2023 Vol. 14 №4

Anton Zimmerling’s interpretation of the discursive particle TI1 is an important achievement. The article considers possibilities used by Zimmerling to interpret TI1 as a dis­cursive particle, enclitic, part of speech and semantic sign. In addition, the article discusses its interpretation as a pragmatic marker. The author comments on the interpretations of semiot­ics by Zimmerling, in particular, the question of primary and secondary semiotic systems. The author presents his own concept of semiotics as a research programme in Imre Lakatos’ sense. Semiotics is also a kind of cognitive ability common to many forms of life and at the same time a system of epistemological and methodological possibilities for carrying out scien­tific research on meaning-making or semiosis built on this ability. Moreover, semiotics is not only a research programme, but a transdisciplinary integrative organon. Such universal com­plexes for integrating the capabilities of scientific knowledge are based on three basic cognitive abilities — (1) to perceive signals, to rank and to process them; (2) to recognize patterns (sig­nal configurations) and shape them into more complex formations; (3) assessing and utilizing the meaning (initially functional significance, relevance) of the forms and modes of actuality. The latter ability is precisely the basis of semiotics and semiosis. The first two are metretics or organon for computational mathematics and statistics, as well as morphetics or organon for a wide variety of morphologies, comparative studies, discrete mathematics, topology, etc.

The article aims to illustrate the inadequacy of viewing semiotics as a mere extension of linguistic methods applied to non-linguistic objects. It highlights the dual and recursive na­ture of semiotic terms. Semiotics' objects are not independent signs but rather the processes involved in establishing sign relations, specifically semiosis and semiopoiesis. Given the dy­namic character of semiosis, signs should not be regarded as fixed objects from a predefined vocabulary; instead, they should be seen as ongoing processes. This underscores the signifi­cance of referencing texts and contexts within semiotics. This aspect is crucial as it is where semiotics can complement linguistics effectively.

Social semiotics and poetic semantics, from different vantage points, demonstrate that the speaker's activity is not merely the reproduction of signs but the generation of them. Con­versely, biosemiotics and molecular genetics offer insights into comprehending the inter­nal laws of semiosis, affirming that sign generation is an inherent property of information sys­tems and need not always involve a conscious subject. Simultaneously, linguistic descrip­tions can take various directions, focusing either on describing significative functions exter­nal to the system or on internal relationships within the system.

Before delving into the connections between linguistics and semiotics, it is essential to es­tablish a clear demarcation between these fields, which necessitates a precise definition of each subject. However, the approach taken by Anton Zimmerling in this regard is subject to de­bate. In the discussion of semiotics, the focus tends to lean towards interpretations that recog­nize the dual understanding of signs, while unilateral conceptions of signs are often over­looked. Linguistics is typically confined to the study of language itself, and the treatment of linguistics concerning speech (text) is often seen as a concealed branch of philology. Moreo­ver, it remains unclear whether the distinction between language and speech pertains to lin­guistics or philology. This ambiguity extends to the status of linguistic pragmatics.

To address this issue constructively, it is useful to differentiate between five concepts en­compassing language and speech: hermeneutics, philology, linguistics, semiotics, and prag­malinguistics. Each of these concepts delineates a specific ontology and corresponding metho­do­lo­gical approach. By considering them as orthogonal axes within a fan matrix, one can identify 25 possible approaches for studying speech, including those that are currently em­ployed and potential ones. Within this framework, philological linguistics, as discussed by Zimmerling, finds its place, and the transitions of scholars like Witzany from biohermeneu­tics to biopragmalinguistics and Ongstad's shift from philology become more comprehensible.