Scholarlink

Abstract <p>The reflexive loop of the <i>I</i> as the one who says “<i>I</i>” identifies and simultaneously transforms a real person, the <i>I</i>-speaker, into an object of the metalanguage, the pronoun “I”, onto which logical-semantic and linguosemiotic operations can be applied. With the actual speaker only present in the actual world, there is a chain of intermediate speakers (indices) built between that speaker and a text, and the “appropriation” of the text/language (in the Benvenistian terms) is assigned to these indices. It becomes possible to move the “I” to other worlds, times, loci, and to establish relations, similar to metaphorical and metonymic ones, between the “I” of an actual speaker and different semiotic “I”s of an utterance. The pronoun “I” is not only an indication of a speaker, but also a key mechanism for self-, meta- and other-description and that of correlation of an utterance with its actual and potential contexts. This makes it possible to expand the conception of &#xa0;E. Benveniste, as well as to systematize various theories (Yu. S. Stepanov, G. Lakoff , J. Ross, D. Lewis) where the distinctions were made between different “I”s (descriptive, performative, “I”-as-a-participant, “I”-as-an-observer, “I”-as-a-subject, “I”-as-a-person, “I”-as-a-speaker, and “I”-as-an-index-of-the-speaker, etc.).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“I” as a Subject of Self- And Other-Reference: A Linguistic Perspective

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月1日

查看全文
  • S. T. Zolyan

摘要

Abstract

The reflexive loop of the I as the one who says “I” identifies and simultaneously transforms a real person, the I-speaker, into an object of the metalanguage, the pronoun “I”, onto which logical-semantic and linguosemiotic operations can be applied. With the actual speaker only present in the actual world, there is a chain of intermediate speakers (indices) built between that speaker and a text, and the “appropriation” of the text/language (in the Benvenistian terms) is assigned to these indices. It becomes possible to move the “I” to other worlds, times, loci, and to establish relations, similar to metaphorical and metonymic ones, between the “I” of an actual speaker and different semiotic “I”s of an utterance. The pronoun “I” is not only an indication of a speaker, but also a key mechanism for self-, meta- and other-description and that of correlation of an utterance with its actual and potential contexts. This makes it possible to expand the conception of  E. Benveniste, as well as to systematize various theories (Yu. S. Stepanov, G. Lakoff , J. Ross, D. Lewis) where the distinctions were made between different “I”s (descriptive, performative, “I”-as-a-participant, “I”-as-an-observer, “I”-as-a-subject, “I”-as-a-person, “I”-as-a-speaker, and “I”-as-an-index-of-the-speaker, etc.).