You are on page 1of 33

From Signals

to Syntax

http://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/~edelman/CogSt−531/
F. de Saussure: semiology
Saussure on the nature of signs
C. S. Peirce: semiotics
Peirce on the nature of signs
the three modes of signification according to Peirce
the three modes
of signification:
an example

iconic aspect:
50 stars = 50 states,
13 stripes = 13 original states

indexical aspect:
flag on a boat signifying
country of registration

symbolic aspect:
flag lowered at a funeral
articulation / structure
language has at least two levels of articulation
structured communication at the cellular level?
The molecules that form signaling circuits in cells are often modular − built
from components that carry out distinct tasks. This discovery emerged in part
from studies of molecules known as receptor tyrosine kinases (pogo−stick
shape in first panel). When a hormone docks with those molecules at the
surface of a cell (second panel), the receptors pair up and add phosphates to
tyrosine, an amino acid, on each other’s cytoplasmic tails. Then so−called
SH2 modules in certain proteins hook onto the altered tyrosines (last panel).
This linkage enables "talkative," enzymatic modules in the proteins to pick up
the messenger’s order and pass it along.
Adapter molecules, which consist entirely
of linker modules such as SH2 and SH3,
turn out to be important players in many
signaling pathways. They enable cells to
make use of proteins that would
otherwise be unable to hook into a given
communication circuit. Here, for instance,
the adapter protein Grb2 (red) draws an
enzymatic protein − Sos − into a pathway
headed by a receptor that itself has no
means of interlocking with Sos.
Scaffolding proteins, which hold onto
several other proteins, can ensure that
multiple signaling molecules act almost
simultaneously. One, InaD, operates in
cells of the fruit−fly eye and participates
in sending visual messages to the brain.
Three of the scaffold’s five "PDZ" linker
domains separately grasp an ion channel,
an enzyme that opens the channel when
light hits a nearby light receptor and an
enzyme that closes the channel promptly
thereafter. Two more PDZ domains help
to relay information by holding other
signaling molecules in place.
biosemiotics

It seems as if modern biochemistry cannot be taught − or even thought −


without using communicational terms such as recognition, high−fidelity,
messenger−RNA, signalling, presenting or even chaperones.
Such terms pop up from every page of modern textbooks in biochemistry
in spite of the fact, that they clearly have nothing to do with the physicalist
universe to which such books are dedicated. As Yates rightly remarks:
"There is no more substance in the modern biological statement that ‘genes
direct development’ than there is in the statement ‘balloons rise by levity’".

Cells like organisms are historical entities carrying in their cytoskeleton and
in their DNA traces of their pasts going back more than three billion years.
They perpetually measure present situations against this background, and
make choices based on such interpretations. Thus, one might well claim that
the sign rather than the molecule is the basic unit for studying life
(Hoffmeyer, 1996).

"We must understand our world in such a way that it shall not be absurd
to claim that this world has itself produced us"
(Prigogine and Stenger 1984).
biosemiotics and a new "new synthesis"
"...the ‘old synthesis’ failed to integrate the communicative or semiotic
behaviour of animals into its explanatory schemes. The reification of
communication to ’nothing but’ transmission of signals (e.g. genes)
favoured quantitative genetics but at the cost of a grave underestimation
of the interpretative or semiotic competence of living systems."

"...consider the hare−fox situation (Holley 1993). A brown hare can


run almost 50 per cent faster than a fox, but when it spots a fox approaching,
it stands bolt upright and signals its presence (with ears erect and the ventral
white fur clearly visible), instead of fleeing. "

"The point is that organisms not only belong to ecological niches, they are
always also bound to a semiotic niche, i.e. they will have to master a set of
signs of visual, acoustic, olfactory, tactile and chemical origin in order to
survive."
J. Hoffmeyer
the (motor hypothesis of the) origins of language

What would count as the origin of language? To answer this question we must
assume that we can recognise language and distinguish it from other forms of
communication. Let us further assume that language is a complex system with
many aspects: the articulatory, the serially−organised the lexically−structured,
the expressive, the conceptual and so on. Do we conceive of language as
having sprung into existence full−blown or as the result of the accretion of
elements gradually coming to constitute some thing recognisable as
language? What, after all, counts as the origin of any thing? Darwin’s answer
on the origin of species was in essence that there was no origin and there were
no species.

The synergistic approach is to look sympathetically at whatever has been done


or suggested and see how it can be fitted into a larger picture, or how far it
suggests questions which might be tackled in other disciplines. The only trap
which should be avoided is an over−hasty linguistic analysis of the problem,
e.g. by the premature introduction of technical terms or technical uses of terms
into a field where confusion about the words we use is so easy. In this category
of premature technical terms, I would put words like symbol, symbolicity,
icon, iconicity, arbitrary, semiotic, dual articulation.

Robin Allott
the (motor hypothesis of the) origins of language

The dogma that there is no primitive language rests on the assumption that
syntactic simplicity is the proper criterion of primitiveness. The essence of
language development is lexical development (in size, in range of reference,
in discrimination and in interconnectedness) linked to the possession of the
concepts to which the words in the lexicon refer.
Theories of the evolution of language have tended to focus on the major
features of human anatomy and neuroanatomy e.g. laterality. It may be more
profitable initially to see how many of the aspects of language we share with
animals and then decide what it is we do not share with them.

If one approaches the question from the standpoint of more traditional theory,
a number of features should be considered together: Bipedalism, Manipulative
skill, Good sound discrimination, Ability to imitate and respond to differing
sound patterns, Ability to form concepts, Ability to generalise and solve
practical problems, Better than usual vertebrate sight, Bodily agility, Close
group bonding, &c &c.

Put these elements together and what do you get?


the (motor hypothesis of the) origins of language

Put these elements together and what do you get?


A bird − a pigeon −a parrot − a sparrow − a bluetit
− a Superbird! As Thorpe commented (1967:10),
it looks indeed as if the birds are the group which
ought to have been able to evolve language in the
true sense and not the mammals. If one is looking
for bits and pieces of behaviour scattered about
the animal kingdom which, put together, could
have been used to construct human language, one
might list:

1. pigeon: power to form concepts


2. chinchilla or Rhesus monkey: ability to discriminate categorically
between speechsounds and to generalise despite differing formant frequencies
3. mynah bird: ability to exactly produce human speech sounds
4. parrot or mynah bird: ability to imitate sound exactly
5. sparrow or chaffinch: ability to learn vocal patterning from conspecifics
6. gibbon: ability to hear in a categorical way vocal sound and respond with
vocal sound − the antiphonal ability also found in birds
7. bee: ability to convey environmental information by patterned body activity
8. budgerigar or elephant: memory.
the (motor hypothesis of the) origins of language

... action and language are homologous;


a formal theory of language and
a formal theory of movement control
would be qualitatively indistinguishable;

human language is primarily a series of


actions; language and motor action
are intimately connected ...

Movements are controlled by programs,


the essential features of which are that they
are generalised, containing an abstract code
for the order of events, for phasing (or temporal
structure) of the events and for the relative force
with which the motor events are to be produced.
The same motor program can produce movements
in entirely different limbs.

what needs to be controlled


(note the number of degrees of freedom)
the (motor hypothesis of the) origins of language

what is doing the controlling


the roles of expression and representation in language evolution

The goal of linguistics is to explain the structure of language. It can be agreed


that nothing of the distinctively complex structure of modern languages
can be attributed to ancestry in animal communication systems. But how
much of the complex structure of modern languages can be attributed to
ancestry in pre−linguistic representational systems?

In this paper, I argue for the two following related propositions:

* Much of the structure of language has no role in a system for the


internal representation of thought.
* Much of the structure of language has a role in systems for the
expression of thought, which includes communication.
A corollary of these propositions, not pursued in detail here, is:

* Pressure for effective expression of thought, including


communication, may explain much of the structure of language.

communication system vs. representation system


James Hurford
multidimensional
nature of
representations
multidimensional representations vs. unidimensional comm. channel
multidimensional representations vs. unidimensional comm. channel

The view that linguistic structure derives from representation systems


existing prior to language can only be sustained to the extent that there is
no structure that is only part of the communicative aspect of a language
system. How much of language structure is purely representational, and
how much of it is part of the mapping to external forms? One cannot quantify
such questions, but the answer advocated here is that almost all of the
complex structure of languages belongs to their expressive aspect, and
very little to their purely representational aspect.
language structure I: phonology and morphology
language structure II: syntax

There are many familiar instances of structural ambiguity, such as those


involving such things as attachment of modifiers (as in a list of teachers
broken down by age and sex, or old men and women), and combinations of
different conjunctions (e.g. John or Mary and Bill). In such cases, syntacticians
draw alternative semantically motivated tree structures over expressions,
reflecting their different readings.
Such facts cannot be taken to show that pre−existing hierarchically organized
conceptual structure gave rise to hierarchical syntactic structure. To argue that,
one would have first to establish the logical independence of the two alleged
sorts of hierarchical structure (semantic and syntactic) and then point to
the parallelism between them.
language structure II: syntax
language structure II: syntax
binding in language and vision

the
big
I took shaggy for a walk
dog

k y
ns
Mi
M.
Some aspects of linguistic structure may indeed plausibly be derived from
nonlinguistic, representational, structure. These include some (but not all)
aspects of hierarchical organization in syntax.

But the broad conclusion from the above survey of non−representational


aspects of linguistic structure [e.g., movement, binding] is that attempts to
derive linguistic structure, in an evolutionary account, from previously
existing cognitive representational structure must fail, for a large slice of
linguistic structure.
Correspondingly, we can seek evolutionary explanations (broadly conceived)
for much (though not all) of the typical structure of languages in the demands
of communication in the human environment.
James Hurford

Is the distinction between representation and communication viable?

* symbol grounding

* veridical perception/representation

You might also like