↓ Skip to main content

Semiotic systems with duality of patterning and the issue of cultural replicators

Overview of attention for article published in History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Semiotic systems with duality of patterning and the issue of cultural replicators
Published in
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40656-017-0167-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerhard Schaden, Cédric Patin

Abstract

Two major works in recent evolutionary biology have in different ways touched upon the issue of cultural replicators in language, namely Dawkins' Selfish Gene and Maynard Smith and Szathmáry's Major Transitions in Evolution. In the latter, the emergence of language is referred to as the last major transition in evolution (for the time being), a claim we argue to be derived from a crucial property of language, called Duality of Patterning. Prima facie, this property makes natural language look like a structural equivalent to DNA, and its peer in terms of expressive power. We will argue that, if one takes seriously Maynard Smith and Szathmáry's outlook and examines what has been proposed as linguistic replicators, amongst others phonemes and words, the analogy meme-gene becomes problematic. A key issue is the fact that genes and memes are assumed to carry and transmit information, while what has been described as the best candidate for replicatorhood in language, i.e. the phoneme, does by definition not carry meaning. We will argue that semiotic systems with Duality of Pattering (like natural languages) force us to reconsider either the analogy between replicators in the biological and the cultural domain, or what it is to be a replicator in linguistics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Lecturer 1 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 2 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Psychology 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,115,851
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
#315
of 482 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,876
of 328,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 482 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.