -- which [[Saussure]] calls "associative" relationships, and [[Lacan]], following [[Jakobson]], locates on the [[metaphoric]] axis of [[language]].

In [[truth]], the [[signifying chain]] is both of these things. In its [[diachrony|diachronic]] [[dimension]] it is linear, [[syntagmatic]], [[metonymic]]; in its [[synchrony|synchronic]] dimension it is circular, associative, [[metaphoric]]. The two cross over: <blockquote>"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]] units] suspended 'vertically', as it were, from that point."<ref>{{E}} p. 154</ref></blockquote>

In its [[diachrony|diachronicLacan]] dimension it is linear, [[syntagmatic]], [[metonymic]]; thus combines in its one [[synchrony|synchronicconcept]] dimension it is circular, associative, [[metaphoric]]. The the two cross over: <blockquote>"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 types of relevant contexts [synchronic units] suspended 'vertically', as it were, from that point."<ref>{{E}} p. 154</ref></blockquote> [[Lacanrelationship]] thus combines in one concept the two types of relationship ("[[syntagmatic]]" and "associative") which [[Saussure]] argued existed between [[sign]]s, though for [[Lacan]], the relationship is between [[signifiers]], not [[sign]]s.