«Galton’s Problem» is named after the famous English meteorologist, biologist, psychologist, anthropologist - and, among other things, a cousin of Charles Darwin - Francis Galton who was the first to notice the presence of this problem, pointing to the impact of socio-cultural diffusion on the results of quantitative cross-cultural and cross-national studies. Those anthropologists who expressed their concern about Galton’s Problem worried above all that socio-cultural diffusion can cause correlations between such variables that do not have real functional relationship between them, resulting in false theories finding apparent empirical confirmation. Our study shows that both extreme positions on the issue of «Galton’s Problem» - i.e., that the problem discredits all the quantitative cross-cultural studies, or that the problem is not worth taking seriously - do not appear to be valid. In our view, Galton’s Problem must be treated with all seriousness. But on the other hand, it can be considered not only as a problem but rather as an asset or opportunity of quantitative cross-cultural research. In other words, one need to seriously treat any sufficiently strong and statistically significant correlation detected in the course of quantitative cross-cultural study, regardless of whether or not it is a result of Galton’s effect (i.e., network autocorrelation). If it is not, then we are dealing with a global cross-cultural regularity; but if it is, we deal with a result of the functioning of some historical communication network and its influence on the course of human history. And, in our opinion, it is not less interesting. In this sense, we can speak not only about «Galton's Problem», but also about «Galton’s Asset», or «Galton’s Opportunity» - the opportunity to study historical communication networks and their impact on global development.
Bezemer J., Diamantopoulou S., Jewitt C., Kress G., Mavers D.
The aim of this paper is to show how a substantive area of social research - learning - can be investigated using a multimodal social semiotic approach. We apply the approach to three different institutions - a school, a museum and a hospital, illustrating key concepts and addressing issues around pedagogy and technology in contemporary society. A multimodal social semiotic approach focuses on meaning-making, in all modes. The paper illustrates three ways in which a social semiotic perspective on multimodality can illuminate learning. First, it shows how ‘educators’ represent the world and establish pedagogic relations through multimodal designs for learning. Second, a social semiotic approach to multimodality draws attention multimodal signs of learning. Third, a social semiotic approach to multimodality enables researchers to investigate social, pedagogic, and technological change. In the article we also revisit some ‘old’ notions related to learning - ‘explication’, ‘canonicity’, and ‘competence’- to further illustrate a multimodal social semiotic lens.
Biologically oriented political science must take into account both the influence of brain processes on socio-political structures (and their narratives) and vice versa. That is, we have to take both the neuroscientific and the narrative turn simultaneously and should not assume that the two are incompatible with each other, forcing researchers to choose between the two. There are mutual influences between the reduction of informational complexity that cognitive processes strive for and the function that socio-political narratives exert as a ‘cognitive tool’ in this context.
The article positions psychosemantics in the field of political psychology, as well as explores the methods of psychosemantic analysis of various aspects of the political mentality of the society in modern Russia. A special place is given to the author's methods of constructing subjective semantic spaces of various political subjects and to the methods of mathematical statistics that are used to analyze them. Psychosemantic research is exemplified with the cases of analysis of semantic space of political parties, political party images, their electoral potential, as well as by the typologies and dynamics of political mentality, popular geopolitical conceptions and conceptions on the quality of life.
Ilyn M.V., Avdonin V.S., Fomin I.V.
A neat split-up of methods into qualitative and quantitative ‘boxes’ works with just a bunch of elementary and time-tested research devices. It would not easily apply such a division to multiplying cases of new designs for productive investigations. Often they are compound research capacities. A new and trendy ‘box’ termed mixed methods is ready at hand. However, compound structures are not just amalgamations. Their effectiveness rests on structural propensities and not on amassing of their initial components. Furthermore, steadily multiplying new research principles rest on neither quantity nor quality but on something transcending the quality - quantity dichotomy, e.g. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) or Lijphartian analysis of patterns of democratic rule. Methodological domains can diverge or converge. They can dispose of all ‘deceitful’ aberrations and shrink to a single ‘authentic’ set of algorithms (methodological monism or in its radical display methodological rigorism). They can also entangle alternative research capacities (methodological liberalism or pluralism). The authors would explicate their methodological stance as ‘democratic’. This is more than just a pompous political analogy. Modern democracy converges all sorts of rule to make them good enough for accountable and inclusive governance. Likewise, advanced methods of our age merge any kinds of exploratory faculties to make them good enough for valid and comprehensive investigation. Just as modern democratic practices and conventions have been emerging only recently, current multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary methods still evolve as trial aptitudes for making research far-reaching and reliable enough. Both modern democracy and transdisciplinary are more of a promise rather than long established paragons. The authors perceive the entire methodological realm as shaped into three overlapping but still very distinct major methodological domains - mathematical, morphological and semiotic organons of learning and research. They coalesce around fundamental and abiding principles. Their mundane and transient apparitions are grand methodological approaches and paradigms not say nothing about claims and technical devices of specific schools of thought and research. Mathematical organon integrates a relatively comprehensive domain. Morphological and semiotic ones only crudely amalgamate assortments of areas, branches and endeavors of research that are still at variance with each other. The task is to overcome residual discrepancies and to advance integrating principles of general or ‘pure’ semiotics (Morris) and morphology. The principles of organons derive from our basic sensoria and other primary cognitive abilities. Some originate in our sense of order, measure and quantity to produce mathematical organon. Others commence with our perception of forms, shapes and configurations to yield a would-be morphological organon. Further ones amplify our faculty to re-create and discover meanings in our intercourse with the world and each other to commence a budding semiotic organon. Immanuel Kant, Charles Sanders Pierce and other great minds provide guidelines for trichotomous structure of organons. It is tempting to proclaim analogy between the trichotomous structure of organons and current vague distinction of quantitative, qualitative and ‘mixed’ clusters of methods. One has to explore the analogy. Correlations between configurational comparative studies and morphology or between qualitative studies and semiotics are still problematic. Furthermore, it would be premature to expect a quick integration of entire domains of morphology or semiotics. It is pragmatic to work for integration of selected focal core areas. Possible options are reshaping of neo-institutional paradigms into morphological ones, integration of biological and linguistic morphologies as well as further advancement of biosemiotics and biopolitics.
All the theories of translation point out the multifaceted nature of translation, the variety and diversity of its different types and strategies. Such a situation may lead to the idea to replace the theory of translation by its empiric counterpart. However, the another approach is also possible - this is to be the (meta-) theory of the traductological relativity: such multiplicity can be described through the set of linguistic, hermeneutic and semiotic theories based on the family resemblance relation: each of them adequately describes the particular type of translation; mutually they complement each other. Our conception is based on the Quine's theory of indeterminacy of translation and Schleiermacher's ideas of the multiplicity of the translation methods. The semantics of the original text depends on the changing cultural and social context and is subjected to constant changes. The multiplicity and indeterminacy of translations (the resulting set of text-products) explicate the semantic potential of the original text-as-a-procces.
Pokhoday M.Ju., Myachykov A.
This paper offers a review of experimental evidence about the role of the speaker's attention in the choice of syntactic structure and the corresponding word order during sentence production. Here, we describe how the speaker's syntactic choices reflect the regular mapping mechanism responsible for reflecting the features of the described event in the produced sentence. One of the most important event parameters that the speaker takes into account is the changing attentional status of the event's referents. Our paper summarizes current theoretical debates about the interplay between attention and sentence production mechanisms. Finally, it reviews the corresponding experimental evidence from languages with both strict and flexible word orders.
The article presents an expanded perspective on mathematics, seeing it as a transdisciplinary organon for modern sciences. This perspective is preceded by the analysis of metamathematics as the traditional field of methodological reflection of mathematics by logical and mathematical means. The author considers the main features, limitations and tendencies of development in metamathematical approach. Then the author invites is invited to set another path of reflection on mathematics that is based on the interdisciplinary approach of modern cognitive science. Analysing the similarities and differences between these approaches, the author tries to identify areas of their overlaps and differentiations. It is generally assumed that the cognitive science approach to the reflection of mathematics is broader and more complex than metamathematics, although they are similar or even identical at certain levels. In this context, the broader approach of cognitive science opens additional possibilities for the complex study of mathematics as a transdisciplinary organon.
The article tells about Vadim Tsymbursky uncompleted thesis «The Morphology of Russian Geopolitics and the Dynamic of International Systems of XVIII-XX centuries» that is to be published in the nearest time. This work after the death of its author was staying to be in manuscript and three years have been spent for deciphering. The article tells also about the methodology of Tsymbursky’s thesis and about the evolution of his views from the time of creation of his famous piece «The Island of Russia» till the beginning of the work on dissertation in which he tried to present an objective narrative of the international system’s «Russia - Europe» dynamic. Russia tried to find her place or role in the European concert of nations, but in the same time the possibility to achieve this goal was excluded by the objective traits of this system. This caused some contradictions, which the Russian geopolitical thought attempted to overcome.
The article provides a brief history of semiotics in Europe from antiquity to the present, and an overview of how the boundaries of semiotics expanded from Saussure's semiological project to the contemporary discussions about the possibilities of physiosemiotics. The trajectory of semiotics becoming a transdisciplinary methodological integrator is outlined.
The author considers the methodological implications of the debate on the pragmatic theory of politics, understood as a dynamic theory. From the standpoint of pragmatism a new dividing line is introduced in the debate: between the reflective («scientistic») and projective («pragmatic») methods. The first are aimed at the reconstruction and analysis of data and facts about past events. The second is focused on the possible consequences and implications of these events. Main attention is paid to the analysis of «pragmatic» or «denotative» methods that allow «enriching» the facts with additional experience. The comparative analysis of the logical structure of three main types of «scientistic» methods (deduction, induction and abduction) and three kinds of «denotative» methods (invention, imitation and innovation) is presented. The author emphasizes the special importance for political science of the latter: the scientistic methods are only trying to find (the only possible, absolute) order, while within the denotative methods this order must continue to be develop and prove its viability in relation to a multitude of other possible options.
The most salient modern meanings of security seem to be dependent on the «container» metaphor. The evidence for this lies in the systematicity of the words’ polysemy, their collocations and the idioms with which they are involved. If something is secure, then no one can get into it, or out of it. The more distinct your container perimeter line, the further away your enemy is and the more secure you are. Part of the current semantics of security also has to do with certainty and surety, notions which are expressed as metaphors of «link», in the variant that has to do with unstable objects being fixed in one location - that is, «secured» in the sense in which loose objects are «secured» by some physical attachment. Thus, one of the conceptual elements in the understanding of security is connected to the absence of motion, to stasis, and more precisely to the physical restraint of undesired motion.
СКЛЯРОВ НИКИТА АНАТОЛЬЕВИЧ
КУЧИНОВ АРТЕМИЙ МИХАЙЛОВИЧ
ДЕМЬЯНКОВ ВАЛЕРИЙ ЗАКИЕВИЧ, ИЛЬИН МИХАИЛ ВАСИЛЬЕВИЧ, ПЕТРЕНКО ВИКТОР ФЕДОРОВИЧ, АВДОНИН ВЛАДИМИР СЕРГЕЕВИЧ, ФОМИН ИВАН ВЛАДЛЕНОВИЧ
ФЕДОСЕЕВА ДАРЬЯ АЛЕКСЕЕВНА
ПОСТОВАЛОВА ВАЛЕНТИНА ИЛЬИНИЧНА
ДЕМЬЯНКОВ ВАЛЕРИЙ ЗАКИЕВИЧ
МОИСЕЕВ ВЯЧЕСЛАВ ИВАНОВИЧ
КОЧЕДЫКОВ ИВАН ЕВГЕНЬЕВИЧ
АДИЛЬБАЕВ ТИМУР ШАРИБАЕВИЧ
КИОСЕ МАРИЯ ИВАНОВНА
БУДАНОВ ВЛАДИМИР ГРИГОРЬЕВИЧ
ФОМИН ИВАН ВЛАДЛЕНОВИЧ