German–Austrian psychology is a direct source of the European formalism movement both in the German context (Germany, Austria) as well as in Russia. This interest of the formalists in the corporeal component of linguistic and literary production has resulted in a particular research stream, which could be defined as a ‘linguo-somatic orientation’. In particular, this is the case of Alois Riegl’s  perceptive ‘tactile–optical’ method; Adolf von Hildebrand’s  architectonic conception; Konrad Fiedler’s  ‘sensorial aesthetics’; W. Wölfflin’s  ‘basic concepts’ of the art history, W. Worringer’s  psychological arts typology as well as Oskar Walzel’s sound-corporeal poetics elaborated during 1920 . Within Russian formalism, psychological notions (such as ‘representation’, ‘sensation’, ‘apperception’, ‘series’, ‘clear and dark zones of consciousness’, ‘verbal gestures’ and ‘sound gestures’) are fundamental in nearly all the formalist conceptions (Viktor Šklovskij, Evgenij Polivanov, Lev Jakubinskij, Osip Brik, Boris Eixenbaum and Jurij Tynianov). This psychological background constitutes a rather heterogeneous constellation composed of psychological aesthetics and psychological linguistics of the second half of the 19th century. Independently of its intrinsic theoretical values, the formalist way of thinking about language and literature is based on the implicit dominance of psychology, which takes its sense only with respect to the German cognitive tradition, appropriated by the Geisteswissenschaften of this time. In this respect, European formalism participates in the large movement of psychologisation of the humanities. To this extent, the case of Russian formalism is really representative: it invites the rethinking of the genealogy of European structuralism in general. This accumulation of conceptual tools borrowed from the German psychological tradition also reveals a cognitive charge of the formalist theories. The latter constitute a conceptual link between the properly psychological past of the European Geisteswissenschaften and the ‘cognitive’ future of the actual research programmes. Beyond the borrowing of conceptual tools from the psychological trend, the formal method has found in psychology its inspiration for producing new models of analysis. This intrinsically cognitivist dimension of the formalist programme explains its late success during the 1950s–1960s, the period often and abusively called the period of the cognitivist revolution. In reality, it deals with the re-emergence of the research programme of the cognitivist sciences, rather exhaustively formulated by the German psychological tradition..
In this study, we aim to introduce the analytical method bag-of-words, which is mainly used as a tool for the analysis (document classification, authorship attribution and so on; e.g. [1, 2]) of natural languages. Quantitative linguistic methods similar to bag-of-words (e.g. Damerau–Levenshtein distance in the paper by Serva and Petroni ) have been used for the mapping of language evolution within the field of glottochronology. We attempt to apply this method in the field of biological taxonomy – on the Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) family. The subjects of our interest are well-known cultivated crops, which at first sight are morphologically very different and culturally perceived as objects of different interests (e.g. oil from oilseed rape, turnip as animal feed and cabbage as a side dish). Despite the phenotypic divergence of these crops, they are very closely related, which is not morphologically obvious at first sight. For this reason, we think that Brassicaceae crops are appropriate illustrative examples for introducing the method. For the analysis, we use genetic markers (internal transcribed spacer [ITS] and maturase K [matK]). Until now, the bag-of-words model has not been used for biological taxonomisation purposes; therefore, the results of the bagof-words analysis are compared with the existing very well-developed Brassica taxonomy. Our goal is to present a method that is suitable for language development reconstruction as well as possibly being usable for biological taxonomy purposes.
. Translation in Bacillus subtilis: Roles and trends of initiation and termination, insights from a genome analysis. Nucleic Acids Research , 27, 3567–3576.
 Moll, I., Grill, S., Gualerzi, C.O., et al., 2002. Leaderless mRNAs in bacteria: Surprises in ribosomal recruitment and translational control. Molecular Microbiology , 43 (1), 239–246.
 Genome database, available at: < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome >.
 Ambrosini, G., Groux, R., Bucher, P., 2018. PWMScan: A fast tool for scanning entire genomes with a position-specific weight matrix
.) 1989. Teaching sign language to Chimpanzees. New York: State University of New York Press. pp. 280–92.
 Savage-Rumbaugh, S.E., Rumbaugh, D.M., Boysen, S., 1978. Symbolic communication between two chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes). Science , 201, 641–644.
 Savage-Rumbaugh, S.E., Rumbaugh, D.M., Boysen, S., 1978. Linguistically mediated tool use and exchange by Chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ). The Behavioral and Brain Sciences ,1, 539–554.
 Savage-Rumbaugh, S.E., 1979. Symbolic communication: Its origins and early development in the