The materials of the collection touch upon the problems of history, economics, culture, philology and politics of the countries of the Korean Peninsula. Designed for professionals interested in the problems of South and North Korea, students, graduate students and a wide range of readers.
The paper discusses two ‘again’-markers (refactives) of Abaza, a polysynthetic North-West Caucasian language. The main property of the first ‘again’-marker (suffix -χ) is that it acquires various meanings depending on the semantics of the verb it combines with. Specifically, the most frequent meanings of suffix -χ are reditive (‘return to the starting point’), completive (‘finishʼ), responsive (‘response to a similar action’), and restitutive (repetition of an earlier state). The most widespread subtype of the ‘again’-meaning — the repetitive (‘do one more time’) — can apply to almost all verbs regardless of their semantics. In addition, there are some frequent uses of the suffix -χ in combination with other elements whose semantic links to the refactive proper are not immediately clear. The only meaning of the second ‘again’-marker (combination ata-+-χ) is repetitive but at the same time it can also preserve one of the subtypes of the ‘again’-marker -χ within the scope of the repetitive meaning. In this paper, I argue that the difference in behavior of ‘again’-markers in Abaza is explained by the different semantic scope of the affixes. While the marker -χ “sees” the internal structure of an event and can have scope over any part of it, the marker ata-+-χ is “blind” to the internal structure of the situation and can only “copy” the whole event with its arguments. Typologically, suffixes -χ and ata-+-χ in Abaza appear to represent examples of ‘heavy’ again-markers and ‘light’ again-markers respectively: light again-markers frequently occur in texts and form specific lexical collocations with certain verbs, while the meaning of heavy again-markers usually does not depend on particular verbs.
Context • Recent decades have seen the development of new branches of semiotics, including biosemiotics, cognitive semiotics, and cybersemiotics. An important feature of these concepts is the question of the relationship between linguistic and extralinguistic reality; in particular, the constructivist question of the role of observation and the observer in semiosis.
Problem • Our understanding of the observer’s role in the framework of second-order cybernetics is incomplete without understanding where in the observation the significant activity, semiosis, takes place. By describing this mechanism, we see that semiosis has the structure of an eigenform. In this article I will concentrate on linguistic semiosis, and will illuminate the role of the sign and interpretation, emphasizing the scheme and logic of this process.
Method • I use theoretical and conceptual methods of argumentation, such as logical (deductive) and philosophical (phenomenological) proofs and thought experiments.
Results • This research explores the importance of including the interpretation (via the observer) in the process of signification, and maintains both the reciprocal connections between all three elements and their cyclic nature. I apply this approach to show that semiosis works according to the principle of an eigenform because of the cyclic and recursive nature of semiotic interpretation.
Implications • My conclusions have productive implications for epistemic theories, linguistic theories, philosophy of language, theories of semiology, and semantics.
Constructivist content • Radical constructivism claims that we do not have access to a mind-independent world. It considers knowledge to be the ordering of experience to cope with situations in a satisfactory way.