|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | | | |
| − | The term '[[sign]]' ([[French]]: ''[[signe]]'') is defined by [[Jacques Lacan]] as that which "represents something for someone."
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[signifier]] is "that which represents a subject for another signifier."<ref>{{S11}} p.207</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | By engaging with the concept of the [[sign]], [[Lacan]] sets his work in close relation to the [[science]] of [[semiotics]], which has grown rapidly in the twentieth century.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Two main lines of development can be discerned within semiotics: the European line associated with [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] (which [[Saussure]] himself baptised with the name of '[[semiology]]'), and the North American line associated with [[Charles S. Peirce]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===One===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | According to [[Saussure]], the [[sign]] is the basic unit of [[language]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[sign]] is constituted by two elements:
| |
| − | # a conceptual element (which [[Saussure]] calls the [[signified]]), and
| |
| − | # a phonological element (called the [[signifier]]).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The two elements are linked by an arbitrary but unbreakable bond.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Saussurean algorithm====
| |
| − | [[Saussure]] represented the [[sign]] by means of a diagram.<ref>Saussure, 1916: 114</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In this diagram, the arrows represent the reciprocal implication inherent in [[signification]], and the line between the [[signified]] and the [[signifier]] represents union.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Jacques Lacan====
| |
| − | [[Lacan]] takes up the [[Saussure]]an concept of the [[sign]] in his 'linguistic turn' in [[psychoanalysis]] during the 1950s, but subjects it to several modifications.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Firstly, whereas [[Saussure]] posited the reciprocal implication between the [[signifier]] and the [[signified]] (they are as mutually interdependent as two sides of a sheet of paper), [[Lacan]] argues that the relation between [[signifier]] and [[signified]] is extremely unstable.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Secondly, [[Lacan]] asserts the [[existence]] of an order of 'pure signifiers', where [[signifier]]s exist prior to [[signified]]s; this [[order]] of purely logical [[structure]] is the [[unconscious]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This amounts to a destruction of [[Saussure]]'s concept of the [[sign]]; for [[Lacan]], a [[language]] is not composed of [[sign]]s but of [[signifier]]s.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Saussurean algorithm====
| |
| − | To illustrate the contrast between his own views and those of [[Saussure]], [[Lacan]] replaces [[Saussure]]'s diagram of the sign with an [[algorithm]] which, [[Lacan]] argues, should be attributed to [[Saussure]] (and is thus now sometimes referred to as the '[[Saussure]]an algorithm').<ref>{{E}} p.149</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The '''S''' stands for the [[signifier]], and the '''s''' for the [[signified]]; the position of the [[signified]] and the [[signifier]] is thus inverted, showing the primacy of the [[signifier]] (which is capitalised, whereas the [[signifier]] is reduced to mere lower-case italic).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The arrows and the circle are abolished, representing the [[absence]] of a stable or fixed relation between [[signifier]] and [[signified]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[bar]] between the [[signifier]] and the [[signified]] no longer represents union but the [[resistance]] inherent in [[signification]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | For [[Lacan]], this algorithm defines "the [[topography]] of the [[unconscious]]."<ref>{{E}} p.163</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Two==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | According to [[Peirce]], the [[sign]] is something which represents an object to some interpretant (the term 'object' can mean, for Peirce, a physical thing, an event, an idea, or another sign).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Peirce]] [[divide]]s [[sign]]s into three classes:
| |
| − | * '[[symbol]]s',
| |
| − | * '[[indices]]' and
| |
| − | * '[[icon]]s', which differ in the way they relate to the [[object]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[symbol]] has no 'natural' or necessary relationship to the [[object]] it refers to, but is related to the [[object]] by a purely conventional rule.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[index]] has an 'existential relation' to the [[object]] it represents (i.e. the [[index]] is always spatially or temporally contiguous to the [[object]]).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[icon]] represents an [[object]] by exhibiting its form via similarity.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Peirce]]'s distinctions between [[icon]]s, [[indices]] and [[symbol]]s are analytical and not intended to be mutually exclusive.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hence a [[sign]] will almost always function in a variety of modes; personal pronouns, for example, are [[sign]]s which function both symbolically and indexically.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Lacan]] takes up [[Peirce]]'s concept of the [[index]] in order to distinguish between the [[psychoanalytic]] and medical concepts of the [[symptom]], and to distinguish between (animal) [[code]]s and (human) [[language]]s.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Lacan]] also develops the concept of the index along the lines set down by [[Roman Jakobson]] in the concept of the [[shifter]], to distinguish between the [[subject]] of the [[statement]] and the [[subject]] of the [[enunciation]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == References ==
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
| − | * sign, 35, 54, 157, 207, 237, 245 [[Seminar XI]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Category:Linguistic theory]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Symbolic]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Jacques Lacan]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Terms]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Concepts]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
| |
