<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<journal>
  <titleid>75447</titleid>
  <issn>2712-9934</issn>
  <journalInfo lang="ENG">
    <title>Technology and Language</title>
  </journalInfo>
  <issue>
    <volume>3</volume>
    <number>2</number>
    <altNumber>7</altNumber>
    <dateUni>2022</dateUni>
    <pages>1-179</pages>
    <articles>
      <article>
        <artType>EDI</artType>
        <langPubl>RUS</langPubl>
        <pages>1-5</pages>
        <authors>
          <author num="001">
            <authorCodes>
              <orcid>0000-0002-7406-669X</orcid>
            </authorCodes>
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>Darmstadt Technical University</orgName>
              <surname>Geisse</surname>
              <initials>Jens</initials>
              <address>Darmstadt, Germany</address>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
          <author num="002">
            <authorCodes>
              <orcid>0000-0003-4491-2071</orcid>
            </authorCodes>
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>FH Bielefeld University of Applied Sciences</orgName>
              <surname>Siegler</surname>
              <initials>Marcel</initials>
              <address>Bielefeld, Germany</address>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
        </authors>
        <artTitles>
          <artTitle lang="ENG">Instructing Technology, Technological Instruction:  Editorial Introduction</artTitle>
        </artTitles>
        <abstracts>
          <abstract lang="ENG">The term instruction is multi-layered and used in completely different contexts – from printed user manuals, over explicitly uttered verbal directives to the implicit teaching of forms of conduct by exemplifying them. This issue collects contributions that explore instructions from a philosophical perspective on the relationship between language and technology. The following editorial introduces these contributions and identifies connections between them. Although the contributions in this special issue explore the term instruction from different angles, these contributions are all connected by a common thread, namely the philosophical reflection on the relationship between knowledge and action. This relationship seems to be prevalent in both written and verbal, implicit and explicit forms of instruction: instructions convey knowledge about action. Instructing a person or a machine connects the digital with the analogue and the abstract with the concrete while situating both instructor and instructed in a larger socio-technical context.</abstract>
        </abstracts>
        <codes>
          <doi>10.48417/technolang.2022.02.01</doi>
          <udk>008: 002</udk>
        </codes>
        <keywords>
          <kwdGroup lang="ENG">
            <keyword>Instruction</keyword>
            <keyword>Language</keyword>
            <keyword>Technology</keyword>
            <keyword>Knowledge</keyword>
            <keyword>Action</keyword>
          </kwdGroup>
        </keywords>
        <files>
          <furl>https://soctech.spbstu.ru/article/2022.7.1/</furl>
          <file>1-5.pdf</file>
        </files>
      </article>
      <article>
        <artType>RAR</artType>
        <langPubl>RUS</langPubl>
        <pages>6-13</pages>
        <authors>
          <author num="001">
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>University of Koblenz-Landau</orgName>
              <surname>Radjenović</surname>
              <initials>Danka </initials>
              <address>Landau, Germany</address>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
        </authors>
        <artTitles>
          <artTitle lang="ENG">Instructing to and Instructing in: Two Paradigms of Instruction</artTitle>
        </artTitles>
        <abstracts>
          <abstract lang="ENG">In my contribution, I appropriate the distinction made in English between “instructing to” and “instructing in” in order to differentiate between the mode of instruction characteristic of technical processes - instructing to - which is more akin to order and command, and a mode of instruction closer to teaching - instructing in. Talk of instruction covers a spectrum of cases, with the technological paradigm of “instructing to” being on the one end of the spectrum, as opposed to the open-ended process of “instructing in” on the other end. More precisely, the former paradigm is that of an automaton, “a machine which performs a range of functions according to a predetermined set of coded instructions”, whereas the latter can be imagined as an “open-ended” process of instruction, such as language instruction (following Cavell’s take on Wittgensteinian scenes of instruction). While the model of instruction pertaining to technology is led by the goal of achieving automatisation, language instruction runs counter to the idea of language usage running in an automatic way - even though the process of instruction itself includes elements of drill and repetition. The goal of becoming a competent language user is in a way never achieved fully, since it is always possible to discover new ways of expressing the same things or even to discover new words and expressions. As the distinction elaborated in this contribution helps to show, it is thus not appropriate to talk of instructing a machine in singing, but it will be possible to instruct it to produce sounds that remind of singing. Taking the other direction, however, reveals that technological systems can instruct humans to behave in certain “automatic” ways, leaving it to education to instruct present and future generations in becoming competent users of different technologies.</abstract>
        </abstracts>
        <codes>
          <doi>10.48417/technolang.2022.02.02</doi>
          <udk>008: 002</udk>
        </codes>
        <keywords>
          <kwdGroup lang="ENG">
            <keyword>Instruct to</keyword>
            <keyword>Instruct in</keyword>
            <keyword>Automatisation</keyword>
            <keyword>Teaching</keyword>
            <keyword>Embeddedness</keyword>
            <keyword>Wittgenstein</keyword>
            <keyword>Cavell</keyword>
          </kwdGroup>
        </keywords>
        <files>
          <furl>https://soctech.spbstu.ru/article/2022.7.2/</furl>
          <file>6-13.pdf</file>
        </files>
      </article>
      <article>
        <artType>RAR</artType>
        <langPubl>RUS</langPubl>
        <pages>14-37</pages>
        <authors>
          <author num="001">
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>University of Siegen</orgName>
              <surname>Wuzella</surname>
              <initials>Regina </initials>
              <address>Siegen, Germany</address>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
        </authors>
        <artTitles>
          <artTitle lang="ENG">Instructing Tacit Knowledge:  Epistemologies of Sensory-Based Robotic Systems</artTitle>
        </artTitles>
        <abstracts>
          <abstract lang="ENG">The article tries to outline the supposed precarity of the body (or body-bound knowledge) in the context of AI-based environments by re-negotiating the borders of formalizing material-based, cognitive and tacit knowledge in regards to the (robotic) gesture (of grasping). In the following, it will be a matter of tracing the epistemes underlying this simulation that relies on specific instructions, which is understood in this context as a specific rule or command and hence by nature an explicit directive to execute a task on a behavioral level.  How concepts of embodied knowledge are inscribed in the fabrication of the systems, how they can be recognized and how human corporeal involvement can be described on different levels of fabrication and use, is therefore part of the analysis: For the special case of humanoid designed robots the challenges are located in the anthropomimetic fabrication on a computational level, as well as in the production of anthropomorphic design and thus connects to a specific knowledge of the human movement and the human sensory apparatus.</abstract>
        </abstracts>
        <codes>
          <doi>10.48417/technolang.2022.02.03</doi>
          <udk>621.865.8: 159.9.016.1</udk>
        </codes>
        <keywords>
          <kwdGroup lang="ENG">
            <keyword>Robotic Manipulation</keyword>
            <keyword>Instruction as Translation</keyword>
            <keyword>Distributed Embodiment</keyword>
            <keyword>Machine Learning</keyword>
            <keyword>Deep Learning</keyword>
            <keyword>Human-Machine Interaction</keyword>
            <keyword>Philosophy of Technology</keyword>
            <keyword>Philosophy of Media</keyword>
          </kwdGroup>
        </keywords>
        <files>
          <furl>https://soctech.spbstu.ru/article/2022.7.3/</furl>
          <file>14-37.pdf</file>
        </files>
      </article>
      <article>
        <artType>RAR</artType>
        <langPubl>RUS</langPubl>
        <pages>38-57</pages>
        <authors>
          <author num="001">
            <authorCodes>
              <orcid>0000-0003-4970-6410</orcid>
            </authorCodes>
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University</orgName>
              <surname>Grom</surname>
              <initials>Yegor</initials>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
          <author num="002">
            <authorCodes>
              <orcid>0000-0003-4693-8937</orcid>
            </authorCodes>
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University</orgName>
              <surname>Bytsan</surname>
              <initials>Stepan</initials>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
        </authors>
        <artTitles>
          <artTitle lang="ENG">Do it Yourself at YouTube</artTitle>
        </artTitles>
        <abstracts>
          <abstract lang="ENG">Every person at least once in his life is faced with an instruction - a certain set of rules, which spells out how to use a household appliance, how to behave in a given situation, perform this or that type of work, and so on. It can be a multimodal text that describes the actions, the implementation of which should lead to a result. If earlier the text with illustrations served as the main form of instruction, nowadays there are video instructions. The modern name for video instructions is DIY video, the authors of which strive to convey to the viewer in a short period of time how to create some thing or tool on their own at home. The purpose of this article was to analyze DIY video as instructions for creating tools. More often than others on YouTube there are videos for creating a holder for a tool, a clamp and an attachment for an angle grinder, and the most difficult tool to create is a grinder. A comparative analysis of video instrumentation and magazine articles (using the example of creating a lathe, an electrolyzer and a collet holder for files) showed the difference between instructions in text format and video format. In a video of this format, the authors visually provide the viewer with information about the choice of material, the creation of a device, how to correct possible mistakes, how the viewer can improve and subsequently adapt the created device for himself. Based on the study, it was revealed that the information in the video is presented more clearly and contributes to understanding the essence of the process itself. However, due to the large amount of visual information, the reasons for doing certain technological operations are omitted. This prevents the viewer from realizing the essence of the actions, it will be more difficult for him to adapt to other conditions. Viewing the video is much easier, the viewer has the opportunity to step by step repeat all the actions of the author.  However, in order to make changes to the design, come up with your own homemade products and refine them, you need to study and analyze several sources of information.</abstract>
        </abstracts>
        <codes>
          <doi>10.48417/technolang.2022.02.04</doi>
          <udk>008: 62-529</udk>
        </codes>
        <keywords>
          <kwdGroup lang="ENG">
            <keyword>DIY</keyword>
            <keyword>Self-made tools</keyword>
            <keyword>Visual information</keyword>
            <keyword>Manufacturing process</keyword>
            <keyword>Homemade</keyword>
            <keyword>Visualization</keyword>
            <keyword>Information presentation.</keyword>
          </kwdGroup>
        </keywords>
        <files>
          <furl>https://soctech.spbstu.ru/article/2022.7.4/</furl>
          <file>38-57.pdf</file>
        </files>
      </article>
      <article>
        <artType>RAR</artType>
        <langPubl>RUS</langPubl>
        <pages>58-69</pages>
        <authors>
          <author num="001">
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>D&amp;B Dienstleistung und Bildung</orgName>
              <surname>Belyaeva</surname>
              <address>Berlin, Germany</address>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
        </authors>
        <artTitles>
          <artTitle lang="ENG">Explicit and Implicit Components of Social and Technical Instruction</artTitle>
        </artTitles>
        <abstracts>
          <abstract lang="ENG">Instructions are increasingly part of our lives and become the subject of research by linguists, philosophers, political scientists, sociologists, and marketing professionals. Instructions not only regulate social aspects of our life, but also allow us to control technical systems and devices. Analysis of the explicit and implicit components of instructions provides knowledge about the types and functions of instructions, their direct and indirect impact on individuals and the human community at large. The paper takes a close look at “job descriptions” and “user manuals,” of instructions as algorithms for actions. It explores the discrepancy between the centrality of instruction for social life and the comparatively recent appearance of the term „instruction“ in our vocabulary. In linguistic terms, the paper refers to the Russian uses of „instruction“ but its conclusions apply more universally.</abstract>
        </abstracts>
        <codes>
          <doi>10.48417/technolang.2022.02.05</doi>
          <udk>62-5: 316.4</udk>
        </codes>
        <keywords>
          <kwdGroup lang="ENG">
            <keyword>Instruction</keyword>
            <keyword>Text type</keyword>
            <keyword>Functional style</keyword>
            <keyword>Implicitness</keyword>
            <keyword>Explicitness</keyword>
          </kwdGroup>
        </keywords>
        <files>
          <furl>https://soctech.spbstu.ru/article/2022.7.5/</furl>
          <file>58-69.pdf</file>
        </files>
      </article>
      <article>
        <artType>RAR</artType>
        <langPubl>RUS</langPubl>
        <pages>70-80</pages>
        <authors>
          <author num="001">
            <authorCodes>
              <orcid>0000-0001-8000-7613</orcid>
            </authorCodes>
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>Darmstadt Technical University</orgName>
              <surname>Hähnle</surname>
              <initials>Reiner </initials>
              <address>Darmstadt, Germany</address>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
        </authors>
        <artTitles>
          <artTitle lang="ENG">Program and Code</artTitle>
        </artTitles>
        <abstracts>
          <abstract lang="ENG">The nature of computer programs can be characterized from two different viewpoints: as executable artifacts that create signals on a computing device or as pure mathematical objects with a rigorous, unambiguous semantics. To distinguish both usages I use the word “code” for the first and “program” for the second. This distinction is relevant to avoid confusion when discussing notions such as validity or correctness of software. The point is illustrated by refuting a well-known claim on the impossibility of verification and misleading claims about commercial products. At the same time the distinction “program versus code” is insufficient: I show that a “program” is always accompanied by an implicit or explicit application context which is necessary to scope its semantics. Ultimately, the analysis performed in this paper helps to distinguish relative from mathematical truths when discussing qualities of software.</abstract>
        </abstracts>
        <codes>
          <doi>10.48417/technolang.2022.02.06</doi>
          <udk>004.42</udk>
        </codes>
        <keywords>
          <kwdGroup lang="ENG">
            <keyword>Program</keyword>
            <keyword>Code</keyword>
            <keyword>Formal Verification</keyword>
            <keyword>Semantics</keyword>
            <keyword>Relativism</keyword>
          </kwdGroup>
        </keywords>
        <files>
          <furl>https://soctech.spbstu.ru/article/2022.7.6/</furl>
          <file>70-80.pdf</file>
        </files>
      </article>
      <article>
        <artType>RAR</artType>
        <langPubl>RUS</langPubl>
        <pages>81-126</pages>
        <authors>
          <author num="001">
            <authorCodes>
              <orcid>0000-0002-9369-9599</orcid>
            </authorCodes>
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University</orgName>
              <surname>Vyrypanov</surname>
              <initials>Danil</initials>
              <address>St. Petersburg, Russia</address>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
        </authors>
        <artTitles>
          <artTitle lang="ENG">Staging Notations</artTitle>
        </artTitles>
        <abstracts>
          <abstract lang="ENG">The paper examines the possibility of recording performances by analysing more than 10 types of notations (Lorin, Beauchamps-Feuillet, Tomlinson, Saint-Leon, Stepanov, Zorn, Sutton, Benesh, Ivanov, Varpakhovsky, Schreyer, Nikritin, Eshkol-Wachman and others). The paper foregrounds methods of fixing movements and sounds in space and time and the ways in which iconic and symbolic signs are used. Difficulties and solutions are highlighted, such as the transmission of 3D motion, changes simultaneously in space and time, the recording of the melody of speech or its volume, emotion, accent, speed, and so on. The notations for recording performances are specific languages that have a rich variability and can be written in letters, notes, lines, numbers and specific signs. However, there are no commonly used ways to fix the staged performance. In the face of technological recording tools it may seem that written notations are obsolete. However, technological tools do not only replace notation tools, they sometimes make them more useful. Another dimension of notation is the relation of recording to instructions. Due to the requirements of intellectual work, analysis and synthesis of elements, notation is in demand for digital human and unhuman learning or for creating three-dimensional animation.</abstract>
        </abstracts>
        <codes>
          <doi>10.48417/technolang.2022.02.07</doi>
          <udk>792.021</udk>
        </codes>
        <keywords>
          <kwdGroup lang="ENG">
            <keyword>Notation</keyword>
            <keyword>Graphic notation</keyword>
            <keyword>Director’s score</keyword>
            <keyword>Performance</keyword>
            <keyword>Ballet</keyword>
            <keyword>Theater</keyword>
            <keyword>Sign</keyword>
            <keyword>Movement Analysis</keyword>
          </kwdGroup>
        </keywords>
        <files>
          <furl>https://soctech.spbstu.ru/article/2022.7.7/</furl>
          <file>81-126.pdf</file>
        </files>
      </article>
      <article>
        <artType>RAR</artType>
        <langPubl>RUS</langPubl>
        <pages>127-146</pages>
        <authors>
          <author num="001">
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>Darmstadt Technical University</orgName>
              <surname>Zhu</surname>
              <initials>Yingyu</initials>
              <address>Darmstadt, Germany</address>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
        </authors>
        <artTitles>
          <artTitle lang="ENG">Visualizing the Composition: A Method for Mapping Inscription and Instruction</artTitle>
        </artTitles>
        <abstracts>
          <abstract lang="ENG">How are instructions mediated by technical artifacts? What role does technology play? From a Latourian perspective, these questions have to do with composition. The purpose of this article is to review Latour’s approach to Science and Technology Studies (STS) and, more specifically, to review and assess his visualization practices. According to Latour, science and technology are not two separated domains. Scientific facts are obtained through cascades of mediation of heterogenous components, and the manufacture and use of technical artifacts is a co-action by humans and non-humans. Latour’s STS approach contributed toward the development of Actor-Network-Theory (ANT), which seeks to provide performative narratives of things by tracking their traces and transformations. These analyses reveal a key concern of the composition of things. For Latour, everything that occurs in the world is a hybrid assembly composed by humans and non-humans; we therefore need proper methods to map out the associations clearly and gain a better understanding. Along with attempts to develop theoretical analyses, Latour has also conducted visualization practices to perform the interwoven nature of things. I argue that visualization practices, which are endowed with performative power, can be treated as a supplement to STS research, functioning as a practical method of ANT to show how things are composed and, conversely, providing more cases for theoretical analysis.</abstract>
        </abstracts>
        <codes>
          <doi>10.48417/technolang.2022.02.08</doi>
          <udk>008: 002</udk>
        </codes>
        <keywords>
          <kwdGroup lang="ENG">
            <keyword>STS</keyword>
            <keyword>Bruno Latour</keyword>
            <keyword>Inscription</keyword>
            <keyword>Script analysis</keyword>
            <keyword>Composition</keyword>
            <keyword>Visualization</keyword>
            <keyword>Controversy mapping</keyword>
          </kwdGroup>
        </keywords>
        <files>
          <furl>https://soctech.spbstu.ru/article/2022.7.8/</furl>
          <file>127-146.pdf</file>
        </files>
      </article>
      <article>
        <artType>RAR</artType>
        <langPubl>RUS</langPubl>
        <pages>148-161</pages>
        <authors>
          <author num="001">
            <authorCodes>
              <scopusid>22233758600</scopusid>
              <orcid>0000-0001-9576-1002</orcid>
            </authorCodes>
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>Philosophy of Department, University of Vienna</orgName>
              <surname>Coeckelbergh</surname>
              <initials>Mark</initials>
              <address>Universitätsring 1, 1010  Vienna, Austria</address>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
        </authors>
        <artTitles>
          <artTitle lang="ENG">The Grammars of AI: Towards a Structuralist and Transcendental Hermeneutics of Digital Technologies</artTitle>
        </artTitles>
        <abstracts>
          <abstract lang="ENG">After its rejection of the linguistic turn, influential strands in empirically-oriented philosophy of technology tend to neglect or are even hostile towards structuralist and transcendental approaches to technology. Drawing on Cassirer, Bourdieu, Wittgenstein, and Ricoeur, this article offers an account of the meaning of technologies that theorizes precisely those aspects of technology and shows what this hermeneutics means for understanding digital technologies such as AI and algorithmic data processing. It argues that a transcendental and structuralist approach helps us to reveal and evaluate the linguistic, social-political, bodily, and material preconditions for AI and, more generally, of digital technologies. Considering some issues raised by AI and robotics, the article shows that these transcendental structures or “grammars” make possible the meaning and use of AI, but at the same time constrain it. The proposed framework and research program therefore enables not only a better understanding of digital and other technologies but also their critique, leading to nothing less than the philosophical task of questioning our ways of being in the world.</abstract>
        </abstracts>
        <codes>
          <doi>10.48417/technolang.2022.02.09</doi>
          <udk>008: 62-529</udk>
        </codes>
        <keywords>
          <kwdGroup lang="ENG">
            <keyword>Philosophy of technology</keyword>
            <keyword>Hermeneutics</keyword>
            <keyword>Structuralism</keyword>
            <keyword>Transcendental</keyword>
            <keyword>Wittgenstein</keyword>
            <keyword>Ricoeur</keyword>
            <keyword>Boudieu</keyword>
            <keyword>Cassirer</keyword>
          </kwdGroup>
        </keywords>
        <files>
          <furl>https://soctech.spbstu.ru/article/2022.7.9/</furl>
          <file>148-161.pdf</file>
        </files>
      </article>
      <article>
        <artType>RAR</artType>
        <langPubl>RUS</langPubl>
        <pages>162-178</pages>
        <authors>
          <author num="001">
            <individInfo lang="ENG">
              <orgName>Minsk State Linguistic University</orgName>
              <surname>Saltanovich</surname>
              <initials>Irina </initials>
              <address>Minsk, Belarus</address>
            </individInfo>
          </author>
        </authors>
        <artTitles>
          <artTitle lang="ENG">Global-local Cultural Interactions in a Hyperconnected World</artTitle>
        </artTitles>
        <abstracts>
          <abstract lang="ENG">The article dwells upon the development and organization of new information relations and global-local cultural interactions. New social environment processes that encompass real and virtual life are being controlled by a complex set of digital instruments or interactive systems. The novel notion of a “hyperconnected” world is being discussed with its characteristics that lead to the transparency of human relations and the hyperopenness of society. There is a description of the growing importance of social networks as a universal field of communication. The issues of transforming the environment for information exchange and communication into networked communication platforms are raised. These platforms are easy to use for a variety of purposes, which at the same time renders them unpredictable. The conditions for the existence of such networks transform into an “anthropo-space” and it is shown how this produces a shift in social relations.</abstract>
        </abstracts>
        <codes>
          <doi>10.48417/technolang.2022.02.10</doi>
          <udk>316.7(476)</udk>
        </codes>
        <keywords>
          <kwdGroup lang="ENG">
            <keyword>Culture</keyword>
            <keyword>"Hyperconnected" world</keyword>
            <keyword>Digital culture</keyword>
            <keyword>Social networks</keyword>
            <keyword>Digital</keyword>
            <keyword>Communication platform</keyword>
            <keyword>Digital environment</keyword>
          </kwdGroup>
        </keywords>
        <files>
          <furl>https://soctech.spbstu.ru/article/2022.7.10/</furl>
          <file>162-178.pdf</file>
        </files>
      </article>
    </articles>
  </issue>
</journal>
