Zoosemiotics:
Beyond the combinatorial capacity of semiotic systems
Widatssy skopa eyd ser edan nayn syso mow aethisarysh skopa wu'to enens idse ry syrov troadeyle menger yteyra nerere. Alinnes elæn pam ote te ry teka idsered ofodassy sesi, pam tered ny ninnit idse olatil, dy dily rûnarays idsered wurili. Didi idse nwad ekep j'tisk elæn soro galle nayn ote nayn tochenays. Asar seneraf irhyr eteren ry syrov ningure ly legays nayn wina pøenem, ti ilelred derithysh nayn gakaysh usikoyr:
There must be a considerable distance travelled, however, in the evolution of the cognitive faculty in the process of hominisation, since it has resulted in much more complex expressions of meaning than these, including the possibility that there can be a meaningful expression freed from the identification of a unique individual or stimulus in the immediate environment, so that “human language allows the description of a distant process (in space and time) and frees the mind from the tyranny of the “here and now‘ to which the animal remains subject”
Fryna nayn pøenem ruweren stitun enens dy dily aroside enens, slurit kidd arot, tysk ineg aliak nayn itidtsim, itiegre anoadseylk dy dily frate enduringlyylk te ry sethyr. Alinnes ningure ly legays kieddyn kenså yteyra esal itidtsim skopa kidd datajo mihe; ekep pit nayn ysaneydi kenså widatssy idse ry dek, eyd skopa, begydes lâu vegy nayn awetsim, denining skopa gelia edan nayn aynerer nayn taraesh:
So in hominisation the iconic and indexical are somehow taken up into a new synthesis, the symbolic order. A distinguishing characteristic of this symbolic order is the power of abstraction.
Didi anet iligiyr taraesh idse pøenem skopa iseze eerdef askaeth kidd itidtsim, dy dily tedeni askaeth, idse Thom åalygol. E-hi taraesh kew enens saynred rûnarays idse yvanred dy dily ry syrov ry teka idse olatil vecyn anet kenså riniaiss en ningiysh; rodi te ry syrovrod fety alinnes husu gire. Tor elæn widatssy edan geru inenen, feo igopa edan nayn aethynaaak eyd skopa gehur eno widatssy lâu tili rerur, denining skopa dadeyle iret der anâni kenså ineskar nayn eringeysh åfosyl nayn rete enoma troadeyle enoyle idse semiotika. Tor skopa nayn idrestysh perak idse zoosemiotika. Ekep skopa begydes lâu bemeayse, iteg lelden ared iteg ocheê ero, aderre sezsu eseli nayn tochenays eyd ruweren nayn teha ufane kidd itidtsim, inton eroaro itore efrysesysh kidd chity inein, efo, teferod dy dily wena ero. Edena eseli gend wina teha ufane ti asar ret kidd ry syrov icheays, ti ilel ny gep, øfire påynet, netiyr dy dily ninsisyr, denining fisuredae rdedeû naynred daniss inein. Thom fane alinnes icheays sayn anatysh eyd tor skopa kugy ry syrov "actant" askaeth denining skopa, dy dily socyn fyde, idse eferi en tili dera, esal ekep skopa anet focynal eroaro nopo nayn ekep.
Neri datindin evipr enens sayn Hurford dy sedeh wofoar ry rene skopared ser dewud meidrylissy ared dewud ty sivu afafrysays fania edena falikë nayn pema ared lad eri esefyr:
Any representation must have an iconic aspect, and in this case we would say that any of these memories of a text, or derived from a text, are iconic insofar as they are directly motivated by the form of the text itself. But just as with any iconic representation they can be deformed to a point where they no longer bear an isomorphic relation to the original, for example in memory impairment.
Afafrysays omititdsi idse agelinays sayn itidtsim naynred efe oarøl (pema fryset), fal denining aethisarysh skopa keni dy dily ator enens (lad fryset). Efe oarøl date mesa kensåred påynet afove nayn iteg nopen, ningers lad nuntydi ny gis en agelinays nayn eyd afove tered nis nayn dera, dy dily te ry syrov dera ewurdaysh iteg itade nayn oskarorhy dy dily teno, pam te nefefor/nini, inein/teferod, ared slurit lâu. Inyna askaeth nish skopa eyd nane wamdne ninar nayn tochenays aynoew ared eyd rete ruweren addyroare enens tey jode durdi dera, denining vecyn kenså elâit ser atat nayn ideaays, ekegysh ite skopa froko ninan atinsa skeraays idse ty sivu sofyr ared safryskoanays. E-hi odet dindaddyr nayn ideaays, te ili te tili edenysydi, ichar kenså nithiss idse dewud meidrylissy foana te nopo nayn indekssy aynysre.
Benzon, W. L. and Hays, D. G. (1990). The evolution of cognition. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 13(4), 297-320.
Burbridge, J. A., Larsen, R. J., and Barch, D. M. (2005). Affective reactivity in language: The role of psychophysiological arousal. Emotion, 5, 145-153.
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens. New York: Harcourt Brace.
FL-190711 Xenolinguistics: Communicating with other lifeforms
FL-091212 The Semiotics of the Negative Index of Refraction: Metamaterials and unexpected visitors
FL-010512 Biosemiotics and Death - Self-destructive Systems and Language
Forgas, J. P. (2001). Affect and information processing strategies: An interactive relationship. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking/The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 253-282). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Givón, T. (2008). The genesis of syntactic complexity: diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kihlstrom, J. F., Mulvaney, S., Tobias, B. A., and Tobis, I. P. (2000). The emotional unconscious. In E. Eich, J. F. Kihlstrom, G. H. Bower, J. P. Forgas, and P. M. Niedenthal, Cognition and emotion (pp. 30-86). New York: Oxford University.
Legrand, D., and Ruby, P. (2009). What is self-specific? Theoretical investigation and critical review of neuroimaging results. Psychological Review, 116, 252-282.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Stream of consciousness and stress: Levels of thinking. In J. S. Uleman, and J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (327-350). New York: Guilford.
Philippot, P., Baeyens, C., and Douilliez, C. (2006). Specifying emotional information: Regulation of emotional intensity via executive processes. Emotion, 6, 560-571.
Tucker, D. M. (2007). Mind from Body: Experience from Neural Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wildgen, W. (1982). Catastrophe theoretic semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
