Abstract
Biosemioticians use language and linguistic concepts as a window onto phenomena and processes on all levels of life. Like most biologists, some biosemioticians use language and linguistic concepts as metaphors for phenomena and processes on the cellular level. Even mainstream biologists may be aware that with concepts like code, information or communication on the level of the cell, they are anthropomorphizing the living things they study. The paradox of linguistics is that the object of study is at the same time the cognitive tool for its analysis. Like everyone else, biologists depend on the species-specific cognitive tool of language to study the laws and phenomena of all kinds of living organisms. Biosemioticians face both paradoxes and the challenge of mediating between the terminologies of the disciplines they navigate. At the 11th Gatherings in Biosemiotics in New York, several papers commented on inadequate concepts in the field of linguistics and the failure of the discipline of linguistics as a whole. In this paper, I comment on some of the claims that were made specifically about the distinctive feature and the notion of code in linguistics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barbieri, M. (2003). The organic codes: An introduction to semantic biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1973). Class, codes and control: Applied studies towards a sociology of language. Volume 2. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of english. Cambridge: MIT.
Cobley, P. (2011) Codes, coding, communication and semiotics. Semiotica.
Harris, R. (1998). Introduction to integrational linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.
Harris, R. (2006). Integrationist notes and papers 2003–2005. Crediton: Tree Tongue.
Hoffmeyer, J. (1996). Signs of meaning in the universe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hoffmeyer, J. (2004). Semiotic scaffolding of living systems. In M. Barbieri (Ed.), Introduction to biosemiotics. The new biological synthesis. Dordrecht: Springer.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.
Holmes, J. (1998). Women talk too much. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language myths. London: Penguin.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Levine, G. (2011). Code choice in the language classroom. Multilingual Matters.
Littlejohn, S. (2002). Theories of human communication. Waveland Press.
Sebeok, T. (1972). Perspectives in Zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.
Sebeok, T. (2001). Global semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sklar, R. (1968). Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics. The Nation, 213–217.
Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Tannen, D. (1993). Gender and conversational interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Thanks to Paul Cobley for his comments on this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Augustyn, P. On the Concept of Code in Linguistics and Biosemiotics. Biosemiotics 4, 281–289 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9128-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9128-y