tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961423606906076844.post4772074801040219583..comments2021-05-23T06:13:42.671-07:00Comments on Biosemiosis: Consultation on BiolinguisticsClaus Emmechehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15178622978617417914noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961423606906076844.post-55444548565117034942010-05-06T01:33:29.020-07:002010-05-06T01:33:29.020-07:00Since I am new here I cannot create an original po...Since I am new here I cannot create an original posting. I've been studying organizational and functional parallels between language and genome for a long time, and the list is growing as I now and again refamiliarize myself with the biological side of things. My linguistic work centers around iconicity, something ignored by linguistic structuralists. Unfortunately linguistic functionalists, though they give lip service to iconicity, and many accept it in morphosyntax, tend to shy away from the one place where form and meaning are married in discreet fashion- phonosemantics (a.k.a. 'sound symbolism', but it is really diagrammatical iconicity using the featural geometry of the phonology as the organizational motif). Almost 20 years ago I discovered that the relative amounts of iconicity vs. symbolicity vs. indexicality in languages depended upon language morphosyntactic type. The lower the synthesis and fusion, the greater numbers of iconically transparent forms the language had-- and functionally they actually opposed those of the grammar, and weren't really part of lexicon proper.<br /><br />Around the same time I realized that there were parallels between the genomic organization of different organisms and morphosyntactic type in language. Putting two and two together, it started to become apparent that the kinds of iconicity seen in the mappings of the genetic code and corresponding amino acids with regard to side chain properties had relevance to the problem of iconic transparency in language.<br /><br />Nature seems to be highly conservative when it comes to norms for transmitting information through narrow, linearized channels. Even certain properties of atomic and subatomic systems may be analyzed in linguistic fashion.<br /><br />I don't know whether anyone here is interested. Folks like me tend to wander from place to place, give our spiels, and then go as boredom or frustration sets in, at one or both ends. But let me know. I'm always looking for fresh perspectives.<br /><br />Jess Tauber<br />phonosemantics@earthlink.netjess tauberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799460327528405071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961423606906076844.post-58947562811378489862010-02-27T02:29:16.557-08:002010-02-27T02:29:16.557-08:00Hi Jay,
welcome to this site. Sorry for the delay ...Hi Jay,<br />welcome to this site. Sorry for the delay in "accepting" your comment: We had to turn the comment moderation feature on due to attempts to spam the blog with ads.<br />Kind regards,<br />ClausClaus Emmechehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15178622978617417914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961423606906076844.post-27034059609537153372010-02-25T16:41:26.123-08:002010-02-25T16:41:26.123-08:00Dear friends, I see I have come in at Stan's i...Dear friends, I see I have come in at Stan's invitation to this discussion at a very late point! I hope to find some time to recap through the discussion so far of Marcello's paper. Meanwhile, I was responding most directly to the last posting in the email list by Soren Brier, and I will try to continue that soon. Some of you know me, and some don't. I am originally a theoretical physicist, later a colleague of Stan Salthe's and with him a developer of "hierarchical" approaches to complex systems, in my case mostly eco-social-semiotic or "socio-natural" systems, focusing on issues of emergence and multi-level, multi-scale (esp. timescales) analysis.<br />Lately my work has taken me to issues of feeling and emotion, neuroscience views of these vs. cultural and linguistic views, and so to the problem of combining the phenomenological and the semiotic, whether in embodied humans or in the bigger messes in which we humans find ourselves embedded.<br />More to come, I hope. JAY Lemke.Jay Lemkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02377168865484805754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961423606906076844.post-26049619721558620882010-02-18T23:31:28.461-08:002010-02-18T23:31:28.461-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961423606906076844.post-64835698997520895422010-02-13T09:28:47.249-08:002010-02-13T09:28:47.249-08:00In the Barbieri paper most essential contributors ...In the Barbieri paper most essential contributors to an up to date definition of language are missing such as late Wittgenstein, Austin, Searle, Apel and Habermas . This means, Barbieri doesn't integrate pragmatic turn results into his consideration. A discussion about integration of biolinguistics with biosemiotics therefore reproduces philosophy of science problems of the late 60ies of last century.<br /><br />Best<br />GuentherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com