6.1. Theories: cultural objects in transfer

Theories, abstract thought processes, are projected and constructed in synchrony as well as in diachrony. They make sense and science at the same time. Three types of theories emerge from the fields of knowledge: cumulative theories (number theory), static theories that evolve only because of their author (A.J. Greimas) and hybrid theories that metamorphose in contact with other disciplines (F. Rastier). This theoretical diversity is a form of richness for the language sciences, but it is above all the third range of theories that enables the most diverse and significant advances.

While intertextuality, intermediality and interartiality are terms and practices of analysis that have long been recognized, intertheoricity or hybridization of theories remain seldom practiced in the HSS in general and in the language sciences in particular. It nevertheless paves the way for new ways of thinking about societal phenomena and allows for the creation of innovative multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary theories. In order to assess intertheoricity, three characteristics must be brought together: first, the elasticity of the source theory/theories subject to theoretical variations in time and space; second, theoretical plasticity, which goes hand in hand with geometric modeling; and finally, theoretical hybridity, the final but never definitive result of inter, multi- or transtheoretical fusion. For a more detailed development on elasticity, plasticity and hybridity, the reader can refer to Guillaume (2014a).

While cultural objects are transformed according to the contexts that surround them (Rastier 2011b; William 2015b), theories in the HSS have so far been little recomposed, they are not very elastic. Elasticity here defines a theoretical and praxeological stretch, one that is inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary but also spatial and temporal. This implies a transformation of certain aspects of the theories and the partial maintenance of their terminology in the newly created theory. However, some theories do not transform, they seem to be fixed and devoid of elasticity. This may be because many theories are trademarked or partly patented. Their authors do not suffer the slightest change in their thinking. Anyone who would risk inverting or even mixing the terminology of two different or opposing schools of thought would run the risk of antagonizing the representatives of both schools. However, in sciences (medicine, zoobiology, physics, robotics, etc.) and also in arts (painting, music, fashion, sculpture, digital art, etc.), in diachrony as well as in synchrony, it is by mixing theories, media and genres that significant scientific and artistic advances have been achieved through contact with contemporary thinkers and/or those of previous centuries.

In language sciences, theories more rarely enter into a cycle of hybridization or recomposition, they have a slower evolutionary process, and are mostly autonomous and isolated. Researchers in the language sciences work little on the lab bench as do those in the life sciences. For example, they publish less as a team than researchers in biology or medicine. As a result, they create their own theories and terminology, which are rarely intended to change over time. On the contrary, the more static they remain, the more faithful to their “creator” they become. Moreover, for a long time they were only monodisciplinary, mainly textual fields. Only recently the language sciences have opened up to multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. This implies the acceptance of other disciplinary fields, other terminologies with other definitions, and terminological and cultural recontextualizations, which are indispensable to the transdisciplinary intertheoretical approach. This opens up new scientific horizons, and even new fields and disciplinary axes such as semiotraductology, traductogenesis (Guillaume 2017b), transferogenesis (Guillaume 2014a), biosemiotics, zoosemiotics (five research axes have been promoted by the French Society of Zoosemiotics (2019)), phytosemiotics, agrosemiotics³ and humanimalism (Guillaume 2017c, 2019c).

However, where intuition plays a fundamental role in the arts (Kandinsky), philosophy (Bergson) and science (Newton, Schrödinger), it is unwelcome in the field of linguistics. Although, this open-mindedness in the arts and sciences gives theories their potential for metamorphosis and hybridity. HSS theories evolve under the impulse of a thinker but rarely via the osmosis of different theories, let alone in relation to feeling or perception. Although the phenomenology of perception has been witnessed with Merleau–Ponty’s work, and although Peirce’s phaneroscopy is now considered a phenomenology, the influence of art or geometry on HSS theories is not common, and these collusions are rarely made. In spite of this absence of colliding disciplines, the thoughts of certain theorists have experienced a fine renaissance after their authors’ death, but mostly in a monodisciplinary manner: this is the case of Ferdinand de Saussure’s theories, which witnessed a long progression of applications after his death until today – we now speak of neo-Saussureism – of Peirce’s theories or even of Greimas’ theories introduced into secondary school curricula, a fact that is rare enough to be highlighted.

François Rastier’s theories open up many fields of knowledge. They demonstrate that they have a plastic, elastic and hybrid character, in the sense that they can be translated⁴, transferred and made to evolve elsewhere and differently, but also because they are theories which, generating hybridity, carry within them this hybridity and this openness to otherness, necessary conditions for intertheoricity.

6.2. Definitional reminder

The cultural sciences are by definition multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary because they concern human and non-human cultures in a whole that involves their spheres of influence (William 2017, p. 7) as well as their history, their contexts and their future. The three terms multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary are, however, often confused or even misused. However, they are not synonyms. We shall retain the definitions given by Basarab Nicolescu, physicist, founder and now Honorary President of the International Center for Transdisciplinary Research (CIRET 2019).

These three definitions, which are essential for a good understanding of what multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity include, make it easier to grasp the meaning and the many scientific backgrounds implied by the words multitheoricity, intertheoricity and transtheoricity, which we define accordingly.

These three approaches carry meaning and science for the cultural sciences, and more particularly for the semiotics of cultures. Multitheoricity offers enriching multidisciplinary encounters around a theme, all the more so as this kind of interscientific encounter has been lacking for several decades. Intertheoricity allows theoretical innovations through hybridization or innovative recomposition, which implies rethinking scientific definitions and approaches (zoosemiotics, semiotraductology). Finally, transtheoricity, which is deeply rooted in universal ethics (William 2015a), is oriented toward programs for the renewal of thought in a pacifying perspective (William 2011) such as humanimalism (2019c), which redefines a humanism that respects sentient and sensitive living beings and biodiversity as a whole.

For this chapter, we favor intertheoricity, which enables real epistemological, hermeneutical and theoretical innovations.

6.3. Status of the arts and religious sciences

Intertheoricity opens up the disciplines and blurs overly rigid disciplinary outlines, breaking down the boundaries of the fields of human knowledge by bringing together the humanities and the sciences, but also the arts and spiritualities of the world, long sidelined by scientific and theoretical approaches. Indeed, while the arts and spiritualities have not always been considered as disciplines in their own right, they are today recognized in universities as objects of “science” (for the sciences of art, see Colombat 2017); for the religious sciences (École Pratique des Hautes Études 2019), sciences understood here as the production of the human spirit to be studied historically. Religious sciences do not confer any scientific status to spiritualities, they allow their contextual process to be analyzed in time and context. As such, it is important to integrate them into societal analyses, of which they are a part of. The same applies to the art sciences. Art does not acquire any scientific status, but its history, its various practices and multiple formats are part of human thought and history. Art theories have made history, and Erwin Panofsky remains a worthy representative.

Having been for a long time rejected by the scientific and theoretical spheres, the influence of arts and spiritualities on cultures but also on the creation of theories is nevertheless major. This influence can take place at different levels:

• – the first pre-disciplinary level puts the intuitive before the scientific; a particular literary, esthetic or sacred interpretation favors a particular intuition or a particular scientific or artistic work (Kandinsky);
• – the second level favors only the scientific fact or puts it before the intuitive, it will study the history of the discipline or certain elements over time according to different contexts (Einstein)⁶;
• – the third level mixes the two previous levels alternately (Merleau-Ponty, Bergson, Peirce).

In any case, as fields of human knowledge, the art sciences and religious sciences influence human thought and interact implicitly or explicitly in the theorization of HSS. They play a role in the semiotics of cultures. These interdisciplinary contacts linking arts, sciences, religion, human and social sciences, technology, human and non-human medicine, i.e. human and non-human contexts, open up to different approaches that make it possible to study more precisely the cultural sciences as described in the work of François Rastier (2002, 2011) in connection with a linguistic anthropology.

6.4. Geometric plasticity of theories

Even the most monodisciplinary theories do not avoid a modeling approach to geometry, and thus indirectly to mathematics and logic. Theoretical geometric modeling is sometimes more esthetic than purely mathematical, but its omnipresence in human thinking in all disciplines deserves a moment of attention.

Indeed, geometric modeling seems to be an essential part of theorization. To give rise to a theory requires a precise process that brings together a precise terminology to be applied to the letter and to the number, depending on the discipline, one will find mathematical and physical formulas, diagrams that model or summarize the theory in the form of a figure, which is often geometric or at least geometrical. Rare are the theories that are not accompanied by geometrizing. In linguistics, these geometric models visually summarize a narrative, discursive theory, a tension, a perspective and a process that develops over time, thus offering additional visual and spatial precision to a textual development. They contribute to giving theories their scientific character and giving them a semantic plasticity.

For example, here, the tri-triangular dynamics of intertheoricity presents the dynamic step, the core, of one of the processes in action within the framework of a theoretical transfer. To see all the stages at work in transferogenesis, see Guillaume (2014a). So that the transfer from one theory to another can take place, the three characteristics, elasticity, plasticity and hybridity must be able to co-exist at each moment of the transfer process. This implies a dynamic of composition/ decomposition/recomposition bringing together plasticity in relation to the modeling of the first theory, elasticity in relation to the transfer of context (in diachrony and/or synchrony) to a new theory and hybridity in relation to the plasticity of the new theory acquired via this transfer. The theory then responds to the same process that composes, decomposes and recomposes cultural objects.

Geometry, a symbol of precision, is the reflection of what is present at the microscopic and macroscopic scales, at the scale of the visible and the invisible, the infinitely small and the infinitely large. In the fields of knowledge, everything is based on and relates to geometry and its forms (point, line, circle, semicircle, curve, triangle, rectangle, plane, depth, space, axis, level and dynamics).

On the spiritual and religious level, geometry has been widely practiced in different forms, from architecture to writing: the pyramids of Egypt, giant tombs allowing the one who rests there to reach the afterlife, remain internal and external geometric jewels; Buddhists and Hindus, via cosmogonic mandalas, put geometry forward; the Jewish and Arab cultures are attached to gematria, derived from the Greek word meaning geometry; medieval Christian cathedrals are showcases of geometrical calculations, strategic orientations in relation to space and light, rosettes and stained glass windows; the Muslim religion gave geometry supreme status as proof of a divine presence. Associations of numbers and letters, architectural buildings or signs, and works of art symbolize in all these religious contexts the proof of the existence of a creator and the perfection of His creations and creatures. For the cultural sciences, the question is not one of belief but one of knowledge of these worship-related, cultural, historical and artistic facts and signs and of knowing how to recognize them in their original or adapted forms in the different contexts where they may resurface today, whether or not they are decontextualized from the initial thought.

In science, the atom, matter, DNA, chromosome and space are represented by lines, axes, curves and connecting points, giving everything its own identity, a signature that distinguishes and creates the uniqueness of any matter, any theorem, any animate and inanimate being. Changing an atom, modifying the curve of a line or the place of a point by one micrometer, permutation of a figure, moving a comma, and everything then becomes other or no longer exists: a plurality of units that leads to a diversity of units, and vice versa to infinity. Abstract geometric representation is also part of scientific imagery, which promotes its popularization. When a CNRS team studied the phenomenon of cyclones using the evolution of soap bubbles subjected to different phenomena of instability, it recreated, in so doing, on a smaller scale, the turbulence of cyclones: this passage from the infinitely large to another scale, more accessible but perfectly comparable in terms of physical reactions, is an example of a transdisciplinary theoretical transfer of space, time and form that represents, on the elastic and translatological level, the perfect scientific transfer that makes sense and makes science. The scientific and artistic overcrowding of abstract geometric art, present on the microscopic and macroscopic scales and symbolically at the heart of everything and everyone, unites all academic fields. It is as if all the abstract artists of the early 20th Century had demonstrated an intuition of this invisible geometric form even before science could fully demonstrate it (Anourhy 2014; Centre Pompidou 2019).

Indeed, in the domain of arts, from ancient Egypt to Kandinsky, and even more recently, in inter-medial choreographies such as the Japanese group Enra (ENRA 2019)⁷ and Miguel Chevalier (Chevalier 2017; Art Fractal 2019), scientific art creations were also geometry. Geometry has made its entry into contemporary choreographic art as well as into architecture, orientation, innovative designs and creations, perspective and depth of field, symbolism and color abstraction.

The theory of fractals was first developed by the mathematician Benoît Mandelbrot and presented in 1975 in his seminal book: Les Objets Fractals.

This mathematical theory, which sought to account for complex figures and objects, then spread to many disciplines including the plastic arts.

Fractal art has thus become a powerful model of thought and a new visual code, just as cubism, abstraction, kinetic art and concrete art were. (Art Fractal 2019, author’s translation)

Intermediality has made it possible to cross and interweave these spheres of application by multiplying the possibilities. Bridget Riley sets up implicit and explicit dynamics that bring together the play of contrasts, perspective and geometry, a process that is specific to kinetic art. Auguste Herbin elaborates a “plastic alphabet”, associating letters, shapes, colors as well as musical notes. In Danseuse (1942), he develops the following alphabet: D (light red circle, do, re); A (pink, combination of circular, triangular, semicircular and square shapes, do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, si); N (white, combination of all shapes and notes like A); S (intense blue-green, combination of semicircular and triangular shapes, la, sol, fa); E (red, circle, do); U (blue, semicircle, sol, la). What the artist is looking for here is to recreate a composition that puts forward dynamics and movements close to choreographic dance, dense colors whose geometric rigor will oscillate between science and esthetics, fully leading art toward the path of the art sciences: the static comes to life in a vasarelian dynamic. But it is not only abstract art that possesses interpretative exclusivity, since Dürer and Cranach already played with the symbolism of the signs and the space to be interpreted in their respective Melancholia, where geometry becomes invisible rather than visible, implicitly organizing the picture and holding its meaning. The same is true of heraldry, which originated and developed in the Middle Ages (Wilhelm 2011b). We have shown elsewhere that artists of the Middle Ages worked on the organization of a geometric coding of colors and space in the representations of the Last Judgments, still spatially identical from the Middle Ages to the beginning of the 20th Century (William 2010b, 2012). This approach, which became an implicit language, made it possible not only to go beyond the usual, more conventional artistic representations, but also to discover true parallel languages, whose alphabets are implicit or explicit colors, numbers and signs that make sense in the same way as any other language.

The works of Roy Lichtenstein are a good illustration of this hybridity process, which integrates the knowledge, techniques and theories of several artists from different cultures to create a unique work. Roy Lichtenstein said of his art “I don’t think I make parodies. I think I reinterpret previous works in my own style, like Picasso when he reinvented Velasquez, Delacroix or Rembrandt” (Centre Pompidou 2013, author’s translation). In art, it is the hybridity of approaches and theories in contact with other artists, other sensitivities, other spiritualities that has undeniably created innovation and has been a generator of creativity.

Similarly, in theater, more and more productions bring together movement, dynamics, meaning and text, as described by Yves Marc, co-director of the Théâtre du mouvement, who finds himself “at the frontiers of a dramatic dance, an object theater, a textual theater where the body is engaged”, linking the possible dialogues of text and movement, the body itself becoming geometry in relation to the text:

How do the “texts” of the body (movement, gesture, composition and body writing) interact with the literary text? How does the latter “incorporate” or not into the fundamental structures of the body? How does this text vibrate in relation to states of thought and emotional states? How can a discontinuous literary text be punctuated and put into perspective by movement? These relationships will be studied in relation to the play of time, dynamics, space, meaning. We will discover the poetic or dramatic gaps that can result from them. (Théâtre du mouvement 2016)

From this kind of approach, it is easy to conceive that the arts can go beyond the stage of simple emotion evoked or perceived, and they can be analyzed in the same way as other sciences and recognized as a science in their own right, to be relayed only to the esthetic and emotional sphere of an impalpable and unstable feeling.

In the humanities, geometry is also visually present in the schemes of thought modeling, but perhaps even more so in this case logical modeling, which allows one, schematically, to represent in time and space a theoretical process. Pragmatic semiotics, narrative semiotics, interpretative semantics, discursive semiotics, sign theory and symbolistics have produced numerous theoretical schemes. We think of Peirce and his triads, Gustave Guillaume and his binary tensions, or Greimas and Rastier’s semiotic square. When we consider François Rastier, we understand that the semiotic square is a logical square and not strictly speaking a geometric one, but that, on the other hand, anthropic zones can be represented as topological spaces (with “thick” borders), hence a possible projection on mythical narratives. Diagrammatics, the importance of simple forms and symmetries and geometry, especially topological ones, may also have links, but these have yet to be specified.

Without essentializing it or making it an obligatory passage, geometry is a link that is sometimes explicit and direct, sometimes implicit and more distant from our models. Behind the prism of theories, it symbolically links academic contexts: life sciences, physics, mathematics, arts, and human sciences, but also the spiritualities of the world. It becomes, as a common material, a “cement”, building bridges between the academic fields and theorizing the cultural sciences, thus offering it a form and a plasticity to be infinitely multiplied. This geometry, at first mainly Euclidean (centered symmetrical figure), becomes non-Euclidean when the theory is deformed by the dynamic process of elasticity (see for the mathematical topology, the Möbius strip).

6.5. Theorists and the evolution of theories

Like cultural objects, theories reflect what cannot be changed without becoming something else. While theories do not transform in the biological sense, at least they are transformed and recomposed. Operating even the smallest change to a theory or a genome undeniably leads to a new theory, a new material, a new creature, a new plastic figure and thus leads to a new thought or creation. This is also true of a vaccine, a text, a painting, any literary and artistic work. The evolution in nature is Darwinian or Lamarckian, but whatever it is, it can be observed in diachrony a posteriori. Today, we influence the transformations of certain creatures (plants and animals for the moment⁸) via the genome, but theories, in contrast to matter, genome or DNA, are often associated with a researcher. Theories are registered trademarks, controlled names. They belong, literally and figuratively, to a person, who since antiquity has been called the master, a scholastic term if there is one, because who says master, says pupils or followers. With their theories, the master will found a school, or even a school of thought which will bring a thought to a school⁹, in which followers will apply the master’s theories, ideology and ethics, until the latter themselves create their own theories in harmony with those of the master or, on the contrary, in open opposition, often a sign of a definitive separation between people.

The thematization of the critical dimension of philosophy goes back to Kant, and further to Platonic dialogics, but philosophy still functions according to the model of adherence or rejection of the above. In the HSS, theories are fairly immutable, for theories and theorists are much rarer than in the life sciences, for example. If there is one field that is evolving slowly and relatively little in terms of theorizing, it is the HSS: to put it simply and briefly, psychologists are still today either Freudian, Lacanian or Jungian, sociologists are pro-Bourdieu or anti-Bourdieu, linguists are pro-Chomsky or anti-Chomsky, creating for decades schools of opposing followers, which does not, however, help advance research, insofar as these quarrels are confined to preserving the theoretical memory of something ancient, almost sacralized. This attitude tends to suggest that too many theories in the HSS are neither elastic nor hybrid: they certainly have a plasticity of their own, but when they block their transformative dynamics, they are then led to a decline because they are not adaptable to the constantly changing phenomena of society.

The scientific approach, which consists of applying only the theories of the past decades, is finally quite medieval because it is pyramidal and vertical. It undeniably represents an obstacle to novelty by preventing more spontaneous, intuitive, even aesthetic (Lichtenstein et al. 2013) theoretical productions rooted in feeling or affect, productions that could allow students to create their own theories and explain the various solutions and influences of their own abstract thinking. The opening of theorizing workshops was a step forward in overcoming the medieval notion of the master and their followers, which in some cases could prove to be a stumbling block to theoretical innovation. The best school of thought will always be the one where doctoral students compete in ingenuity under the scientific and benevolent eye of an elder, and not the one where submission to a master and their theories is required, as this hinders any form of renewal of ideas and therefore of thought.

6.6. Polysemy of cultural fact and scientific rigor

What also makes the theorization of human and non-human cultural activities complex is the multiplicity of interpretations that can be made of them. Gilles Leguellec speaks of the danger of a semiologization of art due to different approaches and tools:

But, if I am interested in the exchange of goods, what is to be understood from the point of view of both sides is no longer how the work varies according to the expressions, so that one can say that there are as many objects relative to an image or a work as there are expressions, but the way in which the instructions for use differ and how they are rearranged according to the users. It is no longer a question of semiotics, but of mimetics. [...] To see that there is necessarily a rearrangement of the work, it is enough to compare the material used by the artist with that used by the student; this is obvious when, to analyze a painting, one has only pencils at one’s disposal. We will be told that we are not mechanical and that we are capable of proceeding teleotically by manipulating the pencil in chromatization mode and on the other hand of instrumenting, that is to say, of conforming the practice of the pencil to the pictorial model effect. Nevertheless, the difference in device is there, it leads to inflect the response in another direction. In my opinion, this is where the translation (ductus) lies, since it is an exchange of conduct that is involved. (Leguennec n.d., author’s translation)

Similarly, Gregory Chatonsky speaks of “leafing through” and “leafing through realities” about the symbolic, alphanumeric, iconographic levels of overlapping realities on Facebook:

[...] it is necessary to see how reality becomes more and more layered, the symbolic, alphanumeric and iconographic levels are superimposed and it becomes impossible to separate them from a remnant that will be the reality in itself. This is certainly not a new question, but here again it takes an explicit social turn. This strata of realities is not without consequences for the artistic imagination: each event is fragmented into a multiplicity of interpretations¹⁰. (Chatonsky n.d., author’s translation)

The “strata” notion is interesting. This fragmentation into a multiplicity of interpretations is also what clearly distinguishes the hermeneutic approach of the HSS from the so-called “hard” sciences: the arts, contemporary and ancient literature, polysemic or ambiguous advertisements are the best representatives of this. It is well known that each interpreter potentially has their own interpretation, which may moreover be subject to variation over time. Whether figurative or abstract, a painting presents different faces when imaginaries enter into action. The work of art thus escapes its author as soon as it leaves the studio. This is also true of the literary work that becomes that of the reader, the reader ideally hoped for by the writer does not exist, as Umberto Eco has demonstrated as a theorist and novelist (Eco 1999). How to theorize, how to make sense and science in a dynamic context where the imagination constantly changes the interpretative deal? Monodisciplinary theories can take even less account of these multidisciplinary, malleable and transformable phenomena, which are in any case always plural. To take these fluctuations into account is to systematically take into consideration, in theories, the dynamics of the rates of variation and the famous exceptions that confirm so many rules.

6.7. The return of diachrony

The cultural sciences function in diachrony, as do the semiotics of cultures, since the notion of culture is intimately linked to that of time, development, tradition(s), continuity and separation, overcrowding and distance, permanence and impermanence. Diachrony is one of the main pillars of the cultural sciences (Rastier 2000). Many linguists today claim to be Saussurian in their thinking, yet diachrony is disappearing in universities (Guillaume 2010a). Without diachrony and a return to the cultures and languages of yesterday, it becomes impossible to understand the present. Whether one thinks of research on translations, etymology, lexicology, words, signs, symbols from yesterday to today, on comparisons and cultures, research in the HSS makes sense and becomes science through the mastery of cultural facts over varying periods of time. All studies on mythologies, beliefs and religions are only diachronic and are only synchronized today by recontextualizing them in present-day societies. The study of the transferability of extra-disciplinary cultural meaning and its theorization is profoundly diachronic, even when dealing with contemporary situations. The work of cultural scientists thus gains in quality by turning again to ancient languages and cultures, not to sacralize them but to recognize their outlines and to recognize them better in their new forms when they reappear in new contexts.

6.8. Conclusion

The artists of the Middle Ages and other cathedral builders gave meaning and form to colors with ingenious architectural processes that are still unequalled. The abstract artists of the 20th Century such as Kandinsky, Herbin or Delaunay made the emotion of the invisible vibrate, offering it alphabets of shapes and colors. Scientists, through technical progress and observation methods, have succeeded in proving and showing the invisible, both microscopic and macroscopic. Architects, by drawing inspiration from art and working on the resistance of materials, have overcome imaginary and technological limits. It is up to the HSS to enter the implicit spheres of intertheoretical creation for more innovation and precision as well as for better recognition of their different fields of reflection and skills.

Recognizing the proximity and comparison of disciplines is already nourishing new, more hybrid thinking, and allows for the integration of new terminology into certain disciplinary fields. The decompartmentalization and hybridization of disciplines as a principle of reflection brings a welcome renewal of thought to theorizations. It is up to the academic evaluation structures of the HSS to adapt to these new ways of thinking, and not the other way round. Today, too many researchers are still penalized because of their inter- or transdisciplinary and intertheoretical approaches, which are an additional asset for the fields of knowledge and for opening up to the cultural sciences and the semiotics of cultures, where science makes sense.

NOTE.– This chapter is the summary of a longer study on intertheoricity which the reader may refer to for further study (Guillaume 2014a).