NONE20260530024225499Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversitySlovo.ru: Baltic accent2225-53462686-898905302026144Suren T.ZolyanIvan B.MikirtumovGrigorii L.Tulchinskii0530202667Лента Мёбиуса прагмасемантики смысла: от культуры через субъектность в ничто — и обратноG.L.TulchinskiiImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversitySaint Petersburg State UniversityHigher School of Economics National Research UniversityThe author endeavors to systematically present sense formation through the lens of the pragmasemantic approach. It enables the demonstration of how the primary factors of sense formation, socio-cultural practices and personal agency interact. Their relationship is non-linear: subjectivity results from the assimilation of socio-cultural experiences and the accom­panying narrative communication. Self-consciousness of the Self arises from the socialization of the individual through reflexive self-description. Thus, it engenders a "strange loop" (as described by Hofstadter), in which the inner becomes entwined with the outer, and the social intertwines with the individual. In this way, the possessor of self-consciousness gains a broader worldview extending beyond physical existence. This expanded perspective not only facilitates responses to situationality but also enhances the potential to proactively pre-adapt to one's environment. Selfhood is a flexible entity, receptive to new content, capable of self-modification, and open to change. The primary identity of the self-aware individual is the self-sufficient personality without any specific characteristics. Human existence is marked by absence, lack, loss, and an aspiration for change. It resembles an emptiness that defies classifi­cation, a drifting surplus that connects the unconnected. In this context, the article places particular emphasis on the apophatic nature of sense formation. Pauses, intervals, breaks, and gaps give rise to signs within the backdrop of non-existence. Subjectivity functions as a ‘user of voids’, serving as a metacontext, a source, means, and outcome of sense formation. It exists as a gap within being, an inherent incompleteness ready for completion and replenishment. In this regard, personal agency manifests as a universal interface, potentially facilitating infinite interconnections across contexts. This interface facilitates interactions between the tangible reality we inhabit and any conceivable alternative worlds. It enables transitions from physical reality to the realm of imagination and vice versa, or even simultaneous consideration of both.0530202683010.5922/2225-5346-2023-4-1https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5418/44162/Asmolov, A. G., Shekhter, E. D. and Chernorizov, A. M., 2018. Preadaptatsiya k neopredelennosti: nepredskazuemye marshruty evolyutsii [Pre-Adaptation to Uncertainty: Unpredictable Evolutionary Routes]. Moscow, 212 p. (in Russ.).Badiou, A., 2007. Being and Event. New York: Continuum, 526 p.Bakhtin, M. M., 1986. To the philosophy of action. In: Filosofiya i sotsiologiya tekhniki. Ezhegodnik. 1984—1985 [Philosophy and sociology of technology. Yearbook. 1984—1985]. Moscow, pp. 80—160 (in Russ.).Bakhtin, М. М., 1979. Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Aesthetics of verbal creativity]. Moscow, 424 p. (in Russ.).Berdyaev, N. A., 1989. Filosofiya svobody. Smysl tvorchestva [Philosophy of freedom. The meaning of creativity]. Moscow, 608 p. (in Russ.).Brodsky, I. N., 1973. Otritsatel'nye vyskazyvaniya [Negative statements]. Leningrad, 104 p. (in Russ.).Da Vinci, L., 2010. Izbrannye proizvedeniya Leonardo da Vinci [Selected works Leonardo da Vinci]. Vol. I. Moscow: Art. Lebedev Studio Publishing House, 444 p. (in Russ.).Damasio, A., 2010. Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. New York, 384 p.Epstein, M. N., 2004. Znak probela. O budushchem gumanitarnykh nauk [Gap sign. On the future of the humanities]. Moscow, 864 p. (in Russ.).Fomin, I. V. and Ilyin, M. V., 2019. Social Semiotics: Paths Towards Integrating Social and Semiotic Knowledge. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal [Sociological Journal], 25 (4), pp. 123—141, https://doi.org/123-141 10.19181/socjour.2019.25.4.6822 (in Russ.).Frege, G., 1891. Function und Begriff. Vortrag gehalten in der Sitzung vom 9. Januar 1891 der Jenaischen Gesellschaft für Medicin und Naturwissenschaft. Jena, 1891.Frege, G., 1892a. Über Begriff und Gegenstand. Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, Bd. XVI, pp. 192—205.Frege, G., 1892b. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, Bd. 100, pp. 25—50.Frege, G., 1918—1919. Der Gedanke: Eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus, Bd. I. Erfurt, pp. 58—77.Galloway, A. R., Thacker, E. and Wark, M., 2014. Excommunication. Three inquiries in media and mediation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 216 p.Goffman, E., 2004. Analiz freimov: Esse ob organizatsii povsednevnogo opyta [Frames Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Everyday Experience]. Moscow (in Russ.).Heidegger, M., 2015. Bytie i vremya [Being and time]. Moscow (in Russ.).Henrich, D., 2018. Myshlenie i samobytie. Chteniya o sub"ektivnosti [Thinking and being. Readings about subjectivity]. Moscow (in Russ.).Hofstadter, D., 2022. Ya — strannaya petlya [I am a strange loop]. Moscow, 512 p. (in Russ.).Ilyin, M. V., 2020. Logonomic Systems: Reflection, Meaningfulness and Verbalization of Action. In: Sotsial'naya semiotika: tochki rosta [Social semiotics: points of growth]. St. Petersburg, pp. 30—32 (in Russ.).Kiyashchenko, L. P., ed., 2022. Chelovek kak otkrytaya tselostnost' [Man as open integrity]. Novosibirsk, 420 p. (in Russ.).Kurennoy, V., 2018. Semanticheskii treugol'nik Gotloba Frege [The Semantic Triangle of Gottlob Frege]. Available at: https://postnauka.ru/wtf/154781 [Accessed 1 February 2023] (in Russ.).Latour, В., 2014. Peresborka sotsial'nogo: Vvedenie v aktorno-setevuyu teoriyu [Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory]. Moscow (in Russ.).Losev, A. F., 1999. Filosofiya imeni / Samoe samo: Sochineniya [Philosophy of the name / The most self: Essays]. Moscow, 1024 p. (in Russ.).Lotman, Yu. M., 2000. Semiosfera. Kul'tura i vzryv. Vnutri myslyashchikh mirov. Stat'i. Issledovaniya. Zametki [The semiosphere. Culture and explosion. Inside the thinking worlds. Articles. Researches. Notes]. St. Petersburg, 704 p. (in Russ.).Magun, A., 2013. Negative Revolution. Modern Political Subject and Its Fate after the Cold War. London; New-York: Bloomsberry, 288 p.Magun, A. V., 2020. Iskus nebytiya: Entsiklopediya dialekticheskikh nauk. Tom 1. Otritsatel'naya estetika [Temptation of Non-Being: Encyclopedia of Dialectical Sciences. Volume 1. Negative aesthetics]. St. Petersburg, 462 p. (in Russ.).Nalimov, V. V., 1974. Veroyatnostnaya model' yazyka. O sootnoshenii estestvennykh i iskusstvennykh yazykov [Probabilistic model of the language. On the relationship between natural and artificial languages]. Moscow, 272 p. (in Russ.).Nalimov, V. V., 2007. Spontannost' soznaniya: Veroyatnostnaya teoriya smyslov i smyslovaya arkhitektonika lichnosti [Spontaneity of Consciousness: Probabilistic Theory of Meanings and Semantic Architectonics of Personality]. Moscow, 198 p. (in Russ.).Nevvazhay, I. D., 2023. Sense of sign and sense of meaning in epistemology. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 71, pp. 29—38, https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/71/4 (in Russ.).North, D. C., Wallis, J. J. and Weingast, B. R., 2011. Nasilie i sotsial'nye poryadki. Kontseptual'nye ramki dlya interpretatsii pis'mennoi istorii chelovechestva [Violence and Social Orders. A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History]. Moscow, 480 p. (in Russ.).Pavlova, V. D. and Chupahin, N. P., 2014. Philosophy of meaning to philosophy of culture. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin], 5(21), pp. 50—55, https://doi.org/ 10.15293/2226-3365.1405 (in Russ.).Saussure, F. de, 1999. Kurs obshchei lingvistiki [Course of general linguistics]. Ekaterinburg (in Russ.).Shuripa, S., 2021. Deistvie i smysl v iskusstve vtoroi poloviny XX veka [Action and Meaning in the Art of the Second Half of the 20th Century]. St. Petersburg; Moscow (in Russ.).Sokolov, E. V., 1972. Kul'tura i lichnost' [Culture and personality]. Leningrad, 228 p. (in Russ.).Tulchinskii, G. L., 2018. The problem of meaning in Social Semiotics: deep semiotics as a conceptual extension of Social Semiotics. Slovo. ru: Baltic accent, 9 (4), pp. 15—26, https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2018-4-2 (in Russ.).Tulchinskii, G. L., 2019a. Extensions of the Semiotic Analysis Capabilities: the Sources and Content of the "Deep Semiotics" Concept. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy], 11, pp. 115—125, https://doi.org/10.31857/S004287440007358-8 (in Russ.).Tulchinskii, G. L., 2019b. Telo svobody: otvetstvennost' i voploshchenie smysla [The Body of Freedom: Responsibility and Embodiment of Meaning]. St. Petersburg, 470 p. (in Russ.).Tulchinskii, G. L., 2022a. Apophatic and Institutionalization: Pragma-Semantic Analysis. The Political Conceptology: Journal of Metadisciplinary Research, 3, pp. 29—48, https://doi.org/10.18522/2218-5518.2022.3.2948 (in Russ.).Tulchinskii, G. L., 2022b. From Slinin to Carroll and Back: Apophaticism and Nonsense as Preliminaries for Logical Analysis. Logiko-filosofskie studii [Logical and philosophical studies], 20 (2), pp. 23—53 https://doi.org/10.52119/LPHS.2022.32. 65.012 (in Russ.).Tulmin, S., 1984. Chelovecheskoe ponimanie [Human understanding]. Moscow, 328 p. (in Russ.).Zolyan, S. T., 2021. On pragma-semantics of expressives. Between words and actions. In: A. Haselow and S. Hancil, eds. Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Publ., pp. 245—271.Zolyan, S. T. and Tulchinskii, G. L., eds., 2022. Mezhdu mirom i yazykom: tekst i smysl v kommunikativnom kontekste [Between Language and World: Meaning and Text Within a Communicative Space]. Kaliningrad (in Russ.).Zolyan, S. T., 2023a. Pragmatics as a Self-Generation of a Subject-on-Its Own. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy], 7, pp. 93—103, https://doi.org/10.21146/ 0042-8744-2023-7-93-103 (in Russ.).Zolyan, S. T., 2023b. “I” as a Subject of Self- and Other-Reference: A Linguistic Perspective. Proceedings of the V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, 2, pp. 26—39, https://doi.org/10.31912/pvrli-2023.2.2 (in Russ.).Знаки и смыслы как эпистемологическая проблемаA.V.KravchenkoBaikal State UniversityThe semiotic problem of the triad “sign – meaning – sense” is discussed as a methodolog­ical problem caused by philosophy of external realism and the representational theory of cog­nition based on it. Reification of linguistic signs, along with the erroneous view of the nature and function of language as a communication tool rather than the mode of existence of hu­mans as living (cognitive) systems, impedes scientific explanation of both language and lin­guistic signs. As an alternative, the core problem of semiotics is approached within the fra­me­work of constructivist epistemology that allows us to resolve the contradictions in the objec­tivist interpretation and explanation of sign, meaning, and sense which are viewed as emer­gent phenomena.05302026314710.5922/2225-5346-2023-4-2https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5418/44164/Blumenau, D. I., 1982. Problemy svertyvaniya nauchnoi informatsii [Problems of collapsing scientific information]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bunnell, P., 2015. Dancing with ambiguity. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 22 (4), pp. 101—112.Chechulin, V. L., 2011. On the etymology “smysl” (sense) in Russian and European languages. Privolzhskii nauchnyi vestnik [Privolzhsky Research Bulletin], 3, pp. 77—79 (in Russ.).Davidson, A., 2019. Writing: the re-construction of language. Language Sciences, 72, pp. 134—149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.09.004.Deacon, T. W., 2015. Steps to a science of biosemiotics. Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, 19 (3), pp. 293—311, https://doi.org/10.1080/14688417.2015.1072948.Demyankov, V. Z., 1989. Interpretatsiya, ponimanie i lingvisticheskie aspekty ikh modelirovaniya na EVM [Interpretation, understanding, and the linguistic aspects of their computer modelling]. Moscow (in Russ.).Doroszewski, W., 1973. Elementy leksikologii i semiotiki [Elements of lexicology and semiotics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Foerster, H. von, 2002. Vision, language and knowledge: The double blind. In: D. F. Schnitman and J. Schnitman, eds. New paradigms, culture, and subjectivity. Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 65—81.Frege, G., 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, N. F., Bd. 100/1, pp. 25—50.Glasersfeld, E. von, 1995. Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.Hebb, D. O., 1949. The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley & Sons.Keller, R., 1998. A theory of linguistic signs. Translated by K. Duenwald. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kellogg, R. T., 1994. The psychology of writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kravchenko, A. V., 2003a. The ontology of signs as linguistic and non-linguistic entities: a cognitive perspective. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, pp. 179—191, https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.1.10kra.Kravchenko, A. V., 2003b. Sign, meaning, knowledge: An essay in the cognitive philosophy of language. Frankfurt a/M et al.Kravchenko, A. V., 2007. Essential properties of language, or, why language is not a code. Language Sciences, 29 (5), pp. 650—671, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci. 2007.01.004.Kravchenko, A. V., 2008. Biology of cognition and linguistic analysis: From non-realist linguistics to a realistic language science. Frankfurt a/M et al.Kravchenko, A. V., 2009. The experiential basis of speech and writing as different cognitive domains. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17 (3), pp. 527—548, https://doi.org/10. 1075/pc.17.3.03kra.Kravchenko, A. V., 2013. Ot yazykovogo mifa k biologicheskoi real'nosti: pereosmyslyaya poznavatel'nye ustanovki yazykoznaniya [From the language myth to biological reality: Reassessing the epistemological assumptions of linguistics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Kravchenko, A. V., 2015. External realism and biology of cognition: the epistemological turn. In: E. I. Pivovar, ed. Gumanitarnye chteniya RGGU — 2014 [The RGGU readings in the humanities — 2014]. Moscow, pp. 697—709 (in Russ.).Kravchenko, A. V., 2016. The epistemological trap of language. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya [Tomsk State University Journal of Philology], 3 (41), pp. 14—26, https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/41/2 (in Russ.).Kravchenko, A. V., 2020. A critique of Barbieri’s code biology. Constructivist Foundations, 15 (2), pp. 122—134.Kravchenko, A. V., 2021. Approaching linguistic semiosis biologically: implications for human evolution. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 15 (2), pp. 139—158, https://doi.org/10.4396/2021209.Kravchenko, A. V., 2021. What is wrong with linguistics as a science. In: K. S. Kardanova-Birukova, ed. Metodologiya sovremennogo yazykoznaniya — 3 [Contemporary linguistic methodology — 3]. Moscow, pp. 163—176 (in Russ.).Kravchenko, A. V., 2022. The ecological paradigm in linguistic research: a shift in epistemological assumptions. In: A. P. Skovorodnikov and G. A. Kopnina, eds. Lingvoekologiya: problemy i puti ikh resheniya [Linguaecology: problems and their possible resolution]. Krasnoyarsk, pp. 10—27 (in Russ.).Linell, P., 2005. The written language bias in linguistics: Its nature, origins and transformations. London; New York: Routledge.Linell, P., 2013. Two views on the nature of language: formal linguistics (with its written language bias) vs dialogical linguistics. In: A. V. Kravchenko, ed. Kognitivnaya dinamika v yazykovykh vzaimodeistviyakh (Studia linguistica cognitiva 3) [Cognitive dynamics in linguistic interactions]. Moscow, pp. 41—57 (in Russ.).Maturana, H. R. and Varela, F. J., 1987. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston MA: Shambhala.Maturana, H. R., 1970. Biology of cognition. BCL Report # 9.0. University of Illinois, Urbana.Maturana, H. R., 1988. Ontology of observing: The biological foundations of self-consciousness and of the physical domain of existence. In: R. E. Donaldson, ed. Texts in cybernetic theory: An in-depth exploration of the thought of Humberto R. Maturana, William T. Powers, and Ernst von Glasersfeld. Felton, CA: American Society for Cybernetics, pp. 1—54.Maturana, H. R., Mpodozis, J. and Letelier, J. C., 1995. Brain, language, and the origin of human mental functions. Biological Research, 28, pp. 15—26.Maturana, H. R., 1978. Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In: G. Miller and E. Lenneberg, eds. Psychology and biology of language and thought. New York: Academic Press, pp. 28—62.Morehouse, R. E., 2012. Beginning interpretive inquiry: A step-by-step approach to research and evaluation. London and New York: Routledge.Morris, C. W., 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. In: O. Neurath, R. Carnap and C. W. Morris, eds. International encyclopedia of unified science. Vol. 1, Part 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 1—59.Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A., 1923. The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.Putnam, Η., 1983. Realism and reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Searle, J. R., 1998. Mind, language and society: Philosophy in the real world. New York: Basic Books.Shchedrovitsky, G. P., 2004. Signs and activity. Center for Technologies in the Humanities. Available at: https://gtmarket.ru/library/articles/5272 [Accessed 1 March 2023] (in Russ.).Simsky, A. D., Kravchenko, A. V. and Druzhinin, A. S., 2021. Action-thoughts and the genesis of time in linguistic semiosis. Slovo. ru: Baltic accent, 12 (2), pp. 7—28, https://doi.org/ 10.5922/2225-5346-2021-2-1 (in Russ.).Staver, J. R., 2012. Constructivism and realism: Dueling paradigms. In: B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin and C. J. McRobbie, eds. Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1017—1028.Yartseva, V. N., ed., 1990. Lingvisticheskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar' [Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow (in Russ.).Как установки и иллокутивная сила становятся компонентами смысла: некоторые следствия из анализа мнимых имен у ФрегеI.B.MikirtumovRussian Society for the History and Philosophy of ScienceFrege's fictitious names possess meaning but lack denotation. Both these names and the sentences containing them are deemed fictitious. Since any proper name can potentially refer to an imaginary entity, it is crucial to consider the speaker's intention. When making a statement, the speaker may refer to the real or the imaginary. In the latter case, the thought cannot be explicitly expressed, and consequently, denotation cannot be reached. In Frege's framework, fictional thoughts hold little significance for decision-making and actions. There­fore, we consistently seek to discern whether the discourse pertains to the real or the imagi­nary. To make this knowledge accessible, it must be incorporated into the content of a sen­tence, effectively becoming a thought. However, not every statement expresses a thought, even if it conforms to the structure of a sentence. I will now elucidate three intensionalization pro­cedures that Frege proposes for constructing a sentence that expresses a thought, even if cer­tain components within it lack denotation: the articulation of a naming relation, the formula­tion of a propositional attitude of intention, and the formulation of a propositional attitude that conveys a metafictional context. Through these methods, the speaker's intent to indicate a real or fictional object becomes a constituent of thought, i. e., the sense of the sentence. Fic­tions themselves become components of thought when they are found in an indirect context, wherein their sense serves as their denotation. When considered independently, the sense of a proper noun is an entity with a parameter that acquires a value in the specific situation where the name is employed by a particular speaker. Frege's foundational concepts are juxtaposed with certain aspects of Aristotle and Leibniz's doctrines.05302026487210.59222225-5346-2023-4-3https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5418/44166/Aristotle, 1937. O chastyakh zhivotnykh [About the parts of animals]. Translated by V. P. Karpov. Moscow (in Russ.).Aristotle, 1976. Metaphysics. In: Aristotel'. Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh [Aristotle. Collected works in 4 volumes]. Vol. 1. Translated by A. V. Kubitski. Moscow, pp. 63—367 (in Russ.).Aristotle, 1978a. Categories. In: Aristotel'. Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh [Aristotle. Collected works in 4 volumes]. Vol. 2. Translated by A. V. Kubitski. Moscow, pp. 51—89 (in Russ.).Aristotle, 1978b. About interpretation. In: Aristotel'. Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh [Aristotle. Collected works in 4 volumes]. Vol. 2. Translated by E. V. Radlov. Moscow, pp. 91—115 (in Russ.).Aristotle, 1978c. Second analytics. In: Aristotel'. Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh [Aristotle. Collected works in 4 volumes]. Vol. 2. Translated by B. A. Focht. Moscow, pp. 255—345 (in Russ.).Aristotle, 1981. Physics. In: Aristotel'. Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh [Aristotle. Collected works in 4 volumes]. Vol. 3. Translated by V. P. Karpov. Moscow, pp. 59—261 (in Russ.).Berto, F. and Nolan, D., 2021. Hyperintensionality. In: E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, eds. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford. edu/entries/hyperintensionality/ [Accessed 1 March 2023].Borg, E., 2012. Semantics without Pragmatics? In: K. Allan and K. Jaszczolt, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 513—528.Burge, T., 1979. Sinning against Frege. Philosophical Review, 88 (3), pp. 398—432.Caplan, B., 2020. Fregean theories of names from fiction. In: St. Biggs and H. Geirsson, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Reference. New York, pp. 384—396.Chakrabarti, A., 1997. Denying existence. Dordrecht, Kluwer.Chernoskutov, Yu. Yu., 2003. Gottlob Frege and logical tradition. In: Istoriko-logicheskie issledovaniya [Investigations in the history of logic]. St. Petersburg, pp. 238—265 (in Russ.).Church, A., 1960. Vvedenie v matematicheskuyu logiku [Introduction to mathematical logic]. Translated by V. S. Chernyavskii. V. A. Uspenskii, ed. Vol. 1. Moscow (in Russ.).Devine, Ph., 1974. The Logic of Fiction. Philosophical Studies, 26 (5/6), pp. 389—399.Dummett, M., 1976. Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge MA, Harvard.Dummett, M., 1981. The Interpretation of Frege’s Philosophy. London, Duckwort.Frege, G., 1893. Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. Begriffschriftlich abgeleitet. I. Band, Jena, Verl. von Hermann Pohle.Frege, G., 2000a. On sense and denotation. In: B. V. Biryukov and Z. A. Kuzicheva, eds. Gottlob Frege. Logika i logicheskaya semantika [Gottlob Frege. Logic and logical semantics]. Moscow, pp. 230—246 (in Russ.).Frege, G., 2000b. Reasoning on sense and denotation. In: B. V. Biryukov and Z. A. Kuzicheva, eds. Gottlob Frege. Logika i logicheskaya semantika [Gottlob Frege. Logic and logical semantics]. Moscow, pp. 247—252 (in Russ.).Frege, G., 2000c. About concept and thing. In: B. V. Biryukov and Z. A. Kuzicheva, eds. Gottlob Frege. Logika i logicheskaya semantika [Gottlob Frege. Logic and logical semantics]. Moscow, pp. 253—262 (in Russ.).Frege, G., 2000d. Introduction to logic. In: B. V. Biryukov and Z. A. Kuzicheva, eds. Gottlob Frege. Logika i logicheskaya semantika [Gottlob Frege. Logic and logical semantics]. Moscow, pp. 297—306 (in Russ.).Frege, G., 2000e. Logic. Introduction. In: B. V. Biryukov and Z. A. Kuzicheva, eds. Gottlob Frege. Logika i logicheskaya semantika [Gottlob Frege. Logic and logical semantics]. Moscow, pp. 307—325 (in Russ.).Frege, G., 2000f. Thought. Logical investigation. In: B. V. Biryukov and Z. A. Kuzicheva, eds. Gottlob Frege. Logika i logicheskaya semantika [Gottlob Frege. Logic and logical semantics]. Moscow, pp. 326—342 (in Russ.).Frege, G., 2000g. Osnovopolozheniya arifmetiki. Logiko-matematicheskoe issledovanie o ponyatii chisla [Foundations of arithmetic. Logical and mathematical research on the concept of number]. Translated by V. A. Surovtcev. Tomsk (in Russ.).Heis, J., 2013. Frege, Lotze, and Boole. In: E. H. Reck, ed. The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy. Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 113—138.Kamp, H., 2015. Using Proper Names as Intermediaries between Labelled Entity Representations. Erkenntnis, 80 (2), pp. 263—312, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9701-2.Kripke, S., 1979. A Puzzle about Belief. In: A. Margalit, ed. Meaning and Use. Dordrecht, pp. 239—283.Kripke, S., 2011. Vacuous names and fictional entities. In: S. Kripke, ed. Philosophical troubles. Oxford, pp. 52—74.Lebedev, A. V., ed. 1989. Fragmenty rannikh grecheskikh filosofov. Chast' 1: Ot epicheskikh kosmogonii do vozniknoveniya atomistiki [Fragments of early Greek Philosopher. Part 1. From epic cosmogonies to the emergence of atomistics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Leibniz, G. W., 1984a. Reflection on knowledge, truth and ideas. In: G. W. Leibniz, ed. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Papers in four volumes]. Vol. 3. Translated by E. L. Radlov. Moscow, pp. 101—107 (in Russ.).Leibniz, G. W., 1984b. Absolutely the first truths. In: G. W. Leibniz, ed. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Papers in four volumes]. Vol. 3. Translated by G. G. Mayorov. Moscow, pp. 123—126 (in Russ.).Leibniz, G. W., 1989. Experiments of theodicy about the goodness of God, the freedom of man and the beginning of evil. In: G. W. Leibniz, ed. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Papers in four volumes]. Vol. 4. Translated by F. A. Smirnov. Moscow (in Russ.).Lenzen, W., 1995. Frege und Leibniz. In: I. Max, ed. Logik und Mathematik. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp. 82—92.Maier, E. and Stokke, A., eds., 2021. The Language of Fiction. Oxford University Press.Mikirtumov, I. B., 2006. Teoriya znacheniya i intensional'naya logika [Meaning theory and intensional logic]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Mikirtumov, I. B., 2016. Non-compositionality and intended sense. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki [Epistemology and philosophy of science], 48 (2), pp. 87—103 (in Russ.).Miroshnichenko, P. N., 2003. Gottlob Frege i logiko-filosofskaya mysl' XIX — nachala XX veka [Gottlob Frege and logic-philosophical conceptions of 19th and early 20th centuries]. Zaporozhye (in Russ.).Montague, R., 1981. Pragmatics and intensional logic. In: V. A. Smirnov, ed. Semantika modal'nykh i intensional'nykh logik [Semantics of modal und nonextesional logics]. Translated V. A. Smirnov. Moscow, pp. 223—253 (in Russ.).Moschovakis, Y., 1993. Sense and Denotation as Algorithm and Value. In: J. Oikkonen and J. Vannen, eds. Logic Colloquium’90: ASL Summer Meeting in Helsinki. Lecture Notes in Logic. Vol. 2. Heidelberg, pp. 210—249.Munton, J., 2017. Frege, fiction and force. Synthese, 194, pp. 3669—3692, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1117-x.Ninan, D., 2019. Naming and epistemic necessity. Noûs, 55 (2), pp. 334—362, https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12314.Plato, 1990. Menon. In: Plato, ed. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Papers in four volumes]. Vol. 1. Translated by S. A. Osherov. Moscow, pp. 575—612 (in Russ.).Recanati, F., 2021. Fictional Reference as Simulation. In: E. Maier and A. Stokke, eds. The Language of Fiction. Oxford University Press, pp. 17—36, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846376.003.0002.Schiffer, S., 1992. Belief ascription. Journal of Philosophy, 89 (10), pp. 499—521.Shanin, N. A., 1992. Some features of the mathematical approach to the problems of logic. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University], 6 (4), pp. 10—20 (in Russ.).Slinin, Ya. A., 2007. Aristotles’ logical semantics. Logiko-filosofskie shtudii [Logical and philosophical studies], 4, pp. 279—289 (in Russ.).Приписывание пропозициональных установок de re как средство убежденияD.B.TiskinImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityK.G.FrolovNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsBy de re propositional attitude ascription for rhetorical purposes, we will understand ut­tering a modal statement wherein the speaker deliberately uses a description of the attitude’s object which she knows to be unavailable to the attitude holder. As the existence of rhetorical de re is revealed, it gives rise to two questions that will be the primary concern of the present paper. (1) Using a rhetorical de re ascription, does the speaker utter something false in the model-theoretic sense? (2) Would it be justified to classify rhetorical de re as a rhetorical ploy designed to, or naturally predisposed to, mislead the addressee? This paper argues that the first question can be answered positively but the second one should receive a negative answer. We show that the question of whether a certain instance of rhetorical de re is a ploy or act of manipulation should be answered depending not on whether the statement is clearly false for the speaker but on whether it is clearly unacceptable for the speaker. In case the speaker herself considers the argument made by means of the statement acceptable, there is no reason to de­nounce such a communicative act as a ploy or manipulation irrespective of which model-theoretic truth-value the statement has. There are therefore reasons to incorporate rhetorical considerations into the modelling of how attitude reports are interpreted, in addition to con­siderations of truth and epistemological aspects, championed by Frege.05302026739010.5922/2225-5346-2023-4-4https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5418/44168/Aloni, M., 2001. Quantification under conceptual covers. PhD thesis. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Bach, K., 1997. Do Belief Reports Report Beliefs? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 78, pp. 215—241.Blumberg, K. and Lederman, Н., 2021. Revisionist Reporting. Philosophical Studies, 178, pp. 755—783, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01457-4.Bowell, T., Cowan, R. and Kemp, G., 2020. Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. 5th ed. Routledge.Demirok, Ö., 2019. Scope Theory Revisited: Lessons from pied-piping in wh-questions. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Dolgorukov, V. V., 2015. Logiko-epistemicheskii status pragmaticheskikh ogranichenii: teoretiko-igrovoi podkhod [The Logico-Epistemological Status of Pragmatic Constraints: A Game-Theoretical Approach]. PhD Dissertation. Moscow: Higher School of Economics (in Russ.).Egré, P., 2014. Hyperintensionality and De Re Beliefs. In: F. Lihoreau and M. Rebuschi, eds. Epistemology, Context, and Formalism. New York: Springer, pp. 213—243, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02943-6_13.Fodor, J. D., 1970. The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contents. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Fraassen, B. van, 1979. Propositional Attitudes in Weak Pragmatics. Studia Logica, 38, pp. 365—374.Frege, G., 2000. On sense and denotation. In: B. V. Biryukov and Z. A. Kuzicheva, eds. Gottlob Frege. Logika i logicheskaya semantika [Gottlob Frege. Logic and logical semantics]. Moscow, pp. 230—246 (in Russ.).Frolov, K. G., 2022. On the Bench-Capon Value-Based Argumentation Framework. Logiko-filosofskie studii [Logico-Philosophical Studies], 20 (4), pp. 447—455, https://doi.org/10.52119/LPHS.2022.33.41.006 (in Russ.).Kaplan, D., 1968. Quantifying in. Synthese, 19, pp. 178—214.Kripke, S. A., 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Lewis, D., 1981. Are We Free to Break the Laws? Theoria, 47, pp. 113—121.Parikh, R., 1998. Propositions, Propositional Attitudes and Belief Revision. In: Advances in Modal Logic. Vol. 2, pp. 381—400.Percus, O., 2021. Index-Dependence and Embedding. In: D. Gutzmann et al., eds. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516. sem096.Quine, W. V. O., 1953. Three Grades of Modal Involvement. In: Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of Philosophy. Vol. 14. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 65—81.Quine, W. V. O., 1956. Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 53, pp. 177—187.Russell, B., 1910. Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 11, pp. 108—128.Salmon, N., 1989. How to Become a Millian Heir. Noûs, 23 (2), pp. 211—220.Schwager, M., 2009. Speaking of Qualities. In: Proceedings of SALT 19, pp. 395—412, https://doi.org/10.3765/SALT.V19I0.2534.Schwarz, F., 2012. Situation Pronouns in Determiner Phrases. Natural Language Semantics, 20, pp. 431—475, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9086-1.Sosa, E., 1970. Propositional Attitudes De Dictu and De Re. Journal of Philosophy, 67, pp. 883—896.Sudo, Y., 2014. On De Re Predicates. In: Proceedings of WCCFL, 31, pp. 447—456.Tiskin, D., 2016. Conditional Attitude Ascription. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, 50, pp. 74—93, https://doi.org/10.5840/eps201650470.«Определение поэзии»: Фреге vs. ЯкобсонT.V.TsvigunImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityA.N.ChernyakovImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityThis article presents a comparative analysis of two approaches to describing the reference within poetic statements: the pragmasemantic approach, which builds upon Gottlob Frege's ideas of the poetic sign as "a sign with meaning but without reference," and aesthetic-functional theories of poetic language linked to Roman Jacobson's concept of the poetic func­tion. The pragmasemantic interpretation of the referential capabilities of a poetic sign explores questions regarding the principles of its verification and examines its relationship with ex­tralinguistic objects. From this perspective, the artistic expression's ability to establish objec­tive references is either entirely denied (by Frege) or associated with the actions of "aesthetic operators" (Linsky), specific illocutionary attitudes (Searle), or the recipient's standpoint (Zolyan). On the other hand, the theory of the poetic function of language, as presented in formalism and structuralism, posits that the reference of the poetic sign does not extend to the world of objects but rather to the linguistic environment inherent within the sign. It under­scores the "auto-referentiality" (Faryno) of an artistic statement. Pragmase­man­tics and aes­thetic-functional concepts of poetic reference both contribute to a reduction, albeit from oppo­site angles: pragmasemantics locates the referents of the poetic sign within ‘possible’ (artistic) worlds but somewhat overlooks the unique characteristics of poetic language. In contrast, functionalism sidelines the question of a sign's objective references, steering artistic discourse entirely toward linguistic elements. A potential resolution to this polarity in analytical ap­proaches involves viewing the poetic sign as a bi-referential phenomenon, simultaneously engaging along two axes — extralinguistic and linguistic. This approach enables the consid­eration of an artistic statement not as deficient but, conversely, as abundant in its referential connections. It helps reveal the common semiotic mechanisms at play in any work of art, which motivate the ‘definition of poetry’ as a distinct statement about a unique world.053020269110410.5922/2225-5346-2023-4-5https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5418/44170/Aristotle, 2000. Ritorika. Poetika [Rhetoric. Poetics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Castaneda, G.-N., 1999. Fiction and reality: their fundamental connections: Essays on the ontology of cumulative experience. Logos, 3 (13), pp. 69—102 (in Russ.).Faryno, J., 2004. Vvedenie v literaturovedenie [Introduction to literary criticism]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Faryno, J., 1975. Semiotyczne aspekty poezji o sztuce: Na przykładzie wierszy Wisławy Szymborskiej. Pamiętnik Literacki, 4, pp. 123—145.Frege, G., 2000. On sense and denotation. In: B. V. Biryukov and Z. A. Kuzicheva, eds. Gottlob Frege. Logika i logicheskaya semantika [Gottlob Frege. Logic and logical semantics]. Moscow, pp. 230—246 (in Russ.).Jakobson, R., 1975. Linguistics and poetics. In: Strukturalizm: «za» i «protiv»: sbornik statei [Structuralism: “pro” and “contra”: a collection of articles]. Moscow, pp. 193—230 (in Russ.)Jakobson, R., 1987. Newest Russian poetry. First sketch: Approaches to Khlebnikov. In: R. Jakobson, ed. Raboty po poetike [Works on poetics]. Moscow, pp. 272—316 (in Russ.).Jakobson, R., 1996. What is poetry? In: R. Jakobson, ed. Yazyk i bessoznatel'noe [Language and the unconscious]. Moscow, pp. 97—105 (in Russ.).Linsky, L., 1982. Reference and referents. In: Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike [New in foreign linguistics], XIII. Moscow, pp. 161—178 (in Russ.).Lotman, Yu. M., 1998. The structure of a literary text. In: Yu. Lotman, ed. Ob iskusstve [About art]. St. Petersburg, pp. 14—285 (in Russ.).Morris, Ch. W., 2001. Foundations of the theory of signs. In: Semiotika: antologiya [Semiotics: Anthology]. Moscow, pp. 45—97 (in Russ.).Mukařovský, J., 1996. Two studies on poetic naming. I: Poetic naming and aesthetic function of language. In: J. Mukařovský, ed. Struktural'naya poetika [Structural poetics]. Moscow, pp. 132—139 (in Russ.).Paducheva, Ye., 2010. Semanticheskie issledovaniya: Semantika vremeni i vida v russkom yazyke; Semantika narrativa [Semantic studies: Semantics of time and aspect in the Russian language; Semantics of narrative]. Moscow (in Russ.).Rudnev, V., 2000. Proch' ot real'nosti: Issledovaniya po filosofii teksta [Away from reality: Studies in the philosophy of text]. Moscow (in Russ.).Searle, J. R., 1999. Logical status of artistic discourse. Logos, 3 (13), pp. 34—47 (in Russ.).Shklovsky, V., 1990. Art as a technique. In: V. Shklovsky, ed. Gamburgskii schet [Hamburg account]. Moscow, pp. 58—72 (in Russ.).Sławiński, J., 1975. On the theory of poetic language. In: Strukturalizm: «za» i «protiv»: sbornik statei [Structuralism: “pro” and “contra”: a collection of articles]. Moscow, pp. 256—276 (in Russ.).Stepanov, Yu., 2001. In the world of semiotics. In: Semiotika: antologiya [Semiotics: Anthology]. Moscow, pp. 5—42 (in Russ.).Theses of the Prague Linguistic Circle, 1965. In: Prazhskii lingvisticheskii kruzhok: sbornik statei [Prague Linguistic Circle: collection of articles]. Moscow, pp. 17—41 (in Russ.).Todorov, Ts., 2001. The concept of literature. In: Semiotika: antologiya [Semiotics: Anthology]. Moscow, pp. 376—391 (in Russ.).Zolyan, S. T., 2014. Semantika i struktura poeticheskogo teksta [Semantics and structure of poetic text]. Moscow (in Russ.).Трансформация семантики мамочки: от жены до пушкиM.A.KrongauzNational Re­search University Higher School of EconomicsRussian State Uni­ver­sity for the HumanitiesK.S.KlokovaMoscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyV.A.ShulginovMoscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsT.A.YudinaMoscow Institute of Physics and TechnologyIn the semantic theory of Gottlob Frege, the content of a linguistic sign is determined by the connection between the meaning and a set of subjective perceptions that form the mean­ing. Our study aims to reveal the influence of individual perceptions of the meaning on the extension of the semantic structure of a word, using the kinship term ‘mamochka’ as an ex­ample. The article focuses on instances where the word ‘mamochka’ is used in fiction and, to some extent, Internet texts. The article examines cases spanning from the 1840s to the 2010s to explore the secondary usage of the term. The corpus, comprising a total of 2,192 cases, was carefully collected and annotated. Out of these cases, 362 examples were identified as instanc­es of secondary usage. Each example was analyzed and categorized based on its type of use, including appellative (address), referential, or interjective use. Furthermore, for the secondary instances, the type of the meaning was also marked for accurate classification and analysis. The study delineated the semantic structure of the word ‘mamochka’ based on its various us­es. Common meanings encompassed appellative and referential usages, denoting a wife, a woman fulfilling maternal roles, or a woman with a young child. Additionally, unique mean­ings emerged for specific contexts, such as a friend, a man, a non-living object, or even the caretaker of an animal. The investigation also uncovered systemic connections among these meanings, along with the dynamic transformations they underwent over time in the dia­chronic aspect.0530202610512410.5922/2225-5346-2023-4-6https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5418/44172/Bobrik, M. A., 2021. Pragmaticalization mechanisms in the history of the Russian farewell formula sčastlívo! Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 1, pp. 70—83, https://doi.org/10.31857/0373-658X.2021.1.70-83 (in Russ.).Buras, M. M. and Krongauz, M. A., 2013. Terms of address in Russian family etiquette: Semantics and pragmatics. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 2, pp. 121—131 (in Russ.).Dal, V. I., 1911. Tolkovyi slovar' zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka: v 4 t. [Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language: in 4 vols.]. Vol. 4. 3d ed. St. Petersburg; Moscow (in Russ.).Efremova, T. E., 2000. Novyi slovar' russkogo yazyka. Tolkovo-slovoobrazovatel'nyi [New Dictionary of the Russian Language. Explanatory and Word-Formation Dictionary]. Moscow (in Russ.).Evgen'eva, A. P., ed., 1984. Slovar' russkogo yazyka: V 4-kh t. [Russian Language Dictionary: In 4 volumes]. Vol. 4. Moscow (in Russ.).Fashola, J. O., 2014. Reawakening African Cultural Practices towards Global Harmony: Role of Kinship. Review of Arts and Humanities, 3 (2), pp. 101—113.Fregе, G., 1997. Sense and Denotation. Semiotika i informatika [Semiotics and Informatics], 35, pp. 351—379 (in Russ.).Kinnison, L. Q., 2017. Power, integrity, and mask — An attempt to disentangle the Chinese face concept. Journal of Pragmatics, 114, pp. 32—48, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.pragma.2017.03.015.Krysin, L. P., ed., 2014. Tolkovyi slovar' russkoi razgovornoi rechi [Explanatory Dictionary of Russian Colloquial Speech]. Vol. 2. Moscow (in Russ.).Kuznetsov, S. A., ed., 1998. Bol'shoi tolkovyi slovar' russkogo yazyka: A—Ya [Great Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language: A—Z]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Natsional'nyi korpus russkogo yazyka [The Russian National Corpus]. Available at: https://ruscorpora.ru/ [Accessed 11 May 2023].Ozhegov, S. I. and Shvedova, N. Yu., eds., 1997. Tolkovyi slovar' russkogo yazyka [Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language]. 4th ed. Moscow (in Russ.).Perekhvalskaya, E., 2016. Etnolingvistika [Ethnolinguistics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Salifu, N. A., 2010. Signaling politeness, power and solidarity through terms of address in Dagbanli. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 19, pp. 274—292, https://doi. org/10.53228/njas.v19i4.198.Shilikhina, K. M. and Tkach, I. A., 2020. The Russian discourse marker “to bish” (“that is”): early pragmaticalizaion and modern usage. Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 3, pp. 54—62, https:// doi.org/10.17308/lic.2020.3/2933 (in Russ.).Sulimova, T. S., 2019. From Adverb to Pragmatic Marker: Stages of the Pragmaticization of the Unit Purely in Russian Oral Speech (corpus research). In: L. V. Ukhova, ed. Russkaya grammatika: aktivnye protsessy v yazyke i rechi: sbornik nauchnykh trudov Mezhdunarodnogo nauchnogo simpoziuma [Russian Grammar: Active Processes in Language and Speech: Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium]. Yaroslavl, pp. 448—455 (in Russ.).Ushakov, D. N., ed., 1940. Tolkovyi slovar' russkogo yazyka: V 4-kh t. [Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language: In 4 volumes]. Vol. 4. Moscow (in Russ.).Vinogradova, E. N., 2023. Grammaticalization, lexicalization, and pragmaticalization: Russian constructions with the preposition PO. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 1, pp. 54—87, https://doi.org/10.31857/0373-658X.2023.1.54-87 (in Russ.).Xiaoli, S., 2022. The Word Samyj in the Light of Active Processes of Russian Speech (Grammaticalization, Idiomatization and Pragmaticalization). Russkaya Rech’ [Russian Speech], 2, pp. 7—23, https://doi.org/10.31857/S013161170019839-1 (in Russ.).О семиотиках интегрально, аспективно и конкретноM.V.IlyinCentre for Advanced Methods in Social Sciences and Humanities INION RANNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsAnton 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.0530202612513610.5922/2225-5346-2023-4-7https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5421/44174/Avdonin, V. S., 2015. Methods in the "vertical" dimension (metatheory and metalanguages-organons). Metod: moskovskii ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh distsiplin [METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Works from Social Science Disciplines], 5, pp. 265—278 (in Russ.).Bazhanov, V. A., 2009. Unknown Lakatos. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki [Epistemology and philosophy of science], 20 (2), pp. 204—209 (in Russ.).Beseda s Yuriem Sergeevichem Stepanovym [Conversation with Yuri Sergeevich Stepanov], 2002. Political Science, 3, pp. 90—104 (in Russ.).Bezemer, J. and Kress, G., 2015. Multimodality, learning and communication: A social semiotic frame. London; New York: Routledge.Bezemer, J., Kress, G., Cope, A. and Kneebone, R., 2021. Learning in the operating theatre. In: V. Cook, C. Daly and M. Newman, eds. Work-Based Learning in Clinical Settings: Insights from Socio-Cultural Perspectives. London.Bezemer, J., Murtagh, G. and Cope, A., 2019. Inspecting objects: Visibility manoeuvres in laparoscopic surgery. In: E. Reber and C. Gerhardt, eds. Embodied Activities in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings: Social Encounters in Time and Space. London, pp. 107—135.Campbell, C., Olteanu, A. and Kull, K., 2019. Learning and knowing as semiosis: Extending the conceptual apparatus of semiotics. Sign systems studies, 47 (3/4), pp. 352—381, https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2019.47.3-4.01.Cowley, S. J., 2008. Meaning in nature: Organic manufacture? Biosemiotics, 1 (1), pp. 85—98, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-008-9003-7.Fan, I. B., 2006. Job and Leviathan: A Dispute for the Sake of Concord. Interview with M. V. Ilyin. Diskurs-Pi [Discourse-P], 6 (1), 84—91 (in Russ.).Gaman-Golutvina, O. V., 2019. Overcoming Methodological Differences: The Debate about Knowledge Politics in an Age of Uncertainty. Polis. Political Studies, 5, pp. 19—42, https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.05.03 (in Russ.).Gaman-Golutvina, O. V., 2020. Modern comparative political science before the challenges of development. Perspektivy. Elektronnyi zhurnal [Perspectives and prospects. E-journal], 1 (21), pp. 6—29, https://doi.org/10.32726/2411-3417-2020-1-6-29 (in Russ.).Ilyin, M. V., 2014. Methodological challenge. What makes science united? How to connect the disconnected spheres of knowledge? Metod: moskovskii ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh distsiplin [METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Works from Social Science Disciplines], 4, pp. 6—11 (in Russ.).Ilyin, M. V., 2015a. Semiotics as a Basis for the Study of Language Policy and Development of Discourse Analysis. Diskurs-Pi [Discourse-P], 12 (1), pp. 43—47 (in Russ.).Ilyin, M. V., 2015b. Semiotic, morphological, comparative methods of discourse analysis in an interdisciplinary application. Biznes. Obshchestvo. Vlast' [Business. Society. Power], 22, pp. 67—82 (in Russ.).Ilyin, M. V., Avdonin, V. S. and Fomin, I. V., 2018. Methodological challenge. Critical reflection. How to keep balance at the curves from visual precision to scientific validity and back. Metod: moskovskii ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh distsiplin [METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Works from Social Science Disciplines], 8, pp. 5—11 (in Russ.).Kravchenko, A., 2021. Approaching linguistic semiosis biologically: implications for human evolution. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 15 (2), pp. 139—158, https://doi.org/10.4396/2021209.Kull, K., 1999. Biosemiotics in the twentieth century: A view from biology. Semiotica, 127 (1—4), pp. 385—414.Kull, K., 2012. Advancements in Biosemiotics: Where we are now discovering the basic mechanisms of meaning making. In: T. Bennett and S. Rattasepp, eds. Gatherings in biosemiotics, Tartu, pp. 11—24.Kull, K., 2021. Natural selection and self-organization do not make meaning, while the agent’s choice does. Biosemiotics, 14, pp. 49—53, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12304-021-09422-2.Kull, K., 2022. The aim of extended synthesis is to include semiosis. Theoretical Biology Forum, 115 (1—2), pp. 119—132, https://doi.org/10.19272/202211402008.Lacková, L. and Faltýnek, D., 2021. The lower threshold as a unifying principle between Code Biology and Biosemiotics. BioSystems, 210, pp. 104523, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2021.104523.Lakatos, I., 2008. Falsification and methodology of research programs. In: I. Lakatos, ed. Izbrannye proizvedeniya po filosofii i metodologii nauki [Selected works on philosophy and methodology of science]. Moscow, pp. 281—474 (in Russ.).Nöth, W., 2023. Pragmatist Semiotics. In: J. Pelkey ed. Bloomsbury Semiotics. Vol. 1: History and Semiosis. London; New York, pp. 91—107.Olteanu, A., 2021. Multimodal modeling: Bridging biosemiotics and social semiotics. Biosemiotics, 14, pp. 783—805, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09463-7.Olteanu, A., 2022. Learning as Becoming Conscious: A note on Jablonka and Ginsburg’s Notion of Learning. Biosemiotics, 15, pp. 457—467, https://doi. org/10.1007/ s12304-022-09510-x.Olteanu, A., Campbell, C. and Feil, S., 2020. Naturalizing models: New perspectives in a Peircean key. Biosemiotics, 13, pp. 179—197, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12304-020-09385-w.Porus, V. N., 2008. Between philosophy and history of science: on the way to the "flexible" theory of scientific rationality. In: I. Lakatos, ed. Izbrannye proizvedeniya po filosofii i metodologii nauki [Selected works on philosophy and methodology of science]. Moscow, pp. 9—24 (in Russ.).Sharov, A. and Tønnessen, M., 2021. Semiotic agency. Springer International Publishing.Zimmerling, A. V., 2021. Ot integral'nogo k aspektivnomu [From integral to aspective]. Moscow; St. Petersburg, 652 p. (in Russ.).Zimmerling, A. V., 2023. Really: syntactics without semiotics? Slovo. ru: Baltic accent, 14 (3), pp. 125—153, https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2023-3-9 (in Russ.).Откуда же метод берется? О самодостаточности семиотических объектовS.T.ZolyanImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityThe 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.0530202613715210.5922/2225-5346-2023-4-8https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5421/44176/Barbieri, M., 2008. The Code Model of Semiosis: The First Steps Toward a Scientific Biosemiotics. The American Journal of Semiotics, 24 (1—3), pp. 23—37, https://doi. org/10.5840/ajs2008241/33.Benveniste, É., 1974. Obshchaya lingvistika [Problèmes de linguistique Générale]. Translated and ed. by Yu. S. Stepanov (in Russ.).Deacon, T. W., 2021. How Molecules Became Signs. Biosemiotics, 14, pp. 537—559, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9.Dostoevsky, F. M., 1958. The Brothers Karamazov. In: Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works]. Vol. 9. Moscow (in Russ.).Eco, U., 1998. Otsutstvuyushchaya struktura. Vvedenie v semiologiyu [Missing structure. Introduction to Semiology]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gasparyan, D. E., 2018. Language as Eigenform: Semiotics in the search of a meaning. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 34 (4), pp. 474—492, https:// doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2018.402.Gasparyan, D. E., 2020. Semiosis as Eigenform and Observation as Recursive Interpretation. Constructivist Foundations, 15 (3), pp. 271—279.Hauser, M., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W., 2002. The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? Science, 298 (5598), pp. 1569—1579, https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569.Hjelmslev, L. T., 2006. Prolegomeny k teorii yazyka [Prolegomena to the theory of language]. Moscow (in Russ.).Hodge, R. and Kress, G., 1988. Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity.Jacob, F., 1992. The linguistic model in biology. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 2, pp. 135—143 (in Russ.).Kauffman, L. H., 2003. Eigenforms — Objects as Tokens for Eigenbehaviors. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 10 (3—4), pp. 73—90.Kauffman, L. H., 2020. What Lies Beyond Language? Constructivist Foundations, 15 (3), pp. 282—283.Lotman, Yu. M., 1984. On semiosphere. Trudy po znakovym sistemam. 17: Struktura dialoga kak printsip raboty semioticheskogo mekhanizma [Sign Systems Studies. 17: Dialogue structure as a principle of operation of the semiotic mechanism]. Tartu, pp. 5—23 (in Russ.).Lotman, Yu. M., 2022. Lecture at Tartu State University, March 13, 1981. Slovo.ru: Baltic accent, 13 (2), pp. 10—23 (in Russ.).Morris, Ch., 1948. Signs About Signs About Signs. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 9 (1), pp. 115—133.Morris, Cհ. W., 1983. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. In: Yu. S. Stepanov, ed. Semiotika [Semiotics]. Moscow, pp. 37—89 (in Russ.).Peirce, Ch. S., 2000. Izbrannye filosofskie proizvedeniya [Selected Philosophical Works]. Moscow (in Russ.).Prodi, G., 1988. Material Bases of Signification. Semiotica, 69 (3—4), pp. 191—242, https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1988.69.3-4.191.Pyatigorsky, A. M., 1994. Notes from the 90s about the semiotics of the 60s. In: A. D. Koshelev, ed. Yu. M. Lotman i Moskovsko-Tartuskaya shkola [Yu. M. Lotman and the Moscow-Tartu school]. Moscow, pp. 324—329 (in Russ.).Revzin, I. I., 1971. On Subjectivity in Semiotics. Trudy po znakovym sistemam. 5. Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Sign Systems Studies. 5. Scientific letters of The University of Tartu.], 266. Tartu, pp. 334—344 (in Russ.).Saussure, F. de, 1997. Trudy po yazykoznaniyu [Cours de linguistique Générale]. Moscow (in Russ.).Searle, J. R., 1993. Rationality and Realism, What Is at Stake? Daedalus, 122 (4), pp. 55—83.Zimmerling, A. V., 2023. Really: syntactics without semiotics? Slovo.ru: Baltic accent, 14 (3), pp. 125—153, https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2023-3-9 (in Russ.).Zolyan, S. T., 2021a. How to reconcile Luhmann with Saussure: The principle of intrasystemic differentiation as a basis for a neo-structuralist approach. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 1, pp. 121—141, https://doi.org/10. 31857/0373-658X.2021.1.121-141 (in Russ.).Zolyan, S., 2021b. Language. In: M. Tamm and P. Torop, eds. The Companion to Juri Lotman: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 123—135, http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350181649.0016.Zolyan, S. T., 2022. Yuri Lotman: On problems of language and linguistics. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 1, pp. 106—119, http://dx.doi. org/10.31857/0373-658X.2022.1.106-119 (in Russ.).S.V.ChebanovBefore 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.0530202611Averintsev, S. S., 1977. Poetika rannevizantiiskoi literatury [Poetics of Early Byzantine Literature]. Moscow (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V. and Dmitrieva, M. A., 2009. Directions in Interpretative Biosemiotics. In: 9th Gathering in Biosemiotics. Prague, p. 26.Chebanov, S. V. and Martynenko, G. Ya., 1990a. The main types of ideas about the nature of language. In: Acta et commentationes universitatis tartuensis, 911. Tartu, pp. 112—136 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V. and Martynenko, G. Ya., 1990b. Ideas of hermeneutics in applied linguistics. In: Quantitative linguistics and automatic text analysis. 1990. Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis, 912. Tartu, pp. 92—111 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V. and Martynenko, G. Ya., 2007. On the hermeneuticization of applied linguistics. In: Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filologiya [Herald of Tver State University Series: Philology], 11 (207), pp. 273—291 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V., 1993. Biology and Humanitarian Culture: the Problem of Interpretation in Biohermeneutics and Hermeneutics of Biology. In: Lectures of Theoretical Biology: 2nd Stage. Tallinn, pp. 219—248.Chebanov, S. V., 1998. The Role of Hermeneutics in Biology In: P. Koslowski, ed. Sociobiology and Bioeconomics. The Theory of Evolution in Biological and Economic Theory. Berlin; Heidelberg; New York: Springer, pp. 141—172.Chebanov, S. V., 1999a. Bio-Hermeneutics and Hermeneutics of Biology. Semiotica, 127 (1—4), pp. 215—226, https://doi. org/10.1515/semi.1999.127.1—4.215.Chebanov, S. V., 1999b. Review of the book by Jesper Hoffmeyer (Jesper Hoffmeyer. "Signs of Meaning in the Universe", transl. by B. J. Haveland. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997). Zhurnal obshchei biologii [Journal of General Biology], 59 (2), pp. 229—235 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V., 2002. Bilateral biosemiotics: A problem of sense on a super-triplet level. In: Gathering in Biosemiotics-2. Tartu, p. 11.Chebanov, S. V., 2004. Semiotics of the contents and semiotics of expression: the role of sign's body. In: Körper — Verkörperung — Entkörperung. Body — Embodiment — Disembodiment. Kassel, pp. 1132—1144 (CD).Chebanov, S. V., 2005. Semantophores: a view of biosemiotics and pragmalinguistics. In: Nauchnye chteniya — 2004: materialy konferentsii [Scientific readings — 2004. Materials of the conference]. St. Petersburg, pp. 243—252 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V., 2006. On the ultimate identity of hermeneutics, applied linguistics and pragmalinguistics. In: Ponimanie i refleksiya v obrazovanii, kul'ture i kommunikatsii [Understanding and reflection in education, culture and communication]. Tver, pp. 247—249 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V., 2007a. The current Situation in Modern Biosemiotics. In: Biosemiotics in Transdisciplinary Contexts. Proceedings of the Gathering in Biosemiotics 6, Salzburg 2006. Vilnius, pp. 133—141.Chebanov, S. V., 2007b. Communicative-glossematic conception of semiotic means (SM) as tool for explanation of understanding/misunderstanding. In: 9th World Congress of Semiotics. Helsinki — Imatra, pp. 107—108.Chebanov, S. V., 2008. Alternatives of Biosemiotics. In: 8th Gathering in Biosemiotics. Hermoupolis, p. 18.Chebanov, S. V., 2009. Biosemiotics and biohermeneutics. In: Nauki o zhizni i obrazovanie. Fundamental'nye problemy integratsii [Life sciences and education. Fundamental problems of integration]. Moscow, pp. 340—344 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V., 2010. The status of semiotically conscious biology. In: Filosofskie problemy biologii i meditsiny. Vyp. 4. Fundamental'noe i prikladnoe [Philosophical problems of biology and medicine. Issue. 4. Fundamental and applied]. Moscow, pp. 323—326 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V., 2011. Cognitive linguistics and pragmalinguistics as alternatives for the development of functional linguistics and their relation to hermeneutics. In: Aktual'nye problemy sovremennoi kognitivnoi nauki: mater. IV Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem (20—21 oktyabrya 2011 goda) [Actual problems of modern cognitive science. Materials of the fourth All-Russian scientific-practical conference with international participation (October 20—21, 2011)]. Ivanovo, pp. 252—266 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V., 2012. Results of the development of biosemiotics. In: Gatherings in Biosemiotics. Tartu, pp. 174—175.Chebanov, S. V., 2014. The course of hermeneutics in the cycle of specialized disciplines in the training of specialists in applied linguistics. In: Vestnik gumanitarnogo fakul'teta Ivanovskogo gosudarstvennogo khimiko-tekhnologicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities of the Ivanovo State University of Chemical Technology], 7, pp. 87—96 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V., 2017. History and Results of Development of Biosemiotics. In: Gatherings in Biosemiotics 2017. Lausanne, pp. 54—55.Chebanov, S. V., 2018. Steps towards the semiotic awareness of biology: Biosemiotics replacing the role of synthetic theory of evolution. In: Eighteenth Annual Biosemiotics Gathering. June 17—20, 2018. Abstract Booklet. Berkeley, p. 16.Chebanov, S. V., 2019a. Interpretation techniques in living organisms. In: 19th Annual Gathering in biosemiotics. Moscow, pp. 15—16.Chebanov, S. V., 2019b. On the way to semiotically conscious biology: biosemiotics replaces the synthetic theory of evolution. In: Metod: moskovskii ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh distsiplin [METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Works from Social Science Disciplines], 9. Moscow, pp. 151—173 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V., 2020. The system of understanding techniques by G. I. Bogin. In: Ponimanie i refleksiya v Rossii: sbornik materialov dokladov na mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii (g. Tver', 29—30 noyabrya 2019 g.) [Understanding and reflection in Russia. Collection of materials of reports at the international scientific and practical conference (Tver, November 29—30, 2019)] Tver, pp. 307—339 (in Russ.).Chebanov, S. V., 2022. Interdisciplinary Course of Lectures on Biosemiotics for Professionals. In: Gatherings in Biosemiotics-2022. Olomouc, pp. 36—37.Domanskii, Yu. V., 2006. Variativnost' i interpretatsiya teksta (paradigma neklassicheskoi khudozhestvennosti) [Variability and interpretation of the text (a paradigm of non-classical artistry)]. PhD thesis. Moscow (in Russ.).Florensky, P., 1973. The structure of the word. In: Kontekst 72. Literaturno-teoreticheskie issledovaniya [Context 72. Literary and theoretical studies]. Moscow, pp. 348—375 (in Russ.).Ivanov, Vyach. Vs., 1977. On the semiotic theory of carnival as an inversion of binary representations. In: Trudy po znakovym sistemam. 8. Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Sign Systems Studies. 8. Scientific letters of The University of Tartu], 411. Tartu, pp. 45—64 (in Russ.).Kordonsky, S. G. and Chebanov, S. V., 1996. Fan Matrices as a Data Representation Model. In: Chebanov S. V. Sobranie sochinenii [Chebanov S. V. Collected works]. Vol. 1. Vilnius, p. 80 (in Russ.).Kordonsky, S. G., 2001. Tsikly deyatel'nosti i ideal'nye ob"ekty [Cycles of activity and ideal objects]. Moscow (in Russ.).Kordonsky, S. G., 2011. Veernye matritsy kak instrument postroeniya ontologii [Fan matrices as a tool for constructing ontologies]. Washington (in Russ.).Kovrigina, L. Yu., 2014. Negaussovoe modelirovanie leksiko-statisticheskoi struktury variativnogo teksta: na primere «Skazaniya o Mamaevom poboishche» [Non-Gaussian modeling of the lexical-statistical structure of a variable text: on the example of "The Legend of the Battle of Mamaev"]. PhD thesis. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Labov, W., 1978. Denotational structure. In: Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon. Chicago, pp. 220—260.Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York.Lakoff, G., 1986. Classifiers as a Reflection of Mind: The Experiential, Imaginative, and Ecological Aspects. In: Noun Classes and Categorization. Amsterdam, pp. 13—52.Martynenko, G. Ya., Chebanov, S. V. and Sherstinova, T. Yu., 1998. Text understanding and interpretating methodology based on linguistic and hermeneutic techniques. In: Proceeding of International workshop TSD (Text. Speech. Dialogue.) September 23—26. Brno, pp. 21—26.Morris, Ch. W., 2001. Foundations of the theory of signs. In: Yu. S. Stepanov, ed. Semiotika: antologiya [Semiotics: an anthology]. Moscow, pp. 45—97 (in Russ.).Nöth, W. and Jungk, I., 2015. Peircean visual semiotics: Potentials to be explored. Semiotica, 207, pp. 657—673, https://doi. org/10.1515/sem-2015-0058.Ongstad, S., 2004. Bakhtin’s triadic epistemology and ideologies of dialogism. In: F. Bostad, C. Brandist, L. S. Evensen and S. Faber, eds. Bakhtinian perspectives on language and culture. London, pp. 65—88.Ongstad, S., 2005. Context. In: P. Strazny, ed. Encyclopedia of linguistics. Vol. 1. New York, pp. 237—238.Ongstad, S., 2007. Positioning in Theory. A methodological framework for MTE-studies and beyond. In: W. Herrlitz, S. Ongstad and P.-H. v. d. Ven, eds. Research on mother tongue education in a comparative international perspective. Theoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam & New York, pp. 119—148.Ongstad, S., 2009. The concept of lifeworld and education in post-modernity: A critical appraisal of Habermas’ theory of communicative action. In: M. Murphy and T. Fleming, eds. Habermas, critical theory and education. London, pp. 47—62.Ongstad, S., 2010. Synchronic-diachronic Perspectives on Genre Systemness: Exemplifying Genrification of Curricular Goals. In: S. Kvam et al, eds. Genre and Cultural Competence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Texts. Berlin, pp. 35—50.Ongstad, S., 2019. A conceptual framework for studying evolutionary origins of life-genres. Biosemiotics, 12 (2), pp. 245—266, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-019- 09358-8.Ongstad, S., 2021. Can Animals Refer? Meta-Positioning Studies of Animal Semantics. Biosemiotics, 14, pp. 433—457, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09401-7.Saussure, F., 2023. Kurs obshchei lingvistiki [A course in general linguistics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Shcherba, L. V., 1974. About the triple aspect of linguistic phenomena and about the experiment in linguistics In: Shcherba L. V. Yazykovaya sistema i rechevaya deyatel'nost' [Shcherba L. V. Language system and speech activity]. Leningrad, pp. 24—39 (in Russ.).Stepanov, Yu. S., 1985. V trekhmernom prostranstve yazyka: Semioticheskie problemy lingvistiki, filosofii, iskusstva [In the three-dimensional space of language: Semiotic problems of linguistics, philosophy, art]. Moscow (in Russ.).Vakulenko, N. S., 1990. Metod ierarkhicheskikh triad kak sredstvo obosnovaniya formal'nogo podkhoda v prikladnoi lingvistike (na primere kompleksa uchebnykh programm) [The method of hierarchical triads as a means of substantiating a formal approach in applied linguistics (on the example of a complex of curricula)]. PhD Dissertation. Leningrad (in Russ.).Veernaya matritsa [Fan Matrix], 2018. Available at: https://ru.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Веерная_матрица [Accessed 1 March 2023] (in Russ.).Witzany, G., 2006. The Logos of the Bios 1. Contribution to the Foundation of a three-leveled Biosemiotics. Helsinki.Witzany, G., 2007. The Logos of the Bios 2. Bio-Communication. Vilnius.Witzany, G., 2014 Pragmatic turn in biology: From biological molecules to genetic content operators. World J. Biol. Chem., 5 (3), pp. 279—285, https://doi.org/10.4331/ wjbc.v5.i3.279.Zimmerling, A. V., 2023. Really: Syntactics without Semiotics? Slovo. ru: Baltic accent, 14 (3), pp. 125—153, https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2023-3-9 (in Russ.).