24,656
edits
Changes
no edit summary
The term '[[shifter]]' was introduced into [[linguistics]] by (Danish linguist) [[Otto Jespersen]] (1860-1943) 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).
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.<ref>1957</ref>
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. RomanJakobson 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>
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 'symbol'.
Jakobson concludes that shifters combine both [[Symbolic]] and indexical functions and 'belong therefore to the class of indexical symbols."<ref>Jakobson, 1957: 132.</ref>
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.
Following [[Jakobson]], [[Lacan]] uses the term '[[shifter]]' (in English) to show the problematic and undecidable nature of the 'I' (''Je'').
However, while [[Jakobson]] defines the [[shifter]] as an indexical symbol, Lacan defines it as an indexical signifier.
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]].
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>{{Sll, }} p.139</ref>
==See Also==
