Lacan's Selective Reading of Saussure Revisited

Signifier? AI image

 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 through diagrams illustrating the intimate relation between signified and signifier—lays the foundation for his project. Lacan’s reinterpretation of these theories, however, especially his claims regarding the primacy of the signifier and the notion of pure signifiers, introduces a set of complexities that demand careful scrutiny. This article examines Lacan’s selective reading of Saussure, assessing its implications for linguistic theory and psychoanalytic thought alike.

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 presents his well-known diagram of the sign. Here, the signified rests atop the signifier within a circle divided by a horizontal line or “bar.” Two arrows flank the circle—one ascending, one descending—indicating the reciprocal relation between both elements: 

The diagram expresses the idea that the sign is composed of two inseparable components, united by an arbitrary but consistent bond: “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]. This statement is worth keeping in mind, since it seems at odds with the Lacanian claim that the signifier does not so much relate to a signified as to another signifier.

The arrows thus represent mutual implication, while the dividing line suggests a duality held together in tension. The signifier and signified are distinct yet inseparable—each exists only in relation to the other.

The Earlier Presentation of the Sign in the Introduction of the CGL

It is important to note, however, that Saussure first introduces the notion of the sign much earlier, when discussing the speech circuit in the Introduction, Chapter 3, The Object of Study, §2 Linguistic structure: Its place among the facts of language [CGL] [28]. In this earlier diagram, the signified (concept) and the signifier (acoustic image) appear side by side within a circle, without a dividing bar. Two horizontal arrows link them, suggesting a relation of equilibrium rather than hierarchy (Figure 2):

This initial representation is particularly relevant, since the later diagram, with the bar and vertical arrangement (Figure 1), would play a central role in shaping Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory (Figure 3):

The contrast between these two depictions in Saussure’s own work (Figures 1 and 2) is striking, especially from a Lacanian critical perspective. The first diagram, emphasizing horizontal reciprocity, implies a dynamic and balanced interaction. The second introduces a vertical alignment that easily lends itself to hierarchical interpretation. Lacan’s decision to privilege the latter—to invert it, and to build upon it—was therefore not arbitrary but strategic. It reflects his decision to reframe the linguistic sign as an emblem of psychic structure, particularly in his formulation of the unconscious as “structured like a language.”

Yet this selective adoption comes at a cost. By inverting the Saussurean algorithm and assigning primacy to the signifier, Lacan distorts the reciprocity fundamental to Saussure’s conception. The “bar” that separates the two sides becomes, in Lacan’s hands, a site of repression and slippage, emblematic of the gap between conscious and unconscious meaning.

From Linguistics to Psychoanalysis: The Problem of the “Pure Signifier”

Lacan’s elevation of the signifier—and his claim that signifiers can exist in a pure, self-referential order—marks a decisive departure from Saussure. Such a view flattens linguistic complexity and obscures the interdependence of form and meaning.

While Lacan’s schema may illuminate the associative play of language in the unconscious, it falters when measured against the structural breadth of actual linguistic systems. Language is not reducible to a chain of signifiers; its mechanism hinges on a web of differences that derive significance only through their syntactic and semantic relations. Hence, the Lacanian model, for all its brilliance, may overextend its metaphorical reach when transposed wholesale into linguistics.

Trigger Warning for the Linguist: Approach Lacan with Care

Uncritical adoption of Lacan’s reworking of Saussure poses clear risks for linguists. To accept the Lacanian inversion without reservation is to obscure the methodological precision of Saussure’s framework. Conceiving of signifiers as autonomous entities—floating fragments of potentiality “ready to be glued” to any signified—contradicts Saussure’s central thesis: that the linguistic sign exists only through the mutual dependence of its two sides.

Lacan’s notion of point de capiton—the “quilting point” where meaning is temporarily fixed—may brilliantly describe the symbolic function within psychoanalysis, but it cannot substitute for the linguistic principle of value by difference. The divergence of aims between the two thinkers is decisive: Saussure sought to understand the internal economy of language, whereas Lacan sought to treat the human subject. Their objectives were never the same; hence, their signs should not be confused.

Conclusion

Lacan’s creative reading of Saussure enriches the discourse on language and the unconscious but simultaneously destabilizes key linguistic principles. His inversion of the Saussurean diagram and his conception of pure signifiers challenge the very notion of the sign as a dual unity. While Lacan’s insights open new avenues for psychoanalytic thought, linguists must approach his work with methodological caution. Only through a critical engagement, one that acknowledges the distinct purposes and epistemic boundaries of linguistics and psychoanalysis, can scholars appreciate Lacan’s theoretical audacity without conflating it with Saussure’s scientific rigor.

A careful balance between openness and discipline is thus required: to read Lacan with Saussure, but never as Saussure.

Bibliography

Evans, D. (1996). An introductory dictionary of Lacanian psychoanalysis. Routledge.

Lacan, J. (2006). Écrits: The first complete edition in English (B. Fink, Trans.). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original works published 1966, 1970, 1971, 1999)

Joseph, J. E. (2017). The arbre–tree sign: Pictures and words in counterpoint in the Cours de linguistique générale. Semiotica, 217(1), 147–171. 

Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Eds., with A. Riedlinger). Librairie Payot.

Saussure, F. de. (2013). Course in general linguistics (R. Harris, Trans. & Ed.). Bloomsbury.