<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

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 <italic>Escherichia coli</italic>, 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.
</abstract>

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

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

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.
</abstract>

Rats, Mice and Humans

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

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.
</abstract>

Imitation as Mechanism for Mimicry

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

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.
</abstract>

Semiotic Threshold: Animals and People

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

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: <italic>metaphor</italic>) 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, <italic>ecologically</italic>, 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 <italic>Umwelt</italic> 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 <italic>Umwelten</italic> 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.
</abstract>

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

Animalia: the kingdom of signs

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 6 (2023): Issue 3 (December 2023)

Volume 6 (2023): Issue 2 (September 2023)

Volume 6 (2023): Issue 1 (June 2023)

Volume 5 (2022): Issue 3 (December 2022)

Volume 5 (2022): Issue 2 (September 2022)

Volume 5 (2022): Issue 1 (June 2022)

Volume 4 (2021): Issue 3 (December 2021)

Volume 4 (2021): Issue 2 (September 2021)

Volume 4 (2021): Issue 1 (June 2021)

Volume 3 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

Volume 3 (2020): Issue 1 (June 2020)

Volume 2 (2019): Issue 1 (June 2019)

Volume 1 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)

Volume 1 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Linguistic Frontiers

 Linguistic Frontiers is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on research and collaboration in linguistics, life science, mathematics, social science and the humanities, applying formal and experimental approaches from linguistic interdisciplines like quantitative linguistics, psycholinguistics, biosemiotics, sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, natural language processing and linguistic field research. The guiding ambition of Linguistic Frontiers is to fruitfully transfer and apply methods and topics between these fields of linguistic research. Linguistic Frontiers also publishes reviews of scientific publications, reports on conferences and research programs. We welcome host editors for special theme issues as well.　Subject areas of study include, but are not limited to:  general linguistics (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics) quantitative linguistics, computational linguistics semiotics philosophy of language biosemiotics, biolinguistics, DNA linguistics cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics applied linguistics glottochronology, stylometry (critical) discourse analysis Linguistic Frontiers is published in English, but occasionally we accept special issues in other world languages (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German). Authors are requested to submit their papers in doc. format. We offer a double blinded review process with an average length of 3 months. Linguistic Frontiers is a continuation of the journal Czech and Slovak Linguistic Revue (CSLR) http://cslr.upol.cz/archive/, published in print and electronically at Palacký University since 2011. After 2018, CSLR with an extended international editorial board merged into Linguistic Frontiers and has been published by De Gruyter Open (now Sciendo) in electronic form only. Since 2021 we publish three issues per year (June, September, December).　  Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.   Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 