Abstract This paper will introduce the results of a study conducted in 2019 about how humans perceive species they have to live with, despite not wanting to do so—liminal species—, specifically rats and mice. The results presented here are part of a wider study about rats and mice in cities, their relationship with humans, the nuisances they generate as well as the various and important roles they play in the urban ecosystem, introduced at the Gatherings in BIosemiotics 2020. The study originally focused solely on rats, which are in a difficult societal context in France, especially in Paris: due to heat waves, planned works and floods, rats are becoming more and more present on the surface, instead of being invisible underground as they used to be. However, some of the results suggest that a significant number of participants are not completely positive about being able to distinguish between a rat and a mouse. In order to present a more precise and detailed overview, it was decided to study the difference not only between the cohabitation issues humans may have with actual rats and/or mice, but also between the semiotic relationships that humans have with the symbolic rat and symbolic mouse. As such, this paper will present the results for both species, with their similarities and divergences. It shows that a significant part of nuisances and cohabitation issues are more “believed” than factual. The paper focuses on how the cultural and emotional backgrounds of participants influence their semiotic relationship with these species, and how the perceived nuisances, threats or issues can vary according to these parameters. This study aims to develop a better understanding of the different elements that play a part in issues of cohabitation between humans—especially urban humans—and liminal species—especially rodents. It will show how some of the nuisances can be addressed, not by coercive methods on the actual animals, such as extermination, repellents or removal, but through semiotic work and education on the symbolic animal, its related myths, superstitions, fears and phobias.
{"title":"Rats, Mice and Humans","authors":"P. Delahaye","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper will introduce the results of a study conducted in 2019 about how humans perceive species they have to live with, despite not wanting to do so—liminal species—, specifically rats and mice. The results presented here are part of a wider study about rats and mice in cities, their relationship with humans, the nuisances they generate as well as the various and important roles they play in the urban ecosystem, introduced at the Gatherings in BIosemiotics 2020. The study originally focused solely on rats, which are in a difficult societal context in France, especially in Paris: due to heat waves, planned works and floods, rats are becoming more and more present on the surface, instead of being invisible underground as they used to be. However, some of the results suggest that a significant number of participants are not completely positive about being able to distinguish between a rat and a mouse. In order to present a more precise and detailed overview, it was decided to study the difference not only between the cohabitation issues humans may have with actual rats and/or mice, but also between the semiotic relationships that humans have with the symbolic rat and symbolic mouse. As such, this paper will present the results for both species, with their similarities and divergences. It shows that a significant part of nuisances and cohabitation issues are more “believed” than factual. The paper focuses on how the cultural and emotional backgrounds of participants influence their semiotic relationship with these species, and how the perceived nuisances, threats or issues can vary according to these parameters. This study aims to develop a better understanding of the different elements that play a part in issues of cohabitation between humans—especially urban humans—and liminal species—especially rodents. It will show how some of the nuisances can be addressed, not by coercive methods on the actual animals, such as extermination, repellents or removal, but through semiotic work and education on the symbolic animal, its related myths, superstitions, fears and phobias.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122987484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Can Cognitive Metaphor Theory (CMT) be applied productively to the study of mimicry in zoosemiotics and ethology? In this theoretical comparison of selected case studies, I would like to propose that biological mimicry is a type of biosemiotic metaphor. At least two major parallels between cognitive metaphors in human cognition and mimicry among animals justify viewing the two phenomena as isomorphic. First—from the semiotic point of view—the argument is that both metaphor and mimicry are cases of semiotic transfer (etymologically: metaphor) of the identity / sign of the source onto the perceived identity / sign of the target. This identity transfer, in turn, triggers appropriate changes in the response (behavior) of the surrounding (human or animal) interpreters (e.g. predators). Semiotically, the mimicry turns the body of its bearer into a sign of something else, resulting in the interpreters’ (e.g. predators’) perception of species X as species Y—hence, a type of embodied sign and cognitive metaphor. Second, ecologically, a species occupying one niche (e.g. a moth: non-venomous, herbivorous primary consumer) is perceived and identified as an occupant of a different niche (e.g. a hornet: venomous, omnivorous predator). Thus, a potential predator’s Umwelt is affected by its perceiving a hornet moth as “a hornet” where there is, in fact, a moth, and its response to this stimulus will not be predation but avoidance. In terms of CMT, we could call this a biosemiotic metaphor (bio-metaphor), e.g. “A MOTH IS A HORNET” or “PREY IS A PREDATOR”. Further correspondences between mimicry and metaphor include the fact that this bio-metaphorical identification by mimicry does not typically require a “perfect” resemblance between the source and the target sign (or species); this seems to correspond to the prototype categorization in CMT where categories are “open-ended” and only a partial similarity is sufficient for metaphorical identification (compare Lakoff, Johnson 1980; Rosch 1983). Such an identification of mimicry as metaphor could be based on Prodi’s argument that “hermeneutics is not a late product of culture, but the same elementary movement of life that is born because something obscurely interprets something else” (Eco 2018: 350; Kull 2018, 352—364). Inasmuch as animal Umwelten are interconnected inter alia by this natural hermeneutics, the trans-disciplinary approach to the study eco-zoosemiotic interpretants on the basis of metaphor-mimicry isomorphism could open new opportunities in comparative studies of semiosis in human and animal cognition and interactions.
认知隐喻理论能否有效地应用于动物符号学和动物行为学的模仿研究?在对选定案例研究的理论比较中，我想提出生物模仿是一种生物符号学隐喻。人类认知中的认知隐喻和动物的模仿之间至少有两个主要的相似之处，可以证明这两种现象是同构的。首先，从符号学的角度来看，隐喻和模仿都是源的身份/符号到目标的感知身份/符号的符号学转移(词源学上:隐喻)。这种身份转移反过来又引发了周围(人类或动物)解释者(例如捕食者)的反应(行为)的适当变化。从符号学上讲，模仿将其承载者的身体转化为其他事物的符号，导致解释者(例如捕食者)将物种X感知为物种y，因此，这是一种具体化的符号和认知隐喻。其次，在生态学上，一个占据一个生态位的物种(如飞蛾:无毒的，食草的主要消费者)被认为和确定为另一个生态位的占有者(如大黄蜂:有毒的，杂食性捕食者)。因此，一个潜在的捕食者的Umwelt受到它感知到的“大黄蜂”的影响，事实上，有一个蛾子，它对这种刺激的反应不会是捕食，而是回避。在CMT中，我们可以称之为生物符号学隐喻(biosemiotic metaphor)，例如“蛾是大黄蜂”或“猎物是捕食者”。模仿和隐喻之间的进一步对应包括这样一个事实，即通过模仿进行的生物隐喻识别通常不需要源和目标符号(或物种)之间的“完美”相似;这似乎与CMT中的原型分类相对应，其中类别是“开放式的”，只有部分相似性才足以进行隐喻识别(比较Lakoff, Johnson 1980;罗斯奇1983)。这种将模仿视为隐喻的认同可以基于普罗迪的观点，即“解释学不是文化的晚期产物，而是同样的基本生活运动，它的诞生是因为某种东西模糊地解释了另一种东西”(Eco 2018: 350;Kull 2018, 352-364)。由于动物世界是通过这种自然解释学相互联系的，基于隐喻-模仿同构的跨学科方法研究生态动物符号学解释可以为人类和动物认知和相互作用中的符号学比较研究开辟新的机会。
{"title":"Metaphors to Survive by: Mimicry as Biometaphors, Embodiment of Sign and Cognitive Tools (not only) in Animals?","authors":"Róbert Bohát","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Can Cognitive Metaphor Theory (CMT) be applied productively to the study of mimicry in zoosemiotics and ethology? In this theoretical comparison of selected case studies, I would like to propose that biological mimicry is a type of biosemiotic metaphor. At least two major parallels between cognitive metaphors in human cognition and mimicry among animals justify viewing the two phenomena as isomorphic. First—from the semiotic point of view—the argument is that both metaphor and mimicry are cases of semiotic transfer (etymologically: metaphor) of the identity / sign of the source onto the perceived identity / sign of the target. This identity transfer, in turn, triggers appropriate changes in the response (behavior) of the surrounding (human or animal) interpreters (e.g. predators). Semiotically, the mimicry turns the body of its bearer into a sign of something else, resulting in the interpreters’ (e.g. predators’) perception of species X as species Y—hence, a type of embodied sign and cognitive metaphor. Second, ecologically, a species occupying one niche (e.g. a moth: non-venomous, herbivorous primary consumer) is perceived and identified as an occupant of a different niche (e.g. a hornet: venomous, omnivorous predator). Thus, a potential predator’s Umwelt is affected by its perceiving a hornet moth as “a hornet” where there is, in fact, a moth, and its response to this stimulus will not be predation but avoidance. In terms of CMT, we could call this a biosemiotic metaphor (bio-metaphor), e.g. “A MOTH IS A HORNET” or “PREY IS A PREDATOR”. Further correspondences between mimicry and metaphor include the fact that this bio-metaphorical identification by mimicry does not typically require a “perfect” resemblance between the source and the target sign (or species); this seems to correspond to the prototype categorization in CMT where categories are “open-ended” and only a partial similarity is sufficient for metaphorical identification (compare Lakoff, Johnson 1980; Rosch 1983). Such an identification of mimicry as metaphor could be based on Prodi’s argument that “hermeneutics is not a late product of culture, but the same elementary movement of life that is born because something obscurely interprets something else” (Eco 2018: 350; Kull 2018, 352—364). Inasmuch as animal Umwelten are interconnected inter alia by this natural hermeneutics, the trans-disciplinary approach to the study eco-zoosemiotic interpretants on the basis of metaphor-mimicry isomorphism could open new opportunities in comparative studies of semiosis in human and animal cognition and interactions.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128897097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The author discusses the question of whether animals have a language. The article examines the similarities and differences in the linguistic capabilities of animals and humans. The similarity lies in the fact that animals can use symbolic signs to receive and send messages. Among other things, they can receive and interpret signs on a delayed basis without the direct presence of their sender, although to a fundamentally lesser extent than people. The comparison is carried out both for signs perceived by the organism (afferent signs) and for signs created by the organism (efferent signs), both related to communication and the perception of the environment outside the community. The main difference is the possibility of telling about events outside the “here and now” in which the narrator could or may not take part. This is the narrative. No signs of animals using the narrative were found. The resulting differences in storytelling use are hypothesized to be related to additional language functions that have increased in humans compared to animals. People have psychological characteristics caused by the presence of the stage of individuation and separation in development. This allows them to move away from the situation and see it from the outside, which is necessary for retelling. On the other hand, people need to communicate with the help of a narrative, since their society includes a sacred part, whose members receive descriptions of events, requests, questions, and their answers in the form of various signs and the results fortune-telling need a detailed interpretation.
{"title":"Semiotic Threshold: Animals and People","authors":"I. Ptitsyna","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The author discusses the question of whether animals have a language. The article examines the similarities and differences in the linguistic capabilities of animals and humans. The similarity lies in the fact that animals can use symbolic signs to receive and send messages. Among other things, they can receive and interpret signs on a delayed basis without the direct presence of their sender, although to a fundamentally lesser extent than people. The comparison is carried out both for signs perceived by the organism (afferent signs) and for signs created by the organism (efferent signs), both related to communication and the perception of the environment outside the community. The main difference is the possibility of telling about events outside the “here and now” in which the narrator could or may not take part. This is the narrative. No signs of animals using the narrative were found. The resulting differences in storytelling use are hypothesized to be related to additional language functions that have increased in humans compared to animals. People have psychological characteristics caused by the presence of the stage of individuation and separation in development. This allows them to move away from the situation and see it from the outside, which is necessary for retelling. On the other hand, people need to communicate with the help of a narrative, since their society includes a sacred part, whose members receive descriptions of events, requests, questions, and their answers in the form of various signs and the results fortune-telling need a detailed interpretation.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115224830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Animalia: the kingdom of signs","authors":"P. Delahaye","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"124 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124654103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Olfaction, as a semiotic modality, receives relatively less attention than other sensory modalities. However, chemiosemiosis and semiochemicals are fundamental components of zoosemiosis, occurring across animal taxonomic groups. Indeed, olfaction is thought to be one of the most ancient sensory modalities from an evolutionary perspective and significantly, even unicellular organisms, such as the bacterium Escherichia coli, utilize a form of chemiosemiosis when foraging for nutrients, as part of a process known as ‘chemotaxis’. Further, many taxonomic groups have evolved to produce dedicated ‘semiochemicals’ (often known as pheromones or allomones) which have the sole purpose of being diffused into the environment as a social signal. In this paper, I highlight the importance of Umwelt theory when studying animal communication, by reviewing the less conspicuous and intuitive chemiosemiotic modality, across animal taxa. I then go on to discuss chemiosemiosis within a linguistic framework and argue that complex pattern recognition underpins linguistic theory. Thus, I explore the concept that chemiosemiosis has features in common with language, when the factor of time, in the transmission and decoding of a signal, is taken into account. Moreover, I provide discursive evidence in support of a unified theory of sensory perception, based on structural and functional aspects of signal transmission and cognitive complex pattern recognition. I conclude by proposing a chemosemiotic hypothesis of language evolution.
{"title":"Chemiosemiosis and Complex Patterned Signals: A Chemosemiotic Hypothesis of Language Evolution","authors":"Amelia Lewis","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Olfaction, as a semiotic modality, receives relatively less attention than other sensory modalities. However, chemiosemiosis and semiochemicals are fundamental components of zoosemiosis, occurring across animal taxonomic groups. Indeed, olfaction is thought to be one of the most ancient sensory modalities from an evolutionary perspective and significantly, even unicellular organisms, such as the bacterium Escherichia coli, utilize a form of chemiosemiosis when foraging for nutrients, as part of a process known as ‘chemotaxis’. Further, many taxonomic groups have evolved to produce dedicated ‘semiochemicals’ (often known as pheromones or allomones) which have the sole purpose of being diffused into the environment as a social signal. In this paper, I highlight the importance of Umwelt theory when studying animal communication, by reviewing the less conspicuous and intuitive chemiosemiotic modality, across animal taxa. I then go on to discuss chemiosemiosis within a linguistic framework and argue that complex pattern recognition underpins linguistic theory. Thus, I explore the concept that chemiosemiosis has features in common with language, when the factor of time, in the transmission and decoding of a signal, is taken into account. Moreover, I provide discursive evidence in support of a unified theory of sensory perception, based on structural and functional aspects of signal transmission and cognitive complex pattern recognition. I conclude by proposing a chemosemiotic hypothesis of language evolution.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130156008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The neo-Darwinian paradigm is unable to account for the resilient, complex forms that evolve in nature and persist across time. Random mutations do not explain the occurrence of organisms that mimic complex forms in often astonishing detail. In the absence of God as creator, or random mutations as the basis for adaptive traits, there is something else going on. The case that I present in this article is that the only possible mechanism for mimicry in nature is imitation.
{"title":"Imitation as Mechanism for Mimicry","authors":"Stephen Jarosek","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The neo-Darwinian paradigm is unable to account for the resilient, complex forms that evolve in nature and persist across time. Random mutations do not explain the occurrence of organisms that mimic complex forms in often astonishing detail. In the absence of God as creator, or random mutations as the basis for adaptive traits, there is something else going on. The case that I present in this article is that the only possible mechanism for mimicry in nature is imitation.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116642041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Recent research in syntax and corpus linguistics has shown how the German Perfekt (present perfect) and Präteritum (simple past) are widely used in written language—even though these tenses are commonly described in DAF (German as a foreign language) materials as used respectively in the spoken and written forms. While these analyses only focus on written corpora, an extensive study on the use of tenses in spoken interaction is still missing. In this paper, I try to fill this gap in the literature by exploring the use of Perfekt and Präteritum in the recordings of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, held in Frankfurt am Main, from December 20, 1963, to August 19, 1965, and available on the web page of the Fritz Bauer Institute. Textual analyses of the depositions of five former German prisoners of the Polish concentration camp show that German native speakers use both tenses in their spoken interactions. These results widely contradict their depiction in DAF materials, textbooks, and grammars. Furthermore, the types of Präteritum found are far more diverse than is traditionally held by scholars, who claimed that the use of this tense in spoken language is limited to verbs such as sein (to be), haben (to have) and modals, such as können (can), müssen (must), sollen (should), etc. The outcome of this study shows how the difference between Perfekt and Präteritum is determined by the subjective attitude of the speakers in relation to the information they want to convey.
{"title":"Grammatical Tenses and Communicative Intentions: A case study of the German Perfekt and Präteritum","authors":"Valentina Concu","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent research in syntax and corpus linguistics has shown how the German Perfekt (present perfect) and Präteritum (simple past) are widely used in written language—even though these tenses are commonly described in DAF (German as a foreign language) materials as used respectively in the spoken and written forms. While these analyses only focus on written corpora, an extensive study on the use of tenses in spoken interaction is still missing. In this paper, I try to fill this gap in the literature by exploring the use of Perfekt and Präteritum in the recordings of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, held in Frankfurt am Main, from December 20, 1963, to August 19, 1965, and available on the web page of the Fritz Bauer Institute. Textual analyses of the depositions of five former German prisoners of the Polish concentration camp show that German native speakers use both tenses in their spoken interactions. These results widely contradict their depiction in DAF materials, textbooks, and grammars. Furthermore, the types of Präteritum found are far more diverse than is traditionally held by scholars, who claimed that the use of this tense in spoken language is limited to verbs such as sein (to be), haben (to have) and modals, such as können (can), müssen (must), sollen (should), etc. The outcome of this study shows how the difference between Perfekt and Präteritum is determined by the subjective attitude of the speakers in relation to the information they want to convey.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123500528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The method of automatic term recognition based on machine learning is focused primarily on the most important quantitative term attributes. It is able to successfully identify terms and non-terms (with success rate of more than 95 %) and find characteristic features of a term as a terminological unit. A single-word term can be characterized as a word with a low frequency that occurs considerably more often in specialized texts than in non-academic texts, occurs in a small number of disciplines, its distribution in the corpus is uneven as is the distance between its two instances. A multi-word term is a collocation consisting of words with low frequency and contains at least one single-word term. The method is based on quantitative features and it makes it possible to utilize the algorithms in multiple disciplines as well as to create cross-lingual applications (verified on Czech and English).
{"title":"Machine Learning in Terminology Extraction from Czech and English Texts","authors":"Dominika Kováríková","doi":"10.2478/lf-2021-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2021-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The method of automatic term recognition based on machine learning is focused primarily on the most important quantitative term attributes. It is able to successfully identify terms and non-terms (with success rate of more than 95 %) and find characteristic features of a term as a terminological unit. A single-word term can be characterized as a word with a low frequency that occurs considerably more often in specialized texts than in non-academic texts, occurs in a small number of disciplines, its distribution in the corpus is uneven as is the distance between its two instances. A multi-word term is a collocation consisting of words with low frequency and contains at least one single-word term. The method is based on quantitative features and it makes it possible to utilize the algorithms in multiple disciplines as well as to create cross-lingual applications (verified on Czech and English).","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"173 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125794035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article responds to the current variability of research into linguistic laws and the explanation of these laws. We show basic features to approach linguistic laws in the field of quantitative linguistics and research on linguistic laws outside the field of language and text. Language laws are usually explained in terms of the language system—especially as economizing—or of the information structure of the text (Piantadosi 2014). One of the hallmarks of the transmission of linguistic laws outside the realm of language and text is that they provide other kinds of explanations (Torre et al. 2019). We want to show that the problem of linguistics in the explanation of linguistic laws lies primarily in its inability to clarify the internal structure of language material, and the influence of the theory or method used for sample processing on the result of law analysis—which was formulated by Peter Grzybek (2006). We would like to show that this is the reason why linguistics avoids explanations of linguistic laws.
摘要本文对目前语言规律研究的多变性以及对这些规律的解释进行了回应。我们展示了定量语言学领域的语言规律研究和语言和文本领域之外的语言规律研究的基本特征。语言规律通常从语言系统(尤其是经济)或文本的信息结构来解释(Piantadosi 2014)。语言规律在语言和文本领域之外传播的标志之一是它们提供了其他类型的解释(Torre et al. 2019)。我们想表明，语言学在解释语言规律方面的问题主要在于它无法阐明语言材料的内部结构，以及用于样本处理的理论或方法对规律分析结果的影响——这是由Peter Grzybek(2006)提出的。我们想表明，这就是为什么语言学避免解释语言规律的原因。
{"title":"Explain the law: When the evidence is not enough","authors":"Martina Benesová, Dan Faltýnek, L. Zámecník","doi":"10.2478/lf-2020-0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2020-0013","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article responds to the current variability of research into linguistic laws and the explanation of these laws. We show basic features to approach linguistic laws in the field of quantitative linguistics and research on linguistic laws outside the field of language and text. Language laws are usually explained in terms of the language system—especially as economizing—or of the information structure of the text (Piantadosi 2014). One of the hallmarks of the transmission of linguistic laws outside the realm of language and text is that they provide other kinds of explanations (Torre et al. 2019). We want to show that the problem of linguistics in the explanation of linguistic laws lies primarily in its inability to clarify the internal structure of language material, and the influence of the theory or method used for sample processing on the result of law analysis—which was formulated by Peter Grzybek (2006). We would like to show that this is the reason why linguistics avoids explanations of linguistic laws.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127154097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article departs from the Teilhardean opposition of the inside (le dedans) and the outside (le dehors), notions of reflection and self-enclosure (enroulement sur lui-même), and an experimental law of recurrence (une loi expérimentale de recurrence). The author supplements them with his own apparatus of simplex-complex transformations as an epistemic principle and a set of related practices. The article starts with quantum emergence, forging its inside and outside by an interface and an alternative way to represent it as Diracean membrane, branes of the string theory, and the eigenform. The interface instrumentality for operating the inside and outside of the quantum allows their structured totality to enact agency potential. Simplex-complex transformations allow to represent an evolutionary series of agency transformations as modules of a single model up to a developed human self. The article discusses the recurrence, enclosure, and other trickeries of emergence as well as their representation with the help of cognitive metaphors likme Ouroboros or mathematical formalisms like the Moebius strip. It proceeds to chemical catalysis and autocatalysis, further to emergence of autopoiesis, and finally to biogenesis. Forms of life internalize environmental productive factor (Umwelt) by duplication, recursion, enclosing, folding, etc. to evolve a series of codes, making up integral genetic agency and genome as its key vehicle. The article considers organismic symbiosis and respective autocatalytic recursions, addresses the emergence of signal systems and cognition, which is parallel to and duplicating neural processes. It discusses primary cognitive abilities and their further autocatalytic transformations into a range of more advanced capabilities, along with the emergence of higher levelhigher-level signal systems. Finally, it ends up by discussing anthropogenesis and stepwise emergence and advancement of human language and thought in a series of internalizations of communicative contexts (frames, typical communicative settings, mementoes and typical remembrances, etc.) into codes of the first, second, and further orders.
摘要本文脱离了德哈德式的内部(le dedans)和外部(le dehors)的对立，反思和自我封闭的概念(enroulement sur lui-même)，以及重复的实验定律(une loi expimrimentale de recurrence)。作者补充了他自己的简单-复杂转换装置作为一种认识原则和一套相关的实践。本文从量子涌现开始，通过界面和另一种方式将其表示为狄拉狄斯膜、弦理论膜和本征形式，锻造其内外。操作量子内部和外部的接口工具允许它们的结构化总体制定代理潜力。简单-复杂转换允许将一系列进化的代理转换表示为单个模型的模块，直至成熟的人类自我。这篇文章讨论了再现、封闭和其他涌现的技巧，以及它们在认知隐喻(如衔尾蛇)或数学形式(如莫比斯带)的帮助下的表现。从化学催化到自催化，再到自创生，最后到生物发生。生命形式通过复制、递归、封闭、折叠等方式将环境生产要素(Umwelt)内化，演化出一系列密码，构成完整的遗传机构，基因组是其关键载体。本文考虑了生物共生和各自的自催化递归，解决了信号系统和认知的出现，这是平行和复制神经过程。它讨论了初级认知能力及其进一步的自动催化转化为一系列更高级的能力，以及更高水平的信号系统的出现。最后，本文讨论了人类的形成，以及人类语言和思想在交际语境(框架、典型交际环境、纪念品和典型记忆等)的一系列内化过程中逐步出现和发展成第一、第二和更高层次的代码。
{"title":"Emergence and advancement of basic human capacities","authors":"M. Ilyin","doi":"10.2478/lf-2020-0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/lf-2020-0010","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article departs from the Teilhardean opposition of the inside (le dedans) and the outside (le dehors), notions of reflection and self-enclosure (enroulement sur lui-même), and an experimental law of recurrence (une loi expérimentale de recurrence). The author supplements them with his own apparatus of simplex-complex transformations as an epistemic principle and a set of related practices. The article starts with quantum emergence, forging its inside and outside by an interface and an alternative way to represent it as Diracean membrane, branes of the string theory, and the eigenform. The interface instrumentality for operating the inside and outside of the quantum allows their structured totality to enact agency potential. Simplex-complex transformations allow to represent an evolutionary series of agency transformations as modules of a single model up to a developed human self. The article discusses the recurrence, enclosure, and other trickeries of emergence as well as their representation with the help of cognitive metaphors likme Ouroboros or mathematical formalisms like the Moebius strip. It proceeds to chemical catalysis and autocatalysis, further to emergence of autopoiesis, and finally to biogenesis. Forms of life internalize environmental productive factor (Umwelt) by duplication, recursion, enclosing, folding, etc. to evolve a series of codes, making up integral genetic agency and genome as its key vehicle. The article considers organismic symbiosis and respective autocatalytic recursions, addresses the emergence of signal systems and cognition, which is parallel to and duplicating neural processes. It discusses primary cognitive abilities and their further autocatalytic transformations into a range of more advanced capabilities, along with the emergence of higher levelhigher-level signal systems. Finally, it ends up by discussing anthropogenesis and stepwise emergence and advancement of human language and thought in a series of internalizations of communicative contexts (frames, typical communicative settings, mementoes and typical remembrances, etc.) into codes of the first, second, and further orders.","PeriodicalId":354532,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Frontiers","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127758682","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：