Skip to main content
Log in

Analogy between language and biology: a functional approach

  • Research Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We adopt here a functional approach to the classical comparison between language and biology. We first parallel events which have a functional signification in each domain, by matching the utterance of a sentence with the release of a protein. The meaning of a protein is then defined by analogy as “the constant contribution of the biochemical material composing the protein to the effects produced by any release of the protein”. The proteome of an organism corresponds to an I-language (the idiolect of an individual), and the proteome of a species is equivalent to an E-language (a language in the common sense). Proteins and sentences are both characterized by a complex hierarchical structure, but the language property of ‘double articulation’ has no equivalent in the biological domain in this analogy, contrary to previous proposals centered on the genetic code. Besides, the same intimate relation between structure and meaning holds in both cases (syntactic structure for sentences and three-dimensional conformation for proteins). An important disanalogy comes from the combinatorial power of language which is not shared by the proteome as a whole, but it must be noted that the immune system possesses interesting properties in this respect. Regarding evolutionary aspects, the analogy still works to a certain extent. Languages and proteomes can be both considered as belonging to a general class of systems, that we call “productive self-reproductive systems”, characterized by the presence of two dynamics: a fast dynamics in an external domain where functional events occur (productive aspect), and a slow dynamics responsible for the evolution of the system itself, driven by the feed-back of events related to the reproduction process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bloomfield L (1928) A set of postulates for the science of language, Language 2:153–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee J (2001) Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N (1986) Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Darmesteter A (1886) La vie des mots étudiée dans leurs significations. Delagrave, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducrot O (1984) Le dire et le dit. Editions de Minuit, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege G (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100:25–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzer J (2002) Concluding reflections, Colloquium “Genome & language – points of convergence and divergence”. Birgitta Forum, Vadstena, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper PJ, Traugott EC (1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson R, Waugh LR (1987) The sound shape of language. de Gruyter, Berlin, NewYork

    Google Scholar 

  • Ji S (1999) The linguistics of DNA: words, sentences, grammar, phonetics, and semantics. Ann NY Acad Sci 870:411–417

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ji S (2006) The proteome as a molecular language (proteinese), DIMACS Workshop on sequence, structure and systems approaches to predict protein function, Rutgers University, New Jersey

  • Labov W (2000) Principles of linguistic change. vol II Social factors, Blackwell, Oxford

  • Lass R (1997) Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefranc M-P, Lefranc G (2001) The immunoglobulin factsbook. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot D (1999) The development of language: acquisition, change and evolution. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattee HH (1980) Clues from molecular symbol systems. In: Bellugi/Studdart-Kennedy, Signed and Spoken Language, pp 261–274

  • Pattee HH (1982) Cell psychology: an evolutionary approach to the symbol-matter problem. Cogn Brain Theory 5:325–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Raible W (2001) Linguistics and genetics: systematic parallels. In: Haspelmath M, König E, Oesterreicher W, Raible W (eds) Language typology and language universals. de Gruyter, Berlin, NewYork

    Google Scholar 

  • Saussure F. de (1972) Cours de linguistique générale. Payot, paris

  • Schleicher A (1863) Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft - offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Dr. Ernst Haeckel, H Boehlau, Weimar

  • Sereno MI (1991) Four analogies between biological and cultural/linguistic evolution. J Theor Biol 151:467:507

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart J, Coutinho A (2004) The affirmation of self: a new perspective on the immune system. Artif Life 10(3):261–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart J, Varela FJ (1994) L’intelligence collective des lymphocytes. In: E Bonabeau (ed) L’Intelligence collective. Hermes, Paris, pp 145–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson PF (1971) Logico-linguistics papers. Ashgate Pub, Aldershot, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Victorri B, Fuchs C (1996) La polysémie – Construction dynamique du sens. Hermès, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent J-D (1986) Biologie des passions. Odile Jacob, Paris

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernard Victorri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Victorri, B. Analogy between language and biology: a functional approach. Cogn Process 8, 11–19 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-006-0156-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-006-0156-5

Keywords

Navigation