![twitter trump twitter trump](http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170531121403-trump-covfefe-tweet-screengrab-super-tease.jpg)
![twitter trump twitter trump](https://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/170102084630-trump-tweets-780x439.jpg)
![twitter trump twitter trump](https://www.texasstandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Side-by-side-trump-twitter.png)
Peirce, whose sign-modalities of icon, index, and symbol Jakobson, of course, had already used in his analysis of what he called “shifters” in Russian verbal categories (Jakobson 1957). As he would later tell the story to Caton, “There I was listening to what these folks were saying about ‘culture as symbols and their meanings,’ and wondering what on earth they were talking about, coming as I did from linguistics.” Of course, he was referring not to the linguistics of Chomskyian “transformational grammar,” (hailed as a “revolution” at the time) but to the structural linguistics of Roman Jakobson (among others) that viewed language as a form of communication and that was influenced by the semiotic theory of Charles S. Caton considers himself fortunate to have been a graduate student in the 1970s in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago, where a new cultural paradigm was being forged-variously identified with Clifford Geertz (before he went on to establish the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University), David Schneider, Victor Turner, and Nancy Munn-that has been called “symbolic anthropology” (among other terms), when into this mix stepped Michael Silverstein, at the time a very young PhD in linguistics who had studied under Roman Jakobson at Harvard University.