Tripartite Umwelt model applied in Jeremy Lent´s Berkeley presentation

In his talk at the 18th Gathering in Biosemiotics today (held at UC Berkeley), "“The Tao in one’s own nature”: The congruence of Asian wisdom traditions and cognitive neuroscience in identifying the source and implications of human uniqueness", Jeremy Lent made extensive reference to, or rather use of, my workshop presentation (Language and life workshop, Tartu 2012) "The conceptual Umwelt and its role in the tripartite model of the human Umwelt".

Presentation held at Language and Life seminar

On Tuesday 17th of July I presented my paper "A foray into the hinterland of language: In search of the dark matter of our enlightened worlds" at the seminar "Language and life", which was convened by Stephen Cowley and served as a pre-conference event associated with the 12th gathering in biosemiotics. Due to several cancellations Stephen and I were the only ones who presented, but there were also group discussions. My presentation lasted for some half hour, and was followed by half an hour of discussion. Around 40 people were present. This was the first official activity of the Language and Life research cluster in the Distributed Language Group.

Registration for 12th Gathering in Biosemiotics

Some days back I registered for the 12th Gathering in Biosemiotics, which is to take place in Tartu July 17-21. I also registered for both of the two pre-conference events: The seminar "Biosemiotics and the Study of Culture" on July 16th and the "Language and life" event on July 17th. 

See also:

* Abstract: "In the gaze of the other: Describing cultural affordances by conducting comparative Umwelt mapping in animal studies" (for July 16th)

* Abstract: "The conceptual Umwelt and its role in the tripartite model of the human Umwelt" (for July 17th, to be revised)

* Abstract: "On the notion of induced semiosis, with emphasis on anthropogenic semiosis" (for July 21st)

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.

Presentation scheduled for Language and Life event; title sketched

I will be one of three presenters during the Language and Life event in Tartu July 15th, two days ahead of this year's gathering in biosemiotics. My tentative title is "the conceptual Umwelt and its role in the tripartite model of the human Umwelt". There will further be a roundtable and group work, and presentations by Stephen Cowley and Leo van Lier. Attendance will be open to all interested.

Abstracts for our three presentations are due by March 16th.

See also previous posts on joining the research cluster Language and Life, and involving an update as of last summer.

Update: The Language and life research cluster

In March I joined the Language and Life research cluster, which is part of the Distributed Language Group, under the direction of Stephen Cowley. In June, at the Gathering in Biosemiotics in New York, some of us met and talked about the next step. We agreed that arranging a one-day Language and Life event adjoined to a bigger academic event - perhaps the Gathering in biosemiotics to take place in Tartu, Estonia, next summer, makes sense. A discussion about this and some topical issues is now taking place in the cluster via email.

A brief introduction to biosemiotics

The Language and Life research cluster of the Distributed Language Group is now in place, for now with 15 members with background from biosemiotics, ecolinguistics and enactivism. Coordinator Stephen Cowley asked three of us to provide brief introductions to these three fields, and suggested I conducted the one on biosemiotics. Here it is.

It is challenging to sum up what biosemiotics is all about for two reasons: Firstly, because it is an incredibly diverse field, and secondly, because it does not yet have a unified terminology. There are ongoing attempts to develop such a unitary approach, and several programmatic drafts are in circulation. As to the first, the diversity of biosemiotics is perhaps inevitable (regardless of whether or not a unified terminology will one day emerge), given that any topic matter in the realm of the living – approached as a phenomenon at any level of biological organization – can be a topic of biosemiotics. Biosemiotics is a semiotic approach to matters of the living and the life processes.

The umbrella term ‘semiotics of nature’ is sometimes used as a common denominator of more specialized fields including biosemiotics (semiotic biology), ecosemiotics (semiotic ecology) and zoosemiotics (semiotic zoology). Of these, zoosemiotics was initially first and foremost a study of animal communication. In the narrow sense, to sum up, ‘biosemiotics’ is opposed to zoosemiotics and ecosemiotics – but in a more general sense it is often taken as synonymous with ‘semiotics of nature’.

Central notions of biosemiotics, apart from obvious terms such as ‘meaning’, ‘sign’ and ‘communication’, include ‘code’ and ‘interpretation’, as well as ‘system’ (living systems approached as sign systems) and ‘model’. Thomas Sebeok (1920-2001), one of the seminal figures of biosemiotics, developed a notion of the Umwelt (lifeworld) of animals/humans as a species-specific modeling system (to the effect that each animal species models their surroundings in a unique way that is characteristic for its species). The Umwelt concept was originally developed by Jakob von Uexküll (1864-1944), another of biosemiotics’ seminal figures. Perhaps the best simplified dictum of biosemiotics, in my mind, is that we should study the living by studying what makes sense to them (and in them). Meaning generation is at the core here, whether it is in perception and social life or in bodily semiosis. In the case of studies of animal (or human) Umwelten, biosemiotics favors re-modeling in abstract, scientific language of animals’ own modeling of their relevant surroundings in terms of their actual perceptual and behavioral worlds. Biosemiotics, in this sense, is the re-modeling of the real-life modeling taking place in animal nature and nature in general.

While ‘semiosis’ in general is the action of signs, ‘biosemiosis’ is the action of signs in the biological realm. The ‘threshold of semiosis’ as well as the ‘threshold of biosemiosis’ is under continuous debate, though Sebeok held that the realm of semiosis is co-extensive with the realm of the living. The uncanny term ‘anthroposemiosis’ has been coined to designate the human share of (bio)semiosis; but some distinguish biosemiosis from cultural semiosis. It is generally agreed, however, that it makes sense to talk about a human Umwelt (i.e., to talk about the human lifeworld in terms of Umwelt theory), though there is no detailed agreement as to what distinguishes human life. Except perhaps on one view: That human language is deeply different from animal communication in that it is unusually symbol-laden and opens up the lifeworlds of people in some sense, thus allowing us, somewhat, to share experiences. Simultanously, biosemioticians take for granted that human language and animal communication can to some extent be described in the same scientific language.

In the world of semiotics, many biosemioticians position themselves as followers of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), while others have yet other icons and sources of inspiration. Few, however, regard the work of Saussure as a promising model. The general opinion is that Saussure unjustifiably presented human language as the typical model of semiosis/sign systems. While many biosemioticians have an interest in human language, human cognitive development etc., human language is in general viewed as a very complex, perhaps the most complex, instance of a sign system. Nevertheless some biosemioticians use linguistic metaphors in speaking about 'syntax' and 'semantics' (and 'pragmatics') in nature; some also theorize about nature as 'text'.

Given the variety of biosemiotic approaches, what I have written here does not do justice to much of what goes under the name of biosemiotics. My own approach is focused on the level of the individual, and the social/ecological level – but there are other biosemioticians who focus almost exclusively on what I here brashly mention as bodily semiosis. In short, human language can be approached from a biosemiotic (in the narrow sense), ecosemiotic and zoosemiotic perspective, thus situating human language in either a narrowly biological, ecological, or zoological setting. These various approaches reflect biosemioticians’ interest in partly related fields, including cybernetics, hermeneutics, and philosophical anthropology, to mention but a few. Accordingly, human language can be approached as a secondary modeling system (given that the Umwelt is the primary modeling system) - i.e., as a 'upper' or additional layer of our specifically human lifeworld - as a linguistic coding system, etc.

Joining the DLG research cluster Language and Life

I have confirmed that I am joining the Distributed Language Group's new research cluster Language and Life, coordinated, as DLG itself, by Stephen Cowley.

Excerpts of initial description:

The DLG perspective suggests that, as part of action and perception – and especially as a mode of caring – language is central to both human lives and the world that we influence.
...
My first goal is to build a community who are interested in both the academic and practical implications of linking language with culture and the life sciences. I hope to link people from biosemiotics, ecological linguistics, enactivism, and other groups.
...
in 2012 or 2013 I hope that we can consolidate our concerns in some kind of academic meeting. In addition, I aim to construct a bibliography of materials, a set of links, and a discussion forum.