Does a Ribosome Really Read? On the Cognitive Roots and Heuristic Value of Linguistic Metaphors in Molecular Genetics. Part 1

We discuss the role of linguistic metaphors as a cognitive frame for the understanding of genetic information processing. The essential similarity between language and genetic information processing has been recognized since the very beginning, and many prominent scholars have noted the possibility of considering genes and genomes as texts or languages. Most of the core terms in molecular biology are based on linguistic metaphors. The processing of genetic information is understood as some operations on text – writing, reading and editing and their specification (encoding/decoding, proofreading, transcription, translation, reading frame). The concept of gene reading can be traced from the archaic idea of the equation of Life and Nature with the Book. Thus, the genetics itself can be metaphorically represented as some operations on text (deciphering, understanding, codebreaking, transcribing, editing, etc.), which are performed by scientists. At the same time linguistic metaphors portrayed gene entities also as having the ability of reading. In the case of such “bio-reading” some essential features similar to the processes of human reading can be revealed: this is an ability to identify the biochemical sequences based on their function in an abstract system and distinguish between type and its contextual tokens of the same type. Metaphors seem to be an effective instrument for representation, as they make possible a two-dimensional description: biochemical by its experimental empirical results and textual according to the cognitive models of comprehension. In addition to their heuristic value, linguistic metaphors are based on the essential characteristics of genetic information derived from its dual nature: biochemical by its substance, textual (or quasitextual) by its formal organization. It can be concluded that linguistic metaphors denoting biochemical objects and processes seem to be a method of description and explanation of these heterogeneous properties.

1. Avise J.C. (2001) Evolving Genomic Metaphors: A New Look at the Language of DNA. Science. Vol. 294, no. 5540, pp. 86-87.

2. Barthes R. (1977) The Death of the Author. In: Barthes R. Image, Music, Text (pp. 142-148). London: Fontana Press

3. Beadle G.W. & Beadle M. (1966) The Language of Life: An Introduction to the Science of Genetics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

4. Crick F. (1966) The Genetic Code - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. In: Cold Spring Symposium on Quantitative Biology (Vol. 31, pp. 3-9). Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

5. Crick F. (1981) Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature. London: Simon and Schuster.

6. Collins F.S. (2006) The Language of God. New York: Free Press.

7. Collins F.S. (2009) The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine. New York: Harper-Collins.

8. Gamow G. (1954) Possible Relation between Deoxyribonucleic Acid and Protein Structures. Nature. Vol. 173, no. 4398, p. 318.

9. Foucault M. (1977) What is an Author. In: Foucault M. Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews (pp. 113-138). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

10. Keller E.F. (2002) Language in Action. Genes and Metaphor of Reading. In: Dorries M. (Ed.) Experimenting in Tongues: Studies in Science and Language (pp. 75-88). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

11. Kay L. (2000) Who Wrote the Book of Life?: A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

12. Kull K. (1998) Organism as a Self-Reading Text: Anticipation and Semiosis. International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems. Vol. 1, pp. 93-104.

13. Jacob F. (1973) The Logic of Life: A History of Heredity (B.E. Spillmann. Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.

14. Jakobson R.O. (1970) Linguistics and Its Relation to Other Science. In: Main Trends of Research in Social and Human Sciences. Part 1. Social Sciences (pp. 419-463). Paris: Mouton.

15. Lotman Y.M. (1988) The Semiotics of Culture and the Concept of a Text. Soviet Psychology. Vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 52-58.

16. Marais K. & Kull K. (2016) Biosemiotics and Translation Studies. In: Gambier Y. & van Doorslaer L. (Eds.) Border Crossing: Translation Studies and Other Disciplines (pp. 169-188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

17. McLeod C. & Nerlich B. (2017) Synthetic Biology, Metaphors and Responsibility. Life Sciences, Society and Policy. Vol. 13, article 13.

18. O’Keefe M., Perrault S., Halpern J., Ikemoto L., & Yarborough (2015). “Editing” genes: A case study about how language matters in bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics. Vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 3-10.

19. Peluffo A.E. (2015) The “Genetic Program”: Behind the Genesis of an Influential Metaphor. Genetics. Vol. 200, no. 3, pp. 685-696.

20. Raible W. (2001) Linguistics and Genetics: Systematic parallels. In: Haspelmath M., König E., Oesterreicher W., & Raible W. (Eds) Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook (pp. 103- 123). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

21. Schrödinger E. (2012) What is Life? In: Schrödinger E. What is Life?: With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches (pp. 3-92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

22. Trifonov E. (2000) Earliest pages of Bioinformatics. Bioinformatics. Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 5-9.

23. Weigmann K. (2004) The Code, the Text and the Language of God. Science and Society. Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 116-118.