12.396, Disc: Parallelism Between Lang & Genome

[The LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-12-396. Wed Feb 14 2001. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 12.396, Disc: Parallelism Between Lang & Genome

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	Lydia Grebenyova, EMU		Jody Huellmantel, WSU
	James Yuells, WSU		Michael Appleby, EMU
	Marie Klopfenstein, WSU		Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:59:43 -0500
From:  "Mike Maxwell" <mike_maxwell at sil.org>
Subject:  Re:      12.379, Disc: New: Parallelism Between Lang & Genome

2)
Date:  Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:03:17 EST
From:  RNelsonjr at aol.com
Subject:  Re: 12.379, Disc: New: Parallelism Between Lang & Genome

3)
Date:  Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:56:26 EST
From:  Zylogy at aol.com
Subject:  Re: 12.379, Disc: New: Parallelism Between Lang & Genome

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:59:43 -0500
From:  "Mike Maxwell" <mike_maxwell at sil.org>
Subject:  Re:      12.379, Disc: New: Parallelism Between Lang & Genome

This reminds me of a chart I saw while browsing a recent textbook on
genetics.  Any linguist would have recognized it immediately as a
paradigm chart.  (I can't recall whether the book called it that, but
I'm sure even if it didn't that my observation is not novel.)

The DNA code for all life is written in three letter "words", each of
which stands for an amino acid.  (The concatenation of amino acids
yields a protein, although there are intermediate processing stages
where whole sequences of "words" can be snipped out or otherwise
altered.)  There are four "letters" which may appear in these three
slots of each word, abbreviated by biologists as A, C, T and G.  So
the paradigm for these DNA words is a three dimensional matrix, each
dimension of which has the same four possibilities, yielding a total
number of "words" of 64.  The fillers of the cells in the
paradigm--the realization of the three codes, if you will--are
specific amino acids, plus words for "start a protein" and "stop the
protein." Since there only twenty-odd amino acids are used by life
forms, there is a considerable amount of syncretism in the paradigm.

I hasten to add that I don't believe there is any special significance
to this parallelism, since it is almost obligatory given the system
that the genetic code use.  The only way to avoid the syncretism in a
four letter, three code "word", for example, would be to have exactly
62 amino acids (plus the start and stop codes), or to have unused
triplets (which would probably be evolutionarily disfavored).

On a lighter note, some readers may recall the thread I started on
LinguistList some years ago on linguistics in science fiction.  There
was a science fiction story awhile back in which a significant pattern
was discovered in what is known as "junk DNA" (DNA which does not code
for proteins).  The pattern turned out to be a copyright notice.  Now
_that_ would be a parallelism between genetics and linguistics!

                                         Mike Maxwell
                                         Mike_Maxwell at sil.org




-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:03:17 EST
From:  RNelsonjr at aol.com
Subject:  Re: 12.379, Disc: New: Parallelism Between Lang & Genome




>Many years ago, during the early '60's when the outlines of the genetic code
>were being adduced by Crick and others, Roman Jakobson speculated about
>parallelism between genetic and linguistic structures. There has been
>essentially silence on the issue since.

Actually, there has been some interesting stuff written since then,
but by psychologists.  Morten Christiansen comes to
mind. Also, Terence Deacon's 'the Symbolic Species' reviews the
idea.












-------------------------------- Message 3 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:56:26 EST
From:  Zylogy at aol.com
Subject:  Re: 12.379, Disc: New: Parallelism Between Lang & Genome




Several people have asked me for a reference to the Jakobson material. The
only thing I could find in a quick search were several pages in the book The
Sound Shape of Language, Roman Jakobson and Linda R. Waugh  Mouton de Gruyter
1987
Section XX entitled Life and Language pp. 67-73.

Some quotes from the text:

p69  Both biologists and linguists have observed an impressive set of
attributes common to life and language since the latter's emergence. The two
information-carrying and goal-directed systems imply the presence of messages
and of an underlying code. From the first appearance of a vital minimum, "the
special status assigned to living organisms by their origin and purpose"
((quoting the biologist Jakob)) consists of coded messages which specify the
molecular structures and are transmitted as instructions from generation to
generation. The respective makeups of the two codes- the genetic, discovered
and deciphered in our time by molecular biology, and the verbal, scrutinized
by several generations of linguists- have displayed a series of noticeable
analogies.

Through a significant coincidence, the Prague Linguistic Circle and the
geneticist Jacob have defined the object of their studies as "a system of
systems". The principle of gradual integration governs the structure of the
two codes. Both of them equally display a hierarchy of discontinuous units.


Among all the information-carrying systems, the genetic code is the only one
which shares with the verbal code a sequential arrangement of discrete
subunits- phonemes in language and nucleotides (or 'nuclear letter') in the
genetic code- which by themselves are devoid of inherent meaning but serve to
build minimal units endowed with their own, intrinsic meaning.


p71     The isomorphism displayed by the verbal and the genetic codes proves
to be deeply rooted in the entire model and mechanism of the two codes.
Obviously we are not yet in a position to explain this salient
correspondence, as long as for linguists the origin of language and,
similarly, for geneticists the genesis of life remain unsolvable problems...


Critical comment on Jakobson:  Jakobson seems to feel that at root both codes
are "arbitrary", yet evidence has been accumulating in both fields for
motivation behind the codes. In a paper I have buried somewhere (published in
Science or Nature @20 years ago during a time when I still had dreams of
becoming a molecular biologist) the authors noted the hydophobic/hydrophilic
(water-hating/loving) qualities of isolated analogues of the molecular side
chains (the business ends) of coded amino acids, and showed that on this
basis of the position of each parent amino acid within the 64-cubie code
representation was far from randomly sorted, even after accounting for the
degeneracy of the code leading to multiple cells representing the same amino
acid. And several years later playing with the organization of the axes of
the representation I was able to show that the size, shape, and charge of the
amino acid side chains, as well as on/off signals, were symmetrically
distributed.

On the linguistic side, phonosemantic coding takes advantage of symmetries
hidden within the phonological system of the language.

Jakobson himself was certainly a defender of phonosemantics- a major section
of the same book is given over to it- but he was writing at a time when there
was still no sense of coherent structural motivation underlying the iconicity
present in either the biological or linguistic codes. Similarly within the
molecular biology community (even the genomicists) there has been little
evidence for any drive to find motivation in the ultimate constituents.

Somehow there seems to be a kind of all-or-none prejudice when there is at
least interest in the topic. It never occurs to most that the hierarchical
layering itself may be partial explanation for the emergence of
"arbitrariness" in either domain- the shifting of part/whole ranking which
allows internal structures to be less than slavishly preserved so long as the
higher level interactions still work. Once you're bootstrapped, your in. But
you still need to get there in the first place. Think of the construction of
an arch. Lots easier to build if you first emplace a form beneath it.

As for the ultimate origins of both codes, it seems reasonable to ask whether
we might want to look at "social maintainance" at both levels. The "RNA
World" scenarios just don't make sense- the whole arch thing again. Some
dynamic, loosely integrated system of polymers, membranes, etc. must already
have been in existance, and the actual chemical makeup of some of them would
help assort them in the rough and tumble of the mix. Link things tightly
enough and you have the beginnings of a code with all the other trimmings.
Similarly, the social maintainance managed by vertebrate call systems seems
like the likely place to look for the origins of language- I made an
introductory case for "signal inversion" from such call systems a couple of
weeks ago on LINGUIST.

Jess Tauber
zylogy at aol.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-12-396