At 02:45 PM 11/2/2014, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
Dear Howard, Gary, lists,
I think Howard and myself are on the same main line here, even if
not in all details.
I think Howard's generalization of "language" goes too far because
that seems to require an elaborated system to exist as a
prerequisite to even the very first occurrences of signs in early
life. I find it implausible such a system was in place well before
any individual sign. My own generalization of "proposition", I
think, is less demanding.
HP: Demanding or not, I find it implausible or meaningless to imagine
an individual sign without a living interpreter. That is, I agree
with the (non-Peircean) Biosemiotic Principle (for some, "Sebeok's
Principle") that semiosis and life are coextensive.That demand is
just the origin problem. I also assume life and evolution begins with
self-replication.
What I mean by "language" in this context I repeated in my
<https://www.academia.edu/5988491/Response_to_Umerezs_paper_Where_does_Pattees_How_does_a_molecule_become_a_message_belong_in_the_history_of_Biosemiotics_>Response
to Umerez:
"The genetic language and human language are the only
general-purpose languages that are known, according to this principle
of evolutionary potential
(<https://www.academia.edu/863874/Unsolved_problems_and_potential_applications_of_hierarchy_theory>Pattee,
1973b, p. 152). This potential is the crucial metaphorical
similarity. They both have unpredictable potential expressive power
because of their unlimited information capacity for generating
functions and meanings. Again, by this evolutionary criterion, other
symbol systems and codes, including all forms of signal transduction,
cell signaling and chemical messengers, and all communication forms,
such as bee-dances, spider drumming, and bird songs, should be
recognized as special purpose languages, or better, special symbol
[sign] systems that are limited to specific functions (e.g., Hauser,
Chomsky, and Fitch, 2002). Except for very limited learning
potential, like imprinting, these symbol [sign] systems depend on
genetic information for their construction and for their evolution.
Sebeok (2000) clearly appreciated this distinction between a
general-purpose language and a special-purpose symbol system, but he
applied it only to animal and human languages. As he expressed it,
"All animals paleontologists classify generically as Homo, and only
such, embody, in addition to a primary [special-purpose] modeling
system (Theorem I), a secondary [general-purpose] modeling system,
equivalent to a natural language. The difference amounts to this:
while the Umwelten of other animals model solely a (for each)
'existent world', man can, by means of the secondary system, also
model a potentially limitless variety of 'possible worlds'
(containing sentences with alethic, deontic, or epistemic modalities)."
Of course I would agree with Sebeok that the rich modalities of
human expressions cannot be compared with the primitive modalities of
genetic expressions. Perhaps this lack of human modalities is why
Sebeok did not want to call genetic information a language; but it is
still the case that only these languages have the crucial potential
to describe a limitless variety of possible worlds.
The fact remains that no matter how important the modalities of
human language appear to linguists, they are not necessary for
evolution or even for intelligent behavior. We cannot even be
confident that the technologies based on human language will promote
the survival of the species. Whatever the case, genetic language will
exist as long as life exists. Genetic language is the primal
general-purpose language from which all other symbol systems and
human language evolved."
I will add that genetic information is symbolic because the primary
function necessary for life, which is self-replication, requires
copying information without initiating its control function. That is,
for self-replication, symbols must be copied and transmitted without
being interpreted, i.e., without constraining action
(<http://web.stanford.edu/class/cs379c/archive/2012/suggested_reading_list/supplements/documents/Neumann1966.pdf>von
Neumann). The most efficient and reliable communication from genes to
the Internet is executed by one-dimensional sequences of simple symbols.
That is why symbols must be arbitrary coded structures with no direct
physical connections to their function (i.e., not indexical, iconic
or mimetic structures).The arbitrariness of the relation of the
symbol to its object (Monod's "chemical gratuity principle") is
illustrated by how the symbolic codon is coupled to its amino acid by
the tRNA's completely separate binding sites.
Howard
Hauser, M. D, Chomsky, N, and Fitch, W.T. (2002) The faculty of
language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298:
1569-1579.
Sebeok, T.A. (2000) Semiotics as Bridge Between Humanities and
Science. In Semiotics and Information Sciences, P. Perron, L. G.
Sbrocchi, P. Colilli, and M. Danesi (Eds.), Ottawa: Legas Press, p. 86.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
