Advertisement

Clues from Molecular Symbol Systems

  • Howard Hunt Pattee
Chapter
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 7)

Abstract

Natural selection operates on living systems through their function and behavior. The biological structures constraining this behavior always involve fortuitous elements, or frozen accidents, as well as essential principles. In order to distinguish the accidents from the principles we must refer to some theory of living systems. Similarly, in order to distinguish which biological constraints on linguistic form are fortuitous and which are fundamental, we must refer to some theory of symbolic systems. A theory of symbols must address the process that relates the symbol vehicle to its referent or meaning. At the level of natural language we have many facts, but still have great difficulty incorporating them in a theory of language. However, at the level of the gene the relation of symbol structures to their referent function is better understood. A careful look at this elementary symbol system may provide some clues to basic principles of language at higher levels. In particular, we consider the articulation of the discrete, rate-independent, linear symbol strings, which generate continuous, rate-dependent, three-dimensional functions through the folding transformation. We suggest that this complementary interaction of constraints and laws involves general principles that are elaborated in higher linguistic forms.

Keywords

Deep Structure Symbol System Symbolic Activity Word String Symbol String 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  2. Eigen, M., & Schuster, P. (1977). The hypercycle. A principle of self-organization. Naturwissenschaften, 64, 541–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gregory, R. L. (1969). On how so little information controls so much behavior. In C. H. Waddington (Ed.), Towards a theoretical biology (2nd ed., pp. 236–274). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hockett, C. F. (1966). The problem of universals in language. In J. H. Greenburg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 1–29). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Jakobson, R. (1970). Main trends of research in the social and human sciences (pp. 437–440). The Hague/Paris: Mouton/UNESCO.Google Scholar
  6. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Indirect language and the voices of silence. In M. Merleau-Ponty (Ed.), Signs. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Pattee, H. (1972). Laws and constraints, symbols and languages. In C. H. Waddington (Ed.), Towards a theoretical biology (pp. 248–258). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
  8. Pattee, H. (1977). Dynamic and linguistic modes of complex systems. International Journal of General Systems, 2, 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pattee, H. (1979). Complementarity vs. reduction as explanation of biological complexity. American Journal of Physiology, 5, R241–R246.Google Scholar
  10. Polanyi, M. (1958). The logic of personal knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  11. Polanyi, M. (1968). Life’s irreducible structure. Science, 160, 1308–1312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. von Neumann, J. (1966). The theory of self-reproducing automata (completed and edited by A.W. Burks) (Chapter 5). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Hunt Pattee
    • 1
  1. 1.Binghamton UniversityVestalUSA

Personalised recommendations