Linguistic Frontiers最新文献

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}

{"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}