Explain the law: When the evidence is not enough

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.

Russian Formalism vs Germanic Formalism: exploring the concept of European Formalism

This comparative reading of two conceptual corpora, Russian formalism and Germano-Austrian or Germanic formalism, begins with the idea that the European formalism presents a coherent unit. The continuity of this program authorizes such a comparative reading. The comparative analysis of formalisms in Europe could be a research program aimed at an epistemological reading of the phenomenon of European formalism at the turn of the 20th century. This program deals with a rereading of two conceptual fields–Russian formalism and Germanic (Germano-Austrian) formalism. This study seeks to contextualise the formalist project within the knowledge of its time by showing its genetic links with the disciplines of this period and by introducing it as an epistemological fact. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the growth of psychologism in aesthetic theories, constitutes a reaction against the dominant scientific positivism in the “humanities” of this period. Stemming from the tensions between “aesthetics from below” and “aesthetics from above,” European formalism expresses and achieves a heterogeneous aesthetic program, halfway between “experimental science” and the “science of lived experience.”

Chemiosemiosis and Complex Patterned Signals: A Chemosemiotic Hypothesis of Language Evolution

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.

Metaphors to Survive by: Mimicry as Biometaphors, Embodiment of Sign and Cognitive Tools (not only) in Animals?

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.

Rats, Mice and Humans

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.

Imitation as Mechanism for Mimicry

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.

Semiotic Threshold: Animals and People

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.

Machine Learning in Terminology Extraction from Czech and English Texts

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).