© AesthetixMS 2020. This Open Access article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For citation use the DOI. For commercial re-use, please contact editor@rupkatha.com. Deconstructing Maternal Semiotic and Paternal Symbolic: A Psycholinguistic Perspective for Social Refinement Dhara Rathod Department of Business and management, Institute of Advanced Research, Gandhinagar. Email: dhara.rathod87@gmail.com Abstract: To examine the possibilities of reciprocal relationship of Semiotic and Symbolic in language processing, the present study attempts to analyze the psycholinguistic perspective as an essential tool for social refinement. When the select semiotic used for female which is maternal gets its signification in symbolic which is paternal was found affective. Genially, there should no such ideas as masculine or feminine in semiotic and symbolic. Consciously or unconsciously, female locates her priming words as an auxiliary and thereafter the psycholinguistic perspective for social change demands influence of semiotic and symbolic congruency for women empowerment in the globalized era. To transmit, receive and deform meanings of the words that have been used, misused and abused for females, the present study attempts to analyse select words through psycholinguistic filament of language learning. The finding suggests that this deconstructing psychic and linguistic change demands representation of right semiotic and symbolic interpretation of words at Mirror Stage of language processing. Keywords: Psycholinguistic, feminism, semiotic, symbolic, maternal, paternal, signification, social refinement. Introduction Human has claimed: “I am the unified, self-controlled center of the universe the rest of the world, which I define as the Other, has meaning only in relation to me, as man/father, possessor of the phallus” (Jones, p. 362). This claim centrality has been not only given palm by philosophy and religion but also by language too. The term ‘Other’, in general context, has been used to describe the one who is separate from one’s self. Although it is used extensively in existential philosophy to define the relationship between the self and Other, the definition of the term as it is used in the current postcolonial theory, is rooted in Freudian and post Freudian analysis of the formation of the Subjectivity, most notably in the work of the psychoanalyst and cultural theorist Jacques Lacan. His use of the term involves a distinction between the ‘Other’ and the ‘other’ which can lead to some confusion, but it is a distinction that can be very useful in post-colonial theory. In Lacan’s theory, the other – with the small ‘o’- designates the other who resembles the self, which the child discovers when he looks into the mirror and become aware of itself as a separate being (Bill Ashcroft, 2004, p. 169). The Other - with the capital O – has been called the grande-autre by Lacan, the great Other in whose gaze the subject gains identity. The symbolic Other is not a real interlocutor but can be embodied in other subject such as the mother or the father that may represent it. The Symbolic other is a ‘transcendent o absolute poll of address summoned each time that subject speaks to another subject (Bill Ashcroft, 2004, p. 170). The Symbolic discourse is Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities (ISSN 0975-2935) Indexed by Web of Science, Scopus, DOAJ, ERIHPLUS Special Conference Issue (Vol. 12, No. 5, 2020. 1-7) from 1st Rupkatha International Open Conference on Recent Advances in Interdisciplinary Humanities (rioc.rupkatha.com) Full Text: http://rupkatha.com/V12/n5/rioc1s24n5.pdf DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v12n5.rioc1s24n5