{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.056348610067618335, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.054545454545455, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
MIMICRY AND THEATRICALITY: A FORMAL MODEL

Object of the article: mimicry and theatricality. Subject of the article: difference and similarity between mimicry and theatricality. Purpose of the research: creating the semiotic model of transformation of mimicry into theatricality. Results: in mimicry, three meta-roles are at play: the mimic, the dupe and the model. The mimic imitates signals, emitted by the model. The dupe, being an enemy of the mimic, is thus deceived by the mimic's signals. Mimicry can be expressed by the scheme: “A” acts in front of “B” in the role of “C”, where “A” is the mimic, “B” is the dupe - a victim of deception, “C” is the model. Mimicry formally resembles theatricality, where "A" is the character of the play (functionally corresponding to the mimic), "B" is the character-spectator, corresponding to the dupe (victim of deception), "C" is another character, functionally corresponding to the "model". Even so, the difference between signals in mimicry and signs in theater is crucial. Field of application: semiotics, literary studies. Conclusions: The mimicry-to-theatricality transformation requires a real or imaginary border between the space of everyday life and “marked” territory (museum, houseof-worship, stage) that serves as a stop-signal inhibiting (or preventing) automatic actions.