Difference between revisions of "Sign"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | The term '[[sign]]' ([[French]]: ''[[signe]]'') is defined by [[Jacques Lacan]] as that which "represents something for someone." | ||
| − | The | + | 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]]. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | 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) | + | 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. |
| − | 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. | + | |
| + | ====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 == | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | sign, 35, 54, 157, 207, 237, 245 [[Seminar XI]] | + | * sign, 35, 54, 157, 207, 237, 245 [[Seminar XI]] |
[[Category:Linguistic theory]] | [[Category:Linguistic theory]] | ||
Revision as of 18:13, 26 June 2006
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."[1]
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.
Contents
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.[2]
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 Saussurean 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 signifiers exist prior to signifieds; 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 signs but of signifiers.
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 'Saussurean algorithm').[3]
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."[4]
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 divides signs into three classes:
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 icons, indices and symbols 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 signs 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) codes and (human) languages.
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
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Saussure, 1916: 114
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.149
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.163
- sign, 35, 54, 157, 207, 237, 245 Seminar XI
