ABSTRACT Attempts at combining Uexküll’s ideas with those of Peirce within a single quasi-discipline called ‘biosemiotics’ are ill-founded. Peirce’s ‘interpretant’ sensu lato refers to two qualitatively different mental states, one relating to indexes and icons (INT 1) and the other to symbols (INT 2). Animal communication is dyadic – the referent is a directly induced mental state (INT 1). Glottocentric communication is triadic because the connection between symbol and INT 1 is mediated by INT 2. Whereas the gradualist view of glottogenesis is erroneous, Müller’s and Chomsky’s saltationist theories may imply that the idea of language Rubicon is anti-evolutionary. However, the views of Pavlov and Vygotsky and of their modern followers, Deacon and Tomasello, while being Darwinian, support the saltationist scenario. The emergence of the second signal system, of symbols, and of INT 2 was a psychological leap. In human communication, apart from the semiotic triangle (INT 1 – INT 2 – symbol), the dyadic relation between non-symbolic signs and INT 1 still holds. To Ekaterina Velmezova

中文翻译：

---

交流、符号学和语言卢比孔

摘要 将 Uexküll 的想法与 Peirce 的想法结合在一个称为“生物符号学”的单一准学科中的尝试是没有根据的。Peirce 的“解释性”感觉指的是两种性质不同的心理状态，一种与索引和图标有关（INT 1），另一种与符号有关（INT 2）。动物交流是二元的——所指对象是一种直接诱发的心理状态（INT 1）。以声门为中心的交流是三元的，因为符号和 INT 1 之间的联系是由 INT 2 介导的。虽然声门发生的渐进主义观点是错误的，但 Müller 和 Chomsky 的跳跃主义理论可能暗示语言 Rubicon 的想法是反进化的。然而，巴甫洛夫和维果茨基及其现代追随者执事和托马塞洛的观点虽然是达尔文主义者，但支持跳跃论的情景。第二个信号系统、符号和 INT 2 的出现是一次心理上的飞跃。在人类交流中，除了符号三角形（INT 1 – INT 2 – 符号），非符号符号和INT 1 之间的二元关系仍然成立。致叶卡捷琳娜·维尔梅佐娃