Abstract: "The conceptual Umwelt and its role in the tripartite model of the human Umwelt"

This is my abstract for the forthcoming Language and Life workshop (Tartu, Estonia, July 15, 2012), where I will be one of the speakers.

***

The conceptual Umwelt and its role in the tripartite model of the human Umwelt

Morten Tønnessen

Associate professor at Institute of Health Studies, University of Stavanger

Researcher in the grant Dynamical Zoosemiotics and Animal Representations (Department of Semiotics, University of Tartu)

At the outset of this paper biosemiotics, the study of living systems as sign systems, or the semiotic study of topics of biology, will be briefly introduced in order to facilitate understanding for those that are not already familiar with the concept. In broader terms the various brands of semiotics of nature include zoosemiotics (semiotic zoology) and ecosemiotics (semiotic ecology and/or semiotic human ecology) in addition to biosemiotics (semiotic biology). A basic idea of semiotics of nature is that the sign in its various manifestations constitutes a real-world entity (or process) in the realm of the living. Signs are thus not as such merely human phantom entities, nor merely animal phantom entities for that matter (though the wide-reaching realm of signs – the semiosphere (Lotman, Hoffmeyer) at large, as many have taken to call it – admittedly counts a multitude of ghostlike phenomena among its members as well). The reality of signs, and of Umwelten (von Uexküll), implies that living beings are enmeshed in worlds of meaningful, significant phenomena and occurrences at several levels of biological organisation. From a philosophical point of view the biosemiotic perspective has intriguing though debated implications for ontology, for epistemology and philosophy of science, and for ethics. What is at stake is the nature of key notions including ‘subjectivity’, ‘agency’, ‘mind’ and indeed ‘reality’. The biosemiotic idea provokes new insights into many a phenomenon’s character (by way of involvement in sign relations) of being relational.

Language (as in human language) has been approached in conflicting manners by biosemiotic scholars. Two distinct approaches that both address the relation of language to the Umwelt are, respectively,

a) Thomas A. Sebeok’s, which sees the Umwelt as a primary modelling system and language as a secondary modelling system.

b) Jesper Hoffmeyer’s, which sees language as transcending the human Umwelt.

Like Sebeok thought and Hoffmeyer thinks, I too think of language as being a species-specific human capability that has tremendous impact on the character of human affairs and of human being. The main part of this paper will be devoted to a presentation of the conceptual Umwelt (or, the conceptual aspect of the Umwelt, where applicable) and its role in the tripartite model of the human Umwelt.

By core Umwelt, I mean the aspect of Umwelt in which one interacts directly and immediately with other creatures or Umwelt objects, in (to use a figure of speech) ‘face-to-face’ encounters. By mediated Umwelt, I mean the aspect of Umwelt in which Umwelt objects are encountered indirectly by way of some mediation (memory, fantasy, anticipation, modern media, etc.). I suggest that this particular aspect of Umwelt can generally be associated with von Uexküll’s notion of the search image (Suchbild). By conceptual Umwelt, I mean the aspect of Umwelt in which one navigates among Umwelt objects in terms of predicative reasoning in general or human language in particular. Conceptual Umwelt objects are in the latter case Umwelt objects whose functional meaning is imprinted linguistically. Though the conceptual Umwelt is particularly central in the human case (to the point where we confuse linguistic reality with reality as such), a number of “higher animals” qualify for being attributed conceptual Umwelten as well, in so far as they are capable of conducting predicative reasoning. I theorise that these three layers interact dynamically so that one or two of the layers are occasionally temporarily suspended (in other words, human perception is subsequently focused – more or less exclusively – on different Umwelt layers).

The conceptual Umwelt is the most novel aspect of Umwelt in evolutionary terms and corresponds somewhat to what Sebeok characterised as humans’ secondary modelling system. But there is a difference between my perspective and that of both Sebeok and Hoffmeyer, namely that these two eminent biosemiotic scholars think of human language as being external to the human Umwelt. For both of them the Umwelt represents the ‘animal’ side of the human creature, whereas human culture can only be understood in terms of something that escapes the Umwelt (particularly language). In my perspective, human language is a special case of more widespread systems of predicative reasoning, and enmeshed in the Umwelt that is our lifeworld, our phenomenal world. Language is internal to the Umwelt, not external to it, and there is a dynamic relationship between the conceptual Umwelt and the other aspects of Umwelt. This situates the Umwelt as a rich notion capable of serving as theoretical and methodological foundation for studies of the world of the living and the world of human affairs alike.