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.
