‌‌‌‌　　英：shifter

‌‌‌‌　　“转换词”这个术语由奥托·叶斯伯森①在1923年引入语言学，以指称在语言中倘若不参照于信息便无法界定其普遍意义的那些元素。例如，代词“我”和“你”，还有像“这里”和“现在”这样的词，以及时态等，便只能通过参照于它们被说出的语境来理解。罗曼·雅各布森在一篇发表于1957年的文章中发展了这个概念。在这篇文章之前，“人们往往认为人称代词与其他转换词的特性即在于缺乏某种单一的、恒定的、普遍的意义”（Jakobson, 1957:132)。根据皮尔斯的符号 (SIGNS)类型学，转换词被当作纯粹的指示符 (见：指示符[NDEX])。然而，雅各布森遵循皮尔斯的论点 (Peirce, 1932:156-73)指出，转换词的确具有某种单一的普遍意义；例如，人称代词“我”便总是意味着“说出‘我’的那个人”。这就使转换词变成了一个“象征符”。雅各布森的结论是，转换词同时结合了象征性与指示性的功能，且“因此属于指示性象征符（INDEXICAL SYMBOLS)的等级”(Jakobson, 1957:132)。如此一来，雅各布森便质疑了一种无关语境 (context-free)的语法的可能性，因为能述 (ENUNCIATION)被编码在所述 (statement)本身之中。同样，因为语法被蕴涵在言语 (parole)之中，所以语言 (langue)/言语 (parole)的区分便也遭到了质疑（见：Caton, 1987:234-7).

‌‌‌‌　　拉康遵循雅各布森（以英语来）使用“转换词”这一术语，抑或是他所谓的“指示项”(index-term)(E, 186), 以表明“我”(Je)的悬而未决性与不可判定性的本质。然而，虽然雅各布森（遵循皮尔斯）把转换词定义为一种指示性象征符，但是拉康则将其定义为一种指示性能指 (indexical signifier)。这便问题化了能述与所述之间的区分。一方面，作为一个能指，转换词明显是所述的一部分。另一方面，作为一个指示符，它则明显是能述的一部分。“我”的此种割裂不仅阐明了主体的分裂：而且它就是那一分裂。“实际上，能述的‘我’并不等同于所述的‘我’，也就是说，在所述中指派给他的那个转换词。”(S11,139)拉康同样把法语赘词“nc”也鉴别为一种转换词 (E, 298)。

‌‌‌‌　　The term 'shifter'was introduced into linguistics by Otto Jespersen in 1923 to refer tothose elements in language whose general meaning cannot be defined without referenceto the message. 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 theyare uttered. Roman Jakobson developed the concept in an article published in 1957. Before this article,'the peculiarity of the personal pronoun and other shifters was oftenbelieved to consist in the lack of a single, constant, general meaning' (Jakobson, 1957:132). In terms of Peirce's typology of SIGNS, shifters were treated as pure indices (see INDEX). However, following Peirce's own argument (Peirce, 1932:156-73), Jakobson argues that shifters do have a single general meaning; for example the personalpronoun I always means 'the person uttering I'. This makes the shifter a 'symbol'. Jakobson concludes that shifters combine both symbolic and indexical functions andbelong therefore to the class of INDEXICAL SYMBOLS' (Jakobson, 1957:132). In thisway, Jakobson questions the possibility of a context-free grammar, sincetheENUNCIATION is encoded in the statement itself. Also, since grammar is implicated inparole, the langue/parole distinction is also put into question (see Caton, 1987:234-7)

‌‌‌‌　　Following Jakobson, Lacan uses the term 'shifter' (in English), or 'indexterm'as healso calls it (E, 186), to show the problematic and undecidable nature of the I Je). However, while Jakobson (following Peirce) defines the shifter as an indexical symbol, Lacan defines it as an indexical signifier. This problematises the distinction betweenenunciation and statement. On the one hand, as a signifier it is clearly part of thestatement. On the other hand, as an index it is clearly part of the enunciation. Thisdivision 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' (S11,139). Lacan also identifies theFrench particle ne as a shifter (E, 298).