response to Dan E.

[Tom Givon]

Actually, the DNA code has a very rich syntax, since there are thge
"lexical node" level where triplets of nucleotides map directly to
amino acids in the protein chain. Then there are -- in the sequence --
nucleotides (or segments of several nucleotides) that "govern" segments
of the latter, by blocking, turning on/off, etc.. And there are a variety
of "fillers" nucleotide segment whose function is much less clear and
certainly more global. I am not an expert on the details, but I cited
several papers on this issue inb my discussion of the degree of abstractness
of grammar. Broadly speaking, this corresponds to the increase of abstrractness
going "upward" from lexical nodes, to phrasa;l nodes, to clausal nodes,
to complex-clause nodes. But of course, the analogy is far that complete.
But broadly speaking, DNA is just as rhythmic-hierarchic (while given
in a linear sequence) as mucic or language. One of the lousiest thing
about both structuralists & functionalists in linguistics is that they
don't understand the correlation between degree of abstaction of functional nodes & degree of abstraction of structural nodes that correlate with them.
The distinction betweeb "more local" and "more global" functions is precisely
what is involved (as in DAN structure...). And in my work on local vs.
global coherence in discourse I have tried to point this out at the
functional level.
As for "licensing" people to practice biology, Dan, all I can do is
observe the PROFOUND ignorance linguists seem to exhibit on the subject.
Why I lost my license when I quit molecular biology in 1964, I keep
reading in order to try & understand what is going on. It behooves
others who want to "practice" on a regular basis to maybe do the same.
Best, TG