Сегодня последний день представления заявок на 19th Annual Gathering in Biosemiotics. Как всегда в последний момент, загрузил свою заявку 😉
Вот ее текст
Extended semiosis embraces information flows within biological organisms and human communities. While similarities are evident differences remain quite distinct. Although information circulates both within and between organic bodies’ cells they are nothing like human beings with their free will and linguo-cognitive capacities. Respectively cells do not have individual capabilities to personalize information into subjective messages and cognition but their information processing is far more visual and coherent than human.
Вот ее текст
DOUBLE-EDGE IMPLICATIONS: RERLEVANCE OF GENE EXPRESSION MODELS TO STUDIES OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION AND APPLICABILITY OF LINGUISTIC DICHOTOMIES TO GENETIC INFORMATION RESEARCH.
Mikhail Ilyin
With all the differences and similarities, it is tempting to use direct analogies to study both types of semiosis. Very often it is the case surface to mention besides loose metaphors like “reading of genome”, or calling genome “a language of God”, also quite regular terminological reference to genetic code, translation, transcription, messenger RNA, response element, reading frame etc. Biological metaphors and terms are also current in linguistics (generative grammar, survival of extinction of languages, language tree etc.). The paper addresses the question if the respective metaphors, terms or analogies remain random and selective or they can be combined into a conspicuous system of epistemic representation of the common domain of extended semiosis. The question can sound differently – Is there a single extended semiosis or with all their essential parallels biological and social semioseis remain distinctly different domains?
The paper poses further questions. A first set of queries further augments a customary interpretation of genetic phenomena through the lens of language (“reading of genome” etc.). But to this effect the paper resorts not a layman vision of language and superfluous analogies and metaphors, but to highly functional linguistic dichotomies like Saussurean distinction of lingual structure (langue) and speech (parole) or Hjelmslevian opposition of the content plane (indholdsplanet) and the expression plane (udtryksplanet). What genetic phenomena correspond to generative system of rules (langue) and to actual information flows (parole)? How Hjelmslevian notions of content and expression planes, figures etc. can be applied to genetic phenomena? What are lingual correspondences to genotype and phenotype?
Another array of questions focuses on the relevance of genome structure and gene expression models to studies of human communication. Thai is comparatively novel or largely unfamiliar perspective. What genetic principles and models are helpful to better understand phenomena like grammar or discourses, language functions and their actual functioning? The questions invite genetic researchers to interpret human language and speech to provide new departures in linguistics.
The paper is an attempt to advocate a single extended semiosis. To bridge the gaps between biological and social aspects of semiosis the paper suggests a more abstract and formal distinction of on-line semiosis and off-line semiotic setup. It also advocates generalized distinctions that extend beyond that of substance and form through expression and content planes to inner and outer forms of semiosis. It furthermore evokes an option to extend beyond unhappy separation of matter and information, body and mind by semiotic linkage of sense and reference by sign vehicle or representamen.
The paper poses further questions. A first set of queries further augments a customary interpretation of genetic phenomena through the lens of language (“reading of genome” etc.). But to this effect the paper resorts not a layman vision of language and superfluous analogies and metaphors, but to highly functional linguistic dichotomies like Saussurean distinction of lingual structure (langue) and speech (parole) or Hjelmslevian opposition of the content plane (indholdsplanet) and the expression plane (udtryksplanet). What genetic phenomena correspond to generative system of rules (langue) and to actual information flows (parole)? How Hjelmslevian notions of content and expression planes, figures etc. can be applied to genetic phenomena? What are lingual correspondences to genotype and phenotype?
Another array of questions focuses on the relevance of genome structure and gene expression models to studies of human communication. Thai is comparatively novel or largely unfamiliar perspective. What genetic principles and models are helpful to better understand phenomena like grammar or discourses, language functions and their actual functioning? The questions invite genetic researchers to interpret human language and speech to provide new departures in linguistics.
The paper is an attempt to advocate a single extended semiosis. To bridge the gaps between biological and social aspects of semiosis the paper suggests a more abstract and formal distinction of on-line semiosis and off-line semiotic setup. It also advocates generalized distinctions that extend beyond that of substance and form through expression and content planes to inner and outer forms of semiosis. It furthermore evokes an option to extend beyond unhappy separation of matter and information, body and mind by semiotic linkage of sense and reference by sign vehicle or representamen.
