‌‌‌‌　　英：signifier; 法：signifiant

‌‌‌‌　　拉康从瑞士语言学家费尔迪南·德·索绪尔的著作中借取了“能指”这一术语。弗洛伊德并未使用过这个术语，他当时并不知道索绪尔的著作。根据索绪尔的观点，能指即是符号 (SIGN)的语言元素，它并非实际的声音本身，而是这样一种声音的心像 (mentalimage)。用索绪尔的话说，能指是表示一个所指 (SIGNIFIED)的“声像”(acoustic image)(Saussure, 1916:66-7).

‌‌‌‌　　虽然索绪尔认为能指与所指是相互依存的，但是拉康则声称能指是第一位的并且产生了所指。能指首先是在一个封闭的差异系统中的一个无意义的物质元素，这一“没有所指的能指”被拉康称作“纯粹的能指”，尽管这涉及的是一种逻辑上的而非时序上的优先。“每个真正的能指，就其本身而言，都是一个什么也不指代的能指。能指越是什么也不指代，它就越是不可摧毁。”(S3,185)正是这些无意义的不可摧毁的能指决定着主体，能指作用在主体上的那些效果即构成了无意识，也因此构成了精神分析的整个领域。

‌‌‌‌　　因而，对拉康而言，语言并非一种符号系统（如同对索绪尔来说的那样），而是一种能指系统。这些能指是语言的基本单位，它们皆“服从于一个双重条件，其一是可化约为一些最终差异性元素，其二是可根据一个封闭秩序的那些法则来加以组合”（E, 152).

‌‌‌‌　　借由“可化约为一些最终差异性元素”这一措辞，拉康是在遵循索绪尔宣称的能指的根本差异性特征。索绪尔声称在语言中没有任何肯定的词项，有的只是差异 (Saussure, 1916:120).

‌‌‌‌　　借由“可根据一个封闭秩序的那些法则来加以组合”这一措辞，拉康宣称能指是根据那些换喻的法则而在能指链条中被组合起来的。

‌‌‌‌　　能指是象征秩序的构成性单位，因为它在整体上被联系于结构 (STRUCTURE)的概念，“结构与能指的概念似乎是不可分割的”(S3,184)。能指的领域即大他者的领域，后者被拉康称作“能指的宝库”(the battery of signifiers).

‌‌‌‌　　拉康将一个能指定义为“为另一能指代表一个主体的东西”，符号则与之相对是“为某人代表某物”的东西 (S11,207)。更准确地说，一个能指 (叫作主人能指，并且写作S,)为所有其他能指（写作S,)代表主体。然而，没有任何能指可以指代 (signify)主体。

‌‌‌‌　　尽管“能指”这一术语并未出现于弗洛伊德的著作，然而拉康对于该术语的使用集中关注了弗洛伊德作品中一个反复出现的主题。弗洛伊德有关精神分析解释的很多例子，便不断地聚焦在那些纯粹形式的语言特征之上。例如，他就曾经把自己无法回忆起来的“Signorelli'”这个名字划分为几个形式片段，并遵循每一片段的联想性关联来分析自己对于这个名字的遗忘 (Freud, 101: ch. 1)。因而，拉康坚持认为分析家应当在分析者的言语中听取能指的观点，其实便不是一种技术上的创新，而是旨在以更严格的术语来理论化弗洛伊德自己方法的一种尝试。

‌‌‌‌　　虽然当拉康谈论能指的时候，他通常在指涉的其实就是别人可能简单地称之为“词”的事物，但是这两个术语并不等同。不但那些比词更小（词素和音素）或者比词更大（短语和句子）的语言单位皆可作为能指而运作，而且一些非语言的事物也皆可如此，诸如对象、关系以及症状行为等 (S4,288)。对拉康而言，把某种事物刻化为一个能指的唯一条件，即在于它被铭刻进了一个系统之中，而在此系统中，它纯粹是凭借自己与该系统内其他元素之间的差异来呈现其自身价值的。能指的这一差异性特征，恰恰意味着它永远都无法具有某种单一或固定的意义 (S4,289): 相反，能指的意义是根据它在结构中所占据的位置而改变的。

‌‌‌‌　　(signifiant) Lacan takes the term 'signifier'from the work of the Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure. The term was not used by Freud, who was unaware of Saussure'swork. According to Saussure, the signifier is the phonological element of the SIGN; notthe actual sound itself, but the mental image of such a sound. In Saussure's terms, thesignifier is the 'acoustic image'which signifies a SIGNIFIED (Saussure, 1916:66-7).

‌‌‌‌　　Whereas Saussure argues that the signifier and the signified are mutuallyinterdependent, Lacan states that the signifier is primary and produces the signified. Thesignifier is first of all a meaningless material element in a closed differential system; this'signifier without the signified'is called by Lacan the pure signifier', though this is aquestion of logical rather than chronological precedence. Every real signifier is, as such, a signifier that signifies nothing. The more the signifier signifies nothing, the moreindestructible it is' (S3,185). It is these meaningless indestructible signifiers whichdetermine the subject; the effects of the signifier on the subject constitute theunconscious, and hence also constitute the whole of the field of psychoanalysis.

‌‌‌‌　　Thus for Lacan language is not a system of signs (as it was for Saussure) but a systemof signifiers. Signifiers are the basic units of language, and they are 'subjected to thedouble condition of being reducible to ultimate differential elements and of combiningaccording to the laws of a closed order' (E, 152).

‌‌‌‌　　By the phrase reducible to ultimate differential elements', Lacan follows Saussure inasserting the fundamentally differential character of the signifier. Saussure states that inlanguage there are no positive terms, only differences (Saussure, 1916:120).

‌‌‌‌　　By the phrase 'combining according to the laws of a closed order', Lacan asserts thatsignifiers are combined in signifying chains according to the laws of metonymy.

‌‌‌‌　　The signifier is the constitutive unit of the symbolic order because it is integrallyrelated with the concept of STRUCTURE;'the notion of structure and that of signifierappear inseparable' (S3,184). The field of the signifier is the field of the Other, which Lacan calls 'the battery of signifiers'.

‌‌‌‌　　Lacan defines a signifier as 'that which represents a subject for another signifier', inopposition to the sign, which 'represents something for someone'. (S11,207). To bemore precise, one signifier (called the master signifier, and written S) represents thesubject for all other signifiers (written S2). However, no signifier can signify the subject.

‌‌‌‌　　Although the term 'signifier'is absent from Freud's work, Lacan's use of the termfocuses attention on a recurrent theme in Freud's writings. Freud's examples ofpsychoanalytic interpretations constantly focus on purely formal linguistic features. Forexample, he analyses his own failure to remember the name 'Signorelli'by dividing theword into formal segments and following the associative links with each segment (Freud, 1901: ch. 1). Thus Lacan's insistence that the analyst attend to the signifiers in theanalysand's speech is not really an innovation in technique but an attempt to theorise Freud's own method in more rigorous terms.

‌‌‌‌　　While it is true that when Lacan talks about signifiers he is often referring to whatothers would call simply 'words', the two terms are not equivalent. Not only can units oflanguage smaller than words (morphemes and phonemes) or larger than words (phrasesand sentences) also function as signifiers, but so also can non-linguistic things such asobjects, relationships and symptomatic acts (S4,288). The single condition whichcharacterises something as a signifier, for Lacan, is that it is inscribed in a system inwhich it takes on value purely by virtue of its difference from the other elements in thesystem. It is this differential nature of the signifier which means that it can never have aunivocal or fixed meaning (S4,289); on the contrary, its meaning varies according to theposition which it occupies in the structure.