Lacan's Selective Reading of Saussure: A Critical Examination

 Lacan's Selective Reading of Saussure: Another Misguided Arrow?

Introduction:

Understanding the dynamics between the signifier and the signified, as expounded in Course in General Linguistics (CGL), forms a cornerstone of linguistic theory. Saussure's depiction of the sign, represented by a diagram illustrating the intimate relationship between the signified and the signifier, sets the stage for understanding language structure. However, Lacan's reinterpretation of Saussure's theories, particularly regarding the primacy of the signifier and the notion of "pure signifiers," introduces complexities that warrant careful examination. This article explores Lacan's selective reading of Saussure's work, considering its implications for linguistic theory and practice.

Understanding the Sign in Part One of the CGL:

In Part One of the CGL, General Principles, Chapter 1, §1 Sign, signification, signal, [CGL] [97], Saussure's depiction of the sign is encapsulated in a diagram where the signified rests atop the signifier within a circle, demarcated by a separating line or bar. Additionally, two arrows flank the circle, one ascending and the other descending (Figure 1). This diagram illustrates the notion that the sign consists of two intertwined elements: the signified and the signifier, bound by an arbitrary yet unyielding connection. The arrows symbolize the reciprocal implication inherent in signification, while the line separating the signified and the signifier implies a sense of unity.

“The linguistic sign is, then, a two-sided psychological entity, which may be represented by the following diagram (Figure 1). These two elements are intimately linked and each triggers the other.” [CGL] [99]

Initial Presentation of the Sign in the Introduction of the CGL:

It is noteworthy, however, that Saussure's conception of the linguistic sign first emerges in the Introduction, Chapter 3, The Object of Study, §2 Linguistic structure: Its place among the facts of language. [CGL] [28]. Here, the sign is presented differently, with the signified/concept and the signifier/acoustic image placed side by side within a circle, devoid of a separating line or "bar" (Joseph, J 2017). The arrows inside the circle, positioned horizontally, signify flow, equality and parity between the two elements (Figure 2). This alternative representation is extremely relevant, since the “bar” and the position of the signifier on top of the signified play a central role in Lacan´s psychoanalytic theory:

 The contrast between these two depictions of the sign in Saussure's work is significant, especially from a Lacanian perspective. The dynamic and non-hierarchical relationship implied by the horizontal alignment of the signified and the signifier in the diagram from the Introduction diverges from the vertical hierarchy suggested by the diagram in chapter one. Lacan's preference for the later diagram over the former in his own work suggests a deliberate choice in his interpretation of Saussure's ideas, potentially compromising certain aspects of Saussure's original concepts. Lacan's emphasis on the primacy of the signifier and the inversion of the Saussurean algorithm underscores his theoretical stance, particularly regarding the structure of the unconscious as akin to language.

Moreover, Lacan's elevation of the signifier to a position of prominence and his assertion of its precedence over the signified in the order of "pure signifiers" can be seen as reverting to a nomenclaturist view of language. This view conceives language as a mere list of names corresponding to a list of concepts, a notion that may not fully align with modern linguistic understanding. While such a framework might hold for nouns, it fails to encompass the entirety of language, including prepositions, adverbs, conjunctions, and other parts of speech, raising questions about the comprehensiveness of Lacan's linguistic model in accounting for the richness and complexity of language structure. 

Trigger Warning for the Linguist: Approach Lacan with Care

Blindly adopting Lacan's innovations in sign theory without critical examination presents risks for linguists. By unquestioningly embracing Lacanian ideas, scholars may overlook established linguistic principles and methodologies, hindering advancement in the field. Furthermore, uncritically applying psychoanalytic principles to linguistic analysis may lead to oversimplifications and inaccuracies, undermining the validity of linguistic theories. For instance, conceiving of signifiers independently of signifieds, as suggested by Lacan, contradicts Saussure's framework, which emphasizes their inseparable relationship. Saussure opposed the nomenclaturist view that treats language as a mere list of names matching concepts, a position that Lacan's idea echoes. In other words, the lacanian signifier seens to be a chunk of potentiality, freely floating around, ready to be temporarily glued to any signified, or, as if by magic, producing signifieds right out of the hat (point de capiton).

It is obvious that the purpose or goal Lacan and Saussure had in mind was different; put bluntly, Lacan wanted to help or cure ill patients, while Saussure aimed to understand the workings of language and contribute to linguistics. This disparity in objectives may explain why some of Lacan's moves, such as the inversion of the position of the signified and signifier with respect to each other, may seem incomprehensible from a linguistic perspective; likewise, an order of "pure signifiers" where signifiers exist alone without being coupled with a signified is unthinkable within the Saussurean framework.

Conclusion:

While Lacan's insights into the structure of language offer valuable perspectives, blind acceptance of his theories without critical evaluation poses significant risks for linguists. Lacan's departure from Saussure's framework, particularly regarding the inversion of the signifier and signified and the concept of "pure signifiers," challenges traditional linguistic paradigms. However, by critically engaging with Lacanian concepts within the broader context of linguistic theory and empirical evidence, scholars can navigate the complexities introduced by Lacan while enriching their understanding of language. Thus, approaching Lacan's theories with care and scrutiny is essential for fostering intellectual growth and innovation in linguistics, ensuring that theoretical advancements align with empirical realities and contribute meaningfully to the field.

Cite this text: 

Rodie. (2024). Return to Saussure. Retrieved from http://www.derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com

Related posts from this blog:

Shadows of Authenticity: A Misguided Arrow

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/12/blog-post_24.html

 Nomenclature vs. System of Arbitrary Signs

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/11/blog-post_26.html

Bibliography

Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London and New York: Routledge, 1996.

Lacan, Jacques. "Ecrits: The First Complete Edition in English." Translated by Bruce Fink in collaboration with Heloise Fink and Russell Grigg. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. Copyright © 1966, 1970, 1971, 1999 by Editions du Seuil. English translation copyright © 2006, 2002 by W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Joseph, J 2017, 'The arbre-tree sign: Pictures and words in counterpoint in the Cours de linguistique générale', Semiotica, vol. 217, no. 1, pp. 147-171. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0040

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Libraire Payot.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.