Difference between revisions of "Shifter"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | =====Linguistic Definition===== | |
| + | The term "[[shifter]]" was introduced into [[linguistics]] by [[linguist]] [[Otto Jespersen]] to refer to those elements in [[language]] whose general [[meaning]] cannot be defined without reference to the [[message]] (to describe a class of words whose [[meaning]] varies according to their situation or whose references varies). | ||
| − | + | =====Roman Jakobson===== | |
| + | For [[Jakobson]], a [[shifter]] is a term whose [[meaning]] cannot be determined without referring to the [[message]] that is being [[communicate]]d between a sender and a receiver.<ref>[[Roman Jakobson|Jakobson, Roman]]. 1957. "Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb," in ''Selected Writings'', vol. II, ''Word and Language'', The Hague: Mouton, 1971. p. 132</ref> | ||
| − | + | =====Examples===== | |
| + | Personal pronouns are [[shifter]]s: the word "I" designates both the speaker or sender who says "I" and the "I" contained in the [[message]] that is sent. | ||
| + | For example the pronouns "I" and "you", as well as words like "here" and "now", and the tenses, can only be understood by reference to the context in which they are uttered. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Roman Jakobson===== | ||
| + | =====General Meaning===== | ||
[[Roman Jakobson]] developed the concept in an article published in 1957. | [[Roman Jakobson]] developed the concept in an article published in 1957. | ||
| − | Before this article, "the peculiarity of the personal pronoun and other shifters was often believed to consist in the lack of a single, constant, general meaning."<ref>Jakobson, 1957: 132</ref> | + | Before this article, "the peculiarity of the personal pronoun and other shifters was often believed to consist in the lack of a single, constant, general meaning."<ref>[[Roman Jakobson|Jakobson, Roman]]. 1957. "Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb," in ''Selected Writings'', vol. II, ''Word and Language'', The Hague: Mouton, 1971. p. 132</ref> |
| − | [[Jakobson]] argues that [[shifter]]s do have a single general [[meaning]]; for example the personal pronoun I always means "the person uttering I". | + | [[Jakobson]] argues that [[shifter]]s do have a single general [[meaning]]; for example the personal pronoun "I" always means "the person uttering I". |
| − | This makes the [[shifter]] a | + | This makes the [[shifter]] a "[[symbol]]." |
| + | =====Indexical Symbol===== | ||
[[Jakobson]] concludes that [[shifter]]s combine both [[symbolic]] and [[index]]ical functions and "belong therefore to the class of indexical symbols."<ref>Jakobson, 1957: 132.</ref> | [[Jakobson]] concludes that [[shifter]]s combine both [[symbolic]] and [[index]]ical functions and "belong therefore to the class of indexical symbols."<ref>Jakobson, 1957: 132.</ref> | ||
| + | =====Context-Free Grammar===== | ||
In this way, [[Jakobson]] questions the possibility of a context-free grammar, since the [[enunciation]] is encoded in the [[statement]] itself. | In this way, [[Jakobson]] questions the possibility of a context-free grammar, since the [[enunciation]] is encoded in the [[statement]] itself. | ||
| − | Also, since grammar is implicated in ''[[parole]]'', the ''[[langue]]''/''[[parole]]'' distinction is put into question. | + | Also, since grammar is implicated in ''[[parole]]'', the ''[[langue]]'' / ''[[parole]]'' distinction is put into question. |
| − | Following [[Jakobson]], [[Lacan]] uses the term | + | =====Jacques Lacan===== |
| + | Following [[Jakobson]], [[Lacan]] uses the term "[[shifter]]" (in [[English]]) to show the problematic and undecidable nature of the "I" (''Je''). | ||
| + | =====Indexical Signifier===== | ||
However, while [[Jakobson]] defines the [[shifter]] as an [[index]]ical [[symbol]], [[Lacan]] defines it as an [[index]]ical [[signifier]]. | However, while [[Jakobson]] defines the [[shifter]] as an [[index]]ical [[symbol]], [[Lacan]] defines it as an [[index]]ical [[signifier]]. | ||
| + | =====Enunciation and Statement===== | ||
This problematises the distinction between [[enunciation]] and [[statement]]. | This problematises the distinction between [[enunciation]] and [[statement]]. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 42: | ||
On the other hand, as an [[index]] it is clearly part of the [[enunciation]]. | On the other hand, as an [[index]] it is clearly part of the [[enunciation]]. | ||
| − | This [[division]] of the | + | =====Division of the Subject===== |
| + | This [[division]] of the "I" is not merely illustrative of the [[splitting]] of the [[subject]]; it is that [[split]]. | ||
| − | "Indeed, the I of the enunciation is not the same as the I of the statement, that is to say, the shifter which, in the statement, designates him."<ref>{{S11}} p.139</ref> | + | <blockquote>"Indeed, the I of the enunciation is not the same as the I of the statement, that is to say, the shifter which, in the statement, designates him."<ref>{{S11}} p.139</ref></blockquote> |
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
| Line 42: | Line 54: | ||
* [[Enunciation]] | * [[Enunciation]] | ||
* [[Linguistics]] | * [[Linguistics]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* [[Splitting]] | * [[Splitting]] | ||
* [[Subject]] | * [[Subject]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==See Also== | ||
| + | * [[Enunciation]] | ||
| + | * [[Index]] | ||
| + | * [[Language]] | ||
| + | * [[Meaning]] | ||
| + | * [[Shifter]] | ||
| + | * [[Signification]] | ||
| + | * [[Signified]] | ||
| + | * [[Signifier]] | ||
| + | * [[Signifying Chain]] | ||
| + | * [[Statement]] | ||
| + | * [[Subject]] | ||
| + | * [[Symbol]] | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| + | [[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | ||
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | [[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Linguistics]] | ||
[[Category:Dictionary]] | [[Category:Dictionary]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Language]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Symbolic]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Concepts]] | ||
[[Category:Terms]] | [[Category:Terms]] | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:OK]] |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | __NOTOC__ | |
Revision as of 09:11, 18 August 2006
Linguistic Definition
The term "shifter" was introduced into linguistics by linguist Otto Jespersen to refer to those elements in language whose general meaning cannot be defined without reference to the message (to describe a class of words whose meaning varies according to their situation or whose references varies).
Roman Jakobson
For Jakobson, a shifter is a term whose meaning cannot be determined without referring to the message that is being communicated between a sender and a receiver.[1]
Examples
Personal pronouns are shifters: the word "I" designates both the speaker or sender who says "I" and the "I" contained in the message that is sent.
For example the pronouns "I" and "you", as well as words like "here" and "now", and the tenses, can only be understood by reference to the context in which they are uttered.
Roman Jakobson
General Meaning
Roman Jakobson developed the concept in an article published in 1957.
Before this article, "the peculiarity of the personal pronoun and other shifters was often believed to consist in the lack of a single, constant, general meaning."[2]
Jakobson argues that shifters do have a single general meaning; for example the personal pronoun "I" always means "the person uttering I".
This makes the shifter a "symbol."
Indexical Symbol
Jakobson concludes that shifters combine both symbolic and indexical functions and "belong therefore to the class of indexical symbols."[3]
Context-Free Grammar
In this way, Jakobson questions the possibility of a context-free grammar, since the enunciation is encoded in the statement itself.
Also, since grammar is implicated in parole, the langue / parole distinction is put into question.
Jacques Lacan
Following Jakobson, Lacan uses the term "shifter" (in English) to show the problematic and undecidable nature of the "I" (Je).
Indexical Signifier
However, while Jakobson defines the shifter as an indexical symbol, Lacan defines it as an indexical signifier.
Enunciation and Statement
This problematises the distinction between enunciation and statement.
On the one hand, as a signifier it is clearly part of the statement.
On the other hand, as an index it is clearly part of the enunciation.
Division of the Subject
This division of the "I" is not merely illustrative of the splitting of the subject; it is that split.
"Indeed, the I of the enunciation is not the same as the I of the statement, that is to say, the shifter which, in the statement, designates him."[4]
See Also
See Also
- Enunciation
- Index
- Language
- Meaning
- Shifter
- Signification
- Signified
- Signifier
- Signifying Chain
- Statement
- Subject
- Symbol
References
- ↑ Jakobson, Roman. 1957. "Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb," in Selected Writings, vol. II, Word and Language, The Hague: Mouton, 1971. p. 132
- ↑ Jakobson, Roman. 1957. "Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb," in Selected Writings, vol. II, Word and Language, The Hague: Mouton, 1971. p. 132
- ↑ Jakobson, 1957: 132.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p.139
