The Signifier and the Signified

Many people have taken a great interest in two seemingly different terms namely, the signifier and the signified. I plan of focusing on two individuals, Saussure and Lacan. Both Saussure and Lacan use the two terms in some very different ways. It is somewhat universally agreed upon that the Signifier is defined as a word that "points the finger"to its meaning and that the signified is what the word represents (what the finger is pointing to). That is about all that any can agree upon about the two terms. From there on out the disagreements begin. The complexity of the issue is immense. After all, we are asking how the sound of a word conveys meaning. The one thing we do know for sure is that sounds do convey meaning. If I were to say the word "wine" you would know exactly what I was saying and an image would present itself in your mind. If you didn't speak English you would still have a word, or series of sounds that would point the way to the same image. The fact that sounds can be put together to mean something, seems to give language a sort of commonality. All spoken language consists of a series of sounds that will point the direction to the object which the sounds represent.

Lacan begins his ambiguous and round about explanation in The Meaning of the Phallus. I am led to believe that the Signifier and the Signified are embodied everywhere. He begins with the conceptual idea of the "other." The "other" is not the one but is literally the other. This brought up the question "What does that have to do with anything?" Lacan says "If it speaks in the Other, I say, designated by this Other the very place called upon by a recourse to speech in any relation where it intervenes. If it speaks in the Other, whether or not the subject hears it with his own ears, it is because it is there that is the subject." Yet another question is raised. Who is the signified and who is the signifier? The signifier is the word "Other" while the Signified is what the word represents. It represents "not the one." So, if it doesn't represent the "one" it must represent the "other." We really need two things here. We need the signifier and the signified. So, that means we need one word and an object of what that word represents.

Let's take Lacans idea of the phallus. First of all we need a signifier. Lacan explains that the phallus is a signifier and its function is to "lift the veil from that which it served in the mysteries. For it is to this signified that it is given to designate as a whole the effect of there being a signified, inasmuch as it conditions any such effect by its presence as signifier." In this particular instance the phallus is the signifier, so he is saying that the signifier is the word "phallus" and the signified is what that word (phallus) represents.

Saussure has a slightly different view. He seems to be saying that the signifier and that signified "reflect" each other. Saussure is telling is that the words meaning is a "series of negative values." Let's take the boat. It is nothing but a bunch of letters B-o-a-t. It really doesn't have a 'boatness' about it because the word boat means something different to everyone. In order to determine what the boat represents we can tell what it doesn't represent. We know that it doesn't represent a car. Using these negative images (reflections) we can get a better idea of the signifier and signified represent.

The concept between the signifier and the signified is to establish the relationship between the two. This relationship is referred to as signification. Saussure also brings out two other concepts; Langue meaning language and parole referring to the actual speech. If the relationship between langue and parole (language and speech) is identified as langue being a part of parole then we could draw the conclusion that signifier is also part of the signified. Back to the word 'boat.' The signifier points its finger at the object which is the boat. The word boat is only the signified which in turn represents the actual object. The formula that Saussure used to help visualize this concept is, sign=signified/signifier. According to Semiotics for beginners, using Saussure's model, a sign must contain both the signifier and the signified in order to work.

Saussure took a concept and connected it to a sound. The word boy, b-o-y. The sound that each individual letter makes are joined together to make one sound. That new sound, of combined letters (the word boy) is then connected to an image. According to Saussure It is the establishment of that link between the sound and the image that is most important.

Lacan's theory of the signified and the signifier originally came from Saussure. Saussure stated that the signifier and the signified needed each other and depended upon one another. It is the signifier that makes the signified. Whereas Lacan believes that you can have one without the other, he called this "Pure Signifier."

Aristotle originally started studying the philosophy of language. According to the article Semantics and Cognitive Research, Aristotle said "Spoken words are the symbols of mental experiences and written words are the symbols of the spoken words." After Aristotle, many philosophers have taken his idea of spoken words and have either agreed of disagreed with it. Nearly all people studying semiotics agreed upon one thing, there is a code model. This model states that "communication is achieved through encoding and decoding messages." Recently philosophers have been proposing a new model stating that "communication is achieved by producing and interpreting evidence." They called this model the inferential model. That theory seems to take the Signifier and the signified to a whole new level. I was able to find out very little reliable and understandable information on this theory. I have concluded myself that this model would require the signifier (the word that points the finger) and the signified to change roles throughout the course of communicating. For example if I say the word "boat" that is the signifier, but rather than the word pointing the finger directly at a boat it merely points in the general direction of a boat. It is then up to the individual hearing the word "boat" to decode the message. Once the individual hears the sound "boat" it would still remain the signifier until the individual is able to decode it. Once the word "boat" is decoded it than will become the signified. This second theory seems to allow the signifier and the signified to move into different states at different times.

I noticed a tiny flaw in the concept of the signified and signifier. If I look at an object and I say the word "red." You look at the same object and say "oh yes, that object is red." I'm relatively certain that you aren't seeing the same identical "red" as I am seeing. Yet we have assigned it the same set of sounds "r-e-d." One could ultimately argue that we were seeing the identical color. One could also argue that it really doesn't matter. I would have to say that it would matter based on the situation. The other way to deal with a situation like this is to go with the majority. If the majority of the people identify the word "red" with a certain shade of pigmentation than that will be the standard and anyone who sees it differently could be referred to as color blind. That appears to be the best and most popular way to make the concepts hold true.

I have attempted to take the works of Saussure and Lacan in regards to their ideas of the concept of the signifier and the signified. I then asked myself the most important question "Why should I care?" I tried to look it up online; I tried to research it in the library and after countless hours of research I couldn't find the answer. I thought about it and I think I came up with an amicable answer. By studying a concept such as the signified and signifier we are able to better understand what a concept is. A concept is just a set of ideas that really aren't real; or rather they are as real as the creator and interpreter of the concept wants them to be. That within itself forces the word "concept" to be the signifier and the ideas that the "concept" represents become the signified.

Bibilography

Bakhtin, M. M. Bakhtin reader selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, and Voloshinov. London: E. Arnold, 1994.

Chandler, Daniel. "Semiotics for Beginners Signs." Semiotics for Beginners. 2004. Routledge Francis e-library.

"Lacan and Language." Lecan and Language. National University of Singapore. 25 May 2009 http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/elljwp/lacan.htm.

Lacan, Jacques. The "Meaning of the Phallus" in feminine sexuality. New York: Norton, 1985.

Semantics and Cognitive research. Francois /rastier, 2006.

"Signifier." Encyclopedia of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. 12 Nov. 2006. 30 May 2009 http://nosubject.com/Signifier.

Straker, David. "Signifier and Signified." Changing Minds.org. David Straker. http://changingminds.org/explanations/critical_theory/concepts/signifier_signified.htmBaskin,

Wade, trans. Course in General Linguistics Ferdinand de Saussure. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw Hill.