Ousiometrics and Telegnomics: The essence of meaning conforms to a two-dimensional powerful-weak and dangerous-safe framework with diverse corpora presenting a safety bias

We define `ousiometrics' to be the study of essential meaning in whatever context that meaningful signals are communicated, and `telegnomics' as the study of remotely sensed knowledge. From work emerging through the middle of the 20th century, the essence of meaning has become generally accepted as being well captured by the three orthogonal dimensions of evaluation, potency, and activation (EPA). By re-examining first types and then tokens for the English language, and through the use of automatically annotated histograms -- `ousiograms' -- we find here that: 1. The essence of meaning conveyed by words is instead best described by a compass-like power-danger (PD) framework, and 2. Analysis of a disparate collection of large-scale English language corpora -- literature, news, Wikipedia, talk radio, and social media -- shows that natural language exhibits a systematic bias toward safe, low danger words -- a reinterpretation of the Pollyanna principle's positivity bias for written expression. To help justify our choice of dimension names and to help address the problems with representing observed ousiometric dimensions by bipolar adjective pairs, we introduce and explore `synousionyms' and `antousionyms' -- ousiometric counterparts of synonyms and antonyms. We further show that the PD framework revises the circumplex model of affect as a more general model of state of mind. Finally, we use our findings to construct and test a prototype `ousiometer', a telegnomic instrument that measures ousiometric time series for temporal corpora. We contend that our power-danger ousiometric framework provides a complement for entropy-based measurements, and may be of value for the study of a wide variety of communication across biological and artificial life.

Reply to Garcia et al.: Common mistakes in measuring frequency dependent word characteristics

We demonstrate that the concerns expressed by Garcia et al. are misplaced, due to (1) a misreading of our findings in [1]; (2) a widespread failure to examine and present words in support of asserted summary quantities based on word usage frequencies; and (3) a range of misconceptions about word usage frequency, word rank, and expert-constructed word lists. In particular, we show that the English component of our study compares well statistically with two related surveys, that no survey design influence is apparent, and that estimates of measurement error do not explain the positivity biases reported in our work and that of others. We further demonstrate that for the frequency dependence of positivity---of which we explored the nuances in great detail in [1]---Garcia et al. did not perform a reanalysis of our data---they instead carried out an analysis of a different, statistically improper data set and introduced a nonlinearity before performing linear regression.